Law Enforcement and Other Matters Bill

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

This Bill introduces three sets of amendments: the first strengthens our levers against scammers; the second enhances the efficacy of Home Team operations; and the third facilitates and safeguards Yellow Ribbon Singapore's (YRSG) operations. I will elaborate on each in turn.

Sir, scams remain a problem around the world. Singaporeans are not spared. There were over 46,000 cases in 2023, a nearly 50% increase from 2022. Scam losses fell slightly but are still high. At the Global Fraud Summit which I attended last month, other countries shared that they were facing similar challenges. Scams have also skyrocketed in their jurisdictions.

We have implemented multiple measures to combat scams. For example, the Infocomm Media Development Authority (IMDA) has been working with telecommunication companies to block all incoming calls from overseas that spoof local numbers. As a result, the volume of such calls attempted has dropped. In 2022, there were approximately 970 million of such attempts. In 2023, there were 18 million attempts, a far smaller number but all were blocked.

In 2023, IMDA introduced the SMS Sender ID Registry, which requires organisations to register the alphanumeric Sender IDs which they want to use in SMS communications with their customers. SMSes using non-registered Sender IDs will be marked as “Likely-SCAM”.

In the three months after its implementation, scams due to SMSes fell by 70%. As a result, phishing, which was the main type of scam perpetrated through SMSes, has claimed fewer victims. Amounts lost to phishing scams have also fallen.

With these measures in place, scammers have quickly changed their tactics and pivoted to using local SIM cards to reach prospective victims. People who receive scam calls and SMSes from locally registered numbers may think they are legitimate and fall prey. In 2023, over 23,000 local mobile lines were involved in scams and other cybercrimes. This is four times the number in 2021. In 2023, about $400 million were lost from scam and cybercrime cases involving local mobile lines. This is three times the amount lost in 2021.

Local numbers have also been used by scammers to set up WhatsApp and Telegram accounts to target victims or receive their monies via PayNow. This comes on top of their being used for other crimes, such as unlicensed moneylending.

To enforce against scammers who abuse local SIM cards, the Police has worked with foreign counterparts as these scammers are mainly based overseas. In February 2023, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) worked with the Royal Malaysia Police to conduct simultaneous raids at three apartment complexes in Johor. They arrested 12 Malaysians for their involvement in using six prepaid Singapore SIM cards to perpetrate fake friend calls. These were scams targeting Singaporeans. The syndicate is believed to have been involved in more than 360 reports, with more than $1.3 million of losses.

But enforcement after the fact is scant comfort for the victims. We want to go upstream, to prevent the scam from happening in the first place, by strengthening deterrence and accountability in the use of local SIM cards. Hence, clause 3 of this Bill introduces new offences to target three groups of people who misuse local SIM cards to facilitate scams.

First, irresponsible subscribers. These are people who give away their local SIM cards or provide their particulars to others to be used to sign up for local SIM cards. Often, they do so to earn a quick buck. Based on a sampling study, close to 80% of local SIM cards misused for crime were registered with another person's particulars.

Every SIM card in the hands of a scammer is a weapon. Armed with even just one SIM card, a scammer can do a great deal of harm. In a 2021 case, a single local mobile line was linked to 48 job scam reports, with losses amounting to approximately $1 million.

In most of the cases, the Police have faced difficulties in taking these irresponsible subscribers to task. Current laws put the onus on the Police to prove that the subscriber knowingly gave away their local SIM cards for unlawful purposes. This is hard to prove. Irresponsible subscribers can easily claim that they were unaware of the consequences of their actions.

For example, in 2023, a subscriber signed up for 11 postpaid SIM cards and sold them to a friend and claimed that his friend said the mobile lines were needed to create accounts on cryptocurrency platforms. Six out of the 11 mobile lines were later found to have been used in scam cases. When interviewed, the subscriber claimed that he did not know that the mobile lines would be used for unlawful purposes. As there was no evidence to suggest otherwise, the Police could not take any action against him.

The Bill will introduce new offences in sections 37B and 37C of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, or abbreviated as MOA, targeting irresponsible subscribers. It will be an offence for a person to hand over local SIM cards registered with his own particulars to another person; or allow his own particulars to be used to sign up for a local SIM card by another person. A person will be liable, if he did so, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe, that the local SIM card would be used for unlawful purposes.

To address the challenge that the Police face today in proving knowledge or criminal intent, an irresponsible subscriber will be deemed liable in the following scenarios: one, the irresponsible subscriber gave away the local SIM card for any gain; two, he did not take reasonable steps to find out the identity and physical location of the recipient of the local SIM card; or three, he did not take reasonable steps to find out the recipient's purpose for obtaining the local SIM card.

These scenarios are based on actual cases. With these new laws, a person in these scenarios will no longer be able to simply claim ignorance as a defence. The law puts the onus on the person to prove that he was unaware.

To be clear, Sir, it is not our intent to criminalise people who give away their local SIM cards for legitimate purposes. For example, some people register SIM cards in their names for family members' use, including elderly parents and children. It is also not our intent to penalise people who were genuinely tricked into giving up their credentials, which were subsequently used to register for local SIM cards.

The second group we are targeting are middlemen involved in procuring or providing local SIM cards to scam syndicates. The Police have caught people transferring or possessing local SIM cards not registered with their own particulars. In most of the instances, they were doing so without legitimate reason. Similar to irresponsible subscribers, the Police have faced difficulties in prosecuting such middlemen, as it is difficult to prove that they had intended to abet an offence.

In one case, the Police identified a middleman who collected fraudulently registered local SIM cards from an accomplice and then sent the SIM cards to scammers in Malaysia. At the point of arrest, the middleman was found to be in possession of 290 prepaid SIM cards that were fraudulently registered. In total, the middleman was found to have purchased over 1,000 prepaid SIM cards that were fraudulently registered, between 2010 and 2021. Although the middleman was initially charged in Court, he was eventually given a discharge amounting to an acquittal, due to evidential difficulties.

The Bill introduces offences in sections 39D and 39F under the MOA to target middlemen. They would be liable for either: first, receiving or possessing local SIM cards, with intent to use or supply them for unlawful purposes; second, supplying local SIM cards, knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that they would be used for unlawful purposes. These provisions will not only cover local SIM cards registered with other persons' particulars, but will also cover unregistered local SIM cards, as these can easily be activated by scammers using stolen credentials.

To address the evidentiary challenge that Police face today, a person who receives, supplies or possesses such local SIM cards may be deemed liable, without the Prosecution having to prove knowledge or criminal intent, if the local SIM cards were used for crime; or 11 or more local SIM cards were found in the middleman's possession.

Specifically for dealing with local SIM cards registered with other persons' particulars, a person may be deemed liable in three scenarios: one, he received or supplied the local SIM card for any gain; two, he did not take reasonable steps to find out the identity and physical location of the recipient of the local SIM card; three, he did not take reasonable steps to find out the recipient's purpose for obtaining the local SIM card.

The Bill also introduces a new section 39E in the MOA to deal with people who buy, sell or rent a local SIM card registered with another person's particulars. As this involves an exchange of money, it is more serious than simply receiving or supplying local SIM cards.

There is no reason why someone other than a contracted retailer should be trading local SIM cards registered in another person's particulars, in exchange for money or other benefits. As such, the provision is drafted such that the Prosecution would not need to prove criminal intent in making out an offence.

It is not our intent to catch those who receive, supply or possess local SIM cards for lawful purposes. For instance, employers holding on to SIM cards intended for their employees. So, if they make an explanation, then this would be taken into consideration.

The third group of people we are targeting is errant retailers. IMDA requires mobile service providers to implement measures to prevent fraudulent registrations. The mobile service providers may appoint third-party retailers to sell SIM cards and perform registrations, and subject these retailers to similar requirements by way of contractual obligations.

For example, retailers are required to verify the identity of subscribers by visually checking the subscribers against their original IDs. They are also required to scan subscribers' IDs instead of manually keying in the subscribers' personal particulars. Mobile service providers may be in breach of the regulatory obligations, if they or their appointed retailers had lapses in implementing these requirements.

The vast majority of retailers adhere to IMDA’s requirements. However, a number have used stolen or false credentials to register local SIM cards, which they then sell to scammers. In a sampling study of around 1,400 local SIM cards used in scams in the second half of 2023, we found that about 65% of such SIM cards were sold by just nine retailers. In a recent case, the Police arrested four handphone retailers who had used the particulars of unsuspecting subscribers to register post-paid SIM cards and then sold these SIM cards to customers, likely scammers, who wanted to conceal their identity.

Such errant retailers should be held accountable. Not only do they tarnish the reputation of their peers, their actions cause many victims to suffer losses.

However, there is no offence that specifically deals with these retailers. Under today’s regime, these retailers might simply lose their contracts with the mobile service provider. Stronger deterrence is needed if we are to prevent such retailers from helping scammers easily acquire fraudulently registered SIM cards.

As such, the Bill introduces a new section 39G to target errant retailers. The new section makes it a criminal offence to facilitate fraudulent registrations knowing or having reasonable grounds to believe that the local SIM card would be used for unlawful purposes. Errant retailers may also be liable if the local SIM card is proven to have subsequently been used for unlawful purposes.

The new criminal offence will complement our current regulatory levers and allow heavier punishments to be imposed on errant retailers. This includes imprisonment sentences for the employees who were involved in the fraudulent registrations. The vast majority of law-abiding retailers need not be concerned. The offence does not affect them.

Let me explain the other aspects of the new offences.

The penalties for the new SIM card offences will be pegged to those for the misuse of Singpass credentials under the Computer Misuse Act. The offences for irresponsible registrants will carry a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to three years, or both. The offences of receiving, supplying and possessing local SIM cards and facilitating fraudulent registrations of local SIM cards, will carry a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to three years, or both, for a first offence. For a second or subsequent offence, the penalty will be a fine of up to $20,000 or imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

All the new offences will also apply to corporations and unincorporated associations, such as partnerships and societies. However, as such entities cannot be subject to imprisonment, the maximum fines for these entities will be twice the amount for individuals. Clause 4 of the Bill introduces standard provisions for the attribution of liability for MOA offences committed by entities.

The Bill also introduces a new section 39H to the MOA to allow the new SIM card offences to apply extraterritorially, as long as there is a proven link to harm in Singapore. This is necessary, as most scam syndicates operate from overseas. The new section 39I will provide for all local SIM card offences to be arrestable.

Next, the Bill amends the MOA to allow the transmission of false messages for certain legitimate purposes, such as to facilitate the conduct of simulated phishing exercises to enhance awareness and vigilance against scams.

Currently, section 14D of the MOA – which can be traced back to the Telecommunications Act 1965 – criminalises the transmission of a message which the person knows is false or fabricated. Because of how the provision was drafted, any transmission of a false or fabricated message could be caught, even if the transmission was for legitimate purposes, like the prevention of crime.

The most pertinent example today would be simulated phishing exercises.

Today, many organisations conduct simulated phishing exercises. This is done to sensitise the staff to phishing attacks, thereby reducing the risk that they and consequently the organisation, fall victim to scams, cybercrimes and malicious cyber activities.

With the current provision, however, the conduct of such exercises could be considered an offence. Clause 2 of the Bill amends section 14D to introduce a defence for the transmission of false messages for legitimate purposes related to public order, public safety or national security; or the prevention, investigation or prosecution of offences. This would give organisations assurance that they would not be committing an offence if they transmit false messages for legitimate purposes, such as simulated phishing exercises.

Sir, I will now speak about the amendments to enhance the operational efficacy of the Home Team Departments.

The first group of the amendments will clarify powers of apprehension, under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act (MHCTA). Let me begin by reiterating the Government's commitment to mental health.

Mental health and well-being is a key priority in our national agenda and the Government is fully committed to doing more to improve mental health and well-being. During the Motion on Advancing Mental Health in February this year, Deputy Prime Minister Lawrence Wong highlighted several key moves the Government will be making, including increasing the number of public sector psychiatrists and psychologists, introducing mental health services to all polyclinics and more general practitioner (GP) clinics, and training frontline personnel and volunteers to help people struggling with mental health.

The importance of treating people with mental health conditions with respect and empathy is also not lost on our ground officers, many of whom would be familiar with their own friends or family, who may likewise struggle with mental health. This has always been the case since the existing provisions in the MHCTA were enacted in 2008, we have also seen largely effective outcomes when Police interventions were requested.

To be clear, the current amendments do not directly relate to how such cases are treated in our medical system nor does it relate to the wider community acceptance for people with mental health conditions. The amendments we are dealing with today relate strictly to how Police can be most helpful when they are called to assist in cases when a person may harm themselves or others around them; and Police have reason to believe that the better cause of action is apprehension rather than arrest.

Let me unpack for Members how the situation typically unfolds.

The Police are often called to respond to incidents involving persons who may pose a danger to themselves or to others. This may include cases of criminal intimidation where threats of harm are made or cases of violent behaviour in a public place. The duty of the police officers is to prevent the danger from materialising. Where criminal offences are made out, Police may make an arrest.

However, where such danger is reasonably suspected to be attributable to a mental disorder and it might be more appropriate to bring such persons to a medical practitioner than to a police lock-up, the Police can apprehend them under section 7 of MHCTA. This is already provided for by law since 2008. After apprehension, as opposed to arrest, the Police will bring the person to a medical practitioner and not to a lock-up.

To be clear, powers of apprehension under section 7 cannot be applied just because a person is suffering from mental health conditions, if the person does not pose a danger to themselves or others. The person must pose a danger to themselves or others. Therefore, it is completely mistaken to think of the existing section 7 as a measure to address mental health conditions when, in fact, it deals simply with situations of danger.

In other words, the Police do not get involved in cases of persons with mental health conditions unless they pose a danger to themselves or someone else. The Police will not do so and, in fact, cannot do so even with the amendments to the MHCTA. Such persons will be treated and managed directly by medical practitioners.

However, such persons may pose a danger to themselves, for example, threatening to commit suicide; or to others, for example, conducting themselves in a manner which may hurt their family or members of the public nearby. In these circumstances, the public would expect and indeed want the Police to intervene, before anyone gets hurt.

In a real case, a 73-year-old man was found to be in possession of an ice pick and knife at a Police station. When asked why he had those items, he said foreign law enforcement agencies were disturbing his sleep and he would use the ice pick and knife in a bid to tell them to leave him alone. Police apprehended him under the MHCTA and brought him to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for medical treatment.

However, in a recent judgment, the High Court made a determination that for apprehensions under the MHCTA, the danger presented had to be imminent and it had to be in a matter of hours rather than days. Because of the High Court's determination, for cases where the time frame of the danger presented is unspecified or is not imminent, the Police do not have the option of apprehending the person and bringing him for medical treatment.

Police officers confronted with these situations are left with two options, either not take any action and risk people getting hurt or even killed or make an arrest under criminal laws and put the person through the criminal process. The first option is not responsible – the public expects Police to keep Singaporeans safe. The second option is not ideal – criminal arrest is not what the person who may have mental health conditions needs.

Clause 13 therefore amends the MHCTA to allow the Police to apprehend the person in such situations to take them for medical treatment.

The same High Court judgment determined that apprehensions are distinct from arrests under the Criminal Procedure Code. This means that Police officers do not have certain powers associated with arrest, which are essential when making apprehensions. In particular, the High Court determined that the Police do not have powers of search and seizure to ensure that the person is not hiding dangerous weapons or items.

This presents a problem. Police would be expected to hand over the person to the staff of the medical facility only after ensuring that he is not in possession of weapons. Clause 14 therefore amends the Police Force Act to make clear that relevant powers, such as those of search and seizure, are available to the Police when making apprehensions, whether under the MHCTA or any other Acts. This does not mean that the person will be needlessly roughed up. On the contrary, having assessed that the person may be suffering from mental health conditions, Police offices are minded to carry out search and seizure with due care and respect.

Sir, I want to reassure Members that the Government is mindful of the social stigma and challenges that persons with mental health conditions face. Section 7 of the MHCTA is not meant to place additional burdens on such persons or their families. Instead, our goals are to prevent danger from materialising and enable persons with mental health issues to access medical care in a timely manner.

I will now move on to the next group of amendments. Members know that the demands on the Home Team are growing, including the Police. Some have spoken about this at the recent Committee of Supply debate and I thank them for their support and appreciation of the hard work Home Team officers do for the safety and security of Singaporeans.

The following amendment relates to Police's obligations when non-arrestable offences are reported.

Clause 6 of the Bill amends the Criminal Procedure Code to enable the Police to not take further action for non-arrestable offences in two circumstances – one, if the case is not of a serious nature, or two, if there are insufficient grounds for proceeding with the matter.

Similar provisions are already present for arrestable offences. For example, where Police receive a report of a traffic accident with no injuries, they are empowered to not take further action, even though arrestable offences, such as dangerous or careless driving may be disclosed. However, the same exceptions are currently not available for non-arrestable offences.

Today, when a non-arrestable offence is reported, the Police must either investigate the case, refer the informant to a magistrate, or refer the case to a mediator of a Community Mediation Centre. This legal obligation applies even if the Police have reason to believe that the case is not of a serious nature, or there are insufficient grounds for proceeding with the matter. This obligation results in poor use of public resources.

This amendment therefore seeks to align the Police's obligations whether for offences that are arrestable or non-arrestable. This will provide Police more operational flexibility to decide whether a Police report is deserving of action.

Another group of amendments enhances the Home Team's operations and reduces operational risks.

Clause 5 and clauses 7 to 12 allow officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) and Gambling Regulatory Authority (GRA) to grant bail or personal bond for arrested persons. Today, these persons have to be brought to a Police officer to be released on bail or personal bond.

The amendments improve efficiency, as these arrested persons would no longer need to be brought to a Police lock-up or to a Police officer for granting of bail or personal bond.

The proposed amendments also allow persons arrested under the National Registration Act and the Passports Act to be detained in immigration depots, such as ICA Building, Tuas Checkpoint and Woodlands Checkpoint, instead of bringing them to Police stations. This reduces operational risks in the transport of these arrested persons.

I will now speak on the third and last set of amendments, which seeks to enhance and safeguard YRSG's operations.

Clause 15 of the Bill includes two amendments to the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises Act, or the SCORE Act for short. The first amendment is to provide YRSG with greater flexibility on staff administration and disciplinary matters. Currently, YRSG's internal disciplinary framework is stipulated in subsidiary legislation. This means YRSG needs to enact changes in the subsidiary legislation in order to change its internal disciplinary framework. This is unnecessary and inconsistent with the practices of most Statutory Boards.

The Bill amends the SCORE Act to remove the need for subsidiary legislation to be made regarding administrative staff matters. Consequently, the two existing pieces of subsidiary legislation on staff disciplinary matters will be revoked.

The second amendment is to safeguard Yellow Ribbon symbols and representations. They include YRSG's corporate logo and symbols of initiatives related to YRSG's mission, such as the Yellow Ribbon Project and Yellow Ribbon Fund logos. These logos are registered trademarks belonging to YRSG. They are used in YRSG's campaigns and programmes to galvanise society to support the reintegration of ex-offenders.

However, there have been instances where these symbols were misused for ill intent. For example, we had received feedback from members of the public that they were approached at hawker centres by individuals selling merchandise, or individuals going door-to-door asking for donations and were shown documents with the Yellow Ribbon logo. In these instances, the symbols were used for the individual's own benefit, under the guise of supporting ex-offenders.

To safeguard the symbols and ensure that they are not misused, the Bill amends the SCORE Act, to give YRSG the exclusive right to the use of YRSG's symbols and symbols of initiatives related to YRSG's mission. Those who misuse these symbols will be liable for prosecution and could face a fine of up to $10,000 or imprisonment of up to six months, or both. In the case of a continuing offence, the offender could be further fined up to $250 for every day or part of a day during which the offence continues after conviction. This is consistent with existing provisions governing the use of the symbols of other Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) Statutory Boards.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill will strengthen our anti-scam efforts. The new SIM card offences will help disrupt the operations of criminal syndicates.

The Bill will also allow us to better protect the public, as well as enable our Home Team officers to carry out their duties more effectively and efficiently. Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Speaker, this Bill is aimed at bolstering law enforcement efforts in Singapore. It addresses two critical areas: combating scams and enhancing Home Team operations. I will speak on them in turn.

First, on combating scams. Scams have surged globally with technological advancements and Singapore is no exception. From 2022 to 2023, there was a 46.8% increase in scam cases. Victims lost more than S$600 million. This is despite having measures, such as SMS Sender ID Registry and blocking overseas scam calls, amongst other measures.

The Bill targets three key groups involved in facilitating scams: those irresponsibly registering local SIM cards or Group A; those possessing or supplying SIM cards or Group B; and retailers facilitating fraudulent SIM card registration or Group C.

For Group A, can the Ministry clarify why 10 SIM cards is used as a threshold? For Group C, authorisation is an essential condition. How can the Ministry simplify and standardise the authorisation processes for companies to implement this effectively?

The proposed penalties for offenders include fines of up to $10,000 and/or imprisonment, with harsher penalties for repeat offenders. Because the potential losses caused to victims are high, we should consider minimum fines and jail terms for individual offenders and fines tied to a percentage of annual revenue for retailers.

Effective strategies are crucial to detect and prosecute such sales of SIM cards. Many of them operate on platforms like Telegram or Carousell. How would the Ministry work with the platform owners to stem out such activities?

Next, on the enhancements to support our Home Team operations. The proposed amendments empower law enforcement agencies, particularly the Police Force, in handling mental health-related incidents. It seeks to set clear thresholds for apprehension, ensuring effectiveness and clarity.

Mental health experts, rightfully, are concerned that the changes could lead to wrongful apprehensions and deepen stigma of mental health patients. Currently, Police can only apprehend mentally disordered individuals if they pose "imminent" danger.

The proposed amendments would allow apprehension based on a "reasonable belief" of potential harm. What are the measures put in place to minimise hasty assessment by untrained officers that increase the chances wrongful apprehension? In addition, can the Ministry also clarify what are the scenarios constituting what is "reasonably" in determining when a Police officer may make such arrest or apprehension. I propose that the Ministry also partner the mental health community to train and prepare our officers for this new change in the law.

At the same time, we must appreciate the difficulties in making the right operational decisions. It is not uncommon for Police officers to encounter situations on the ground where the threat of violence can escalate very quickly. There are many variables that can cause such escalation. Such situations can happen during patrols. They can also happen when Police officers are called down to a scene. There can be very little time from the escalation to harm actually being caused.

Our officers must be trusted and empowered to protect not only the subject but also innocent bystanders. They must also have the weight of the law behind them to discharge their duties and not have to second-guess themselves. In fact, second-guessing in such situations can be highly dangerous. In the years that I served in the Singapore Police Force, I have witnessed a few of such situations that warrant decisive actions. Our officers' deep training allows them to execute their roles decisively even while they put themselves harm's way. These very actions make the difference between minimising harm and allowing a situation to go very wrong. Thus, we must provide our officers with every available tool to protect life and property.

Thus, I support the enhancements in the Bill. At the same time, I note that it is crucial to ensure sensitive and safe apprehension procedures that are updated regularly. Partnership with the mental healthcare sector to develop standardised procedures and providing additional training and resources for law enforcement officers is essential.

Lastly, regarding apprehension in attempted suicide cases, individuals are obligated to aid Police officers. Can the Ministry clarify that refusal to aid the officer, while regrettable is not an offence?

In conclusion, I support the Bill as a crucial step in fortifying Singapore's security and resilience. The amendments targeting scams offer promising solutions which can reduce the number of scam-related incidents. Additionally, sensitive treatment and effective handling of mentally disordered individuals by law enforcement agencies with clear parameters informed and supported by the mental health community will be paramount. Mr Speaker, I support the Bill.

Ms He Ting Ru.

Mr Speaker, I will focus my speech today on concerns that I have on Part 3 of the Law Enforcement and Other Matters Bill, which deal with the apprehension of persons.

Clause 13 of the Bill amends section 7 of the Mental Health Care and Treatment Act 2008, or MHCTA, by reducing the threshold requirement for a police or special police officer to exercise the power to apprehend a person. This amendment supersedes the interpretation of danger by the General Division of the High Court in Mah Kiat Seng vs Attorney-General and Others. In that case, the Court held at paragraph 48 that the use of the word "danger" implied a degree of imminence, that is, that without the Police officer's intervention, such behaviour is likely to occur within a short time, which the Judge stated that he would consider to be a matter of hours rather than days. In addition, the Court clarified that there must be a reasonably imminent risk of physical harm to the person apprehended or others.

The new amendment proposed in this Bill supersedes the High Court's interpretation by empowering Police and special police officers to apprehend a person, P, if they believe that P may endanger peace or any other person's life or personal safety. It would also introduce a new sub-clause (2), subsection (aa), which provides that it is sufficient that the danger to life or personal safety is only reasonably likely to occur and need not be imminent and actual harm is not required.

While I appreciate that the Minister for Home Affairs had previously stated in this House that law should not inadvertently result in defensive policing, I believe that it is important to make it clear that the amendments reducing the threshold to apprehend a person is subject to safeguards and for the public to know and understand what those safeguards are.

As our law currently stands, the Police's general power of arrest is subject to various safeguards under the Criminal Procedure Code. The distinction between arrestable and non-arrestable offences make clear the situations where a police officer may arrest someone without a warrant. For example, while the police may arrest without a warrant someone on suspicion that they have caused or may voluntarily cause grievous hurt to another person, the police cannot arrest without a warrant in a situation where the offence is that of voluntarily causing hurt.

With the proposed amendments, I would like to seek clarification from the Minister of my understanding that these changes are in response to the High Court's ruling in Mah. Additionally and specifically, can the Minister detail what specific challenges our law enforcement officers have had while carrying out their policing duties with suspects who are persons suffering from mental health crises or illnesses that warrant these amendments?

I have concerns that the threshold being lowered has to be very carefully weighed up against the expressed aims of Singaporean society to do more to properly support and address mental health challenges facing some of our fellow Singaporeans, especially when law enforcement officers do not necessarily have the training and resources to fully understand the challenging and complex issues surrounding mental health conditions.

I have five main points and clarifications about the new threshold.

First, I have a concern that the lowering of the threshold from the Court's clarification of a reasonably imminent risk being lowered to a reasonable likelihood that danger to life or personal safety may occur under the MHCTA would lead to different standards applying to those who may be living with mental health conditions or illness. In fact, according to the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD Committee), such a distinction is discriminatory.

In September 2015, in Guidelines on the Right to Liberty and Security of Persons with Disabilities issued by the CRPD Committee, legislations like the MHCTA, which allow the detention of persons on the ground of their actual or perceived impairment on the basis that they are deemed dangerous to themselves or to others, are discriminatory in nature and amount to arbitrary deprivation of liberty.

Can the Minister clarify if the Government has considered its obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which the Government ratified in 2013, in tabling this amendment? If so, how do the proposed amendments square with our CRPD commitments?

In October 2022, the CRPD Committee issued its concluding observations for its first periodic review of Singapore's record on disability rights. At paragraph 30A of the concluding observations in respect of Article 14 of the CRPD on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities to Liberty, the CRPD Committee urged Singapore to repeal all legislative provisions allowing for the involuntary deprivation of liberty of persons with intellectual disabilities and persons with psychosocial disabilities on the grounds of their impairment or their perceived dangerousness to themselves or others.

As noted above, this refers specifically to the MHCTA.

I note that the Minister for Health had stated in a response to a Parliamentary Question (PQ) in 2021 that the MHCTA is already in compliance with the requirements of Article 14 of the CRPD. Can the Government confirm if this position on the MHCTA remains the same, notwithstanding the CRPD Committee's recommendation for this House to reform this law? If not, will the Government consider the necessary steps to be taken to ensure that the MHCTA complies with our obligations under the CRPD?

Second, the High Court Judge in Mah also noted that he considered that a time frame for imminence under the new old threshold would be a matter of hours rather than days. With the introduction of the new threshold of reasonable risk to safety, can the Minister confirm if there would be any time frames that are applied to the assessment of whether to detain? If so, what are they?

Third, paragraph 23 of MHA's press release on this Bill gives an example of a situation where police records show that the person making the threat has a history of mental disorder. Would the Minister be able to confirm that all persons suspected to be suffering from mental crises and falling under this new threshold would be subject to a background check for a history of mental disorder? However, it is unclear to me also what the records refer to and what kind of history would be applicable here. If there is no history, does this mean that no intervention is possible?

Fourth, given the concerns above, what safeguards, guidelines or training and support would police officers be given in applying the new threshold to situations on the ground, especially after they have made a decision to detain the suspect? After all, we are drawing a delicate balance between public safety on the one hand and the proper treatment and approach to those living with mental illness and conditions.

In an article published in JOM last week, Chan Lee Shan, drawing on her own experiences of being arrested while suffering from her first and only episode of psychosis, raised concerns about a person living with mental illness and crises ending up being traumatised by the experience, particularly if they are then treated no differently from a conventional arrest and held in police cells while checks are being made and next steps are being decided as to what would be the most appropriate step for treatment, release or otherwise.

Finally, on the new thresholds, what options are available to those who believe that they were erroneously detained, subject to what they believe to be excessive force or trauma? These are not theoretical concerns, as after all, the Mah case was one where the officer was found to have made certain statements which were later withdrawn after being contradicted by body-worn camera footage and the judge also expressed concerns about the discrepancies between the medical report produced by the examining doctor and the evidence later submitted.

The safeguards and guidelines I asked about are thus extremely important if an occasion arises where the conduct of the arrest or apprehension and subsequent procedures are problematic.

Taking a step back to look at a bigger picture and in light of the Second Minister's acknowledgement of Deputy Prime Minister's declaration to this House that mental health is a key national priority, in February 2024 and the large number of Members who spoke to express their concern and even alarm over the situation facing us, I am worried about the amendments to the MHTCTA unnecessarily perpetuating stigma against persons living with mental health conditions.

This entrenchment of discrimination against those living with mental health conditions was also a concern that was highlighted in an op-ed published in The Straits Times last week. The authors pointed out quite rightly that this is a major concern and identified the balance between three main prongs. First, upholding public safety; second, respect for the dignity of the person in crisis; and third, the proportionate use of force. For sure, this is a tricky balance to get right and I hope that my concerns raised above can help us better appreciate the various segments contained of each of these prongs when discussing whether these amendments help or hinder our stated aims to reduce and ultimately eliminate stigma for those living with mental illness or mental health conditions.

A related point then is also whether the police are best placed to respond to persons experiencing mental health crises. In recent years, many countries have taken steps to implement alternative strategies to provide support and de-escalate the situation. For example, in 2017, Sweden introduced a psychiatric emergency response team which would send an ambulance comprising two mental health nurses and one paramedic to attend to persons experiencing a mental health crisis. Another approach is the United Kingdom (UK) Street triage model, a partnership scheme between the police and approved mental health professionals to provide advice and support for people experiencing mental health crises.

We have taken encouraging steps in this direction here in Singapore. In March 2021, IMH partnered SPF to pilot the Crisis Response Team, a mental health crisis response team in Singapore dedicated to providing timely care and support to persons with suicidal tendencies in the community.

A 2023 journal article published in European Psychiatry found that CRT intervention could mitigate suicide risk and pressure on the mental health system, that is, reduce unnecessary emergency room visits and hospital admissions, create greater mental health awareness and facilitate individuals' connection to mental health care services, that is, in hospitals or the community.

Given the positive impact of the CRT, has the Government considered expanding the programme to respond not only to cases involving the risk of suicide but also persons experiencing mental health crises more generally? Such a move can also help reduce the strain on our police.

In response to a PQ in March 2022, the Minister for Home Affairs had stated that the Police and other investigative agencies' primary task is to deter crime, investigate and deal with crime, and they are not deeply trained in mental health issues. We have to balance our current police and public safety approach to persons experiencing mental health crises and discuss how we may adopt a more person-centric approach that focuses on providing care and support in these situations.

I thus conclude my speech with two suggestions. First, I hope that more work will be done across the Government to educate and help more citizens better understand the complex issues that lie behind the occasional intersection between public law enforcement and those experiencing mental health crises.

For this, the National Council of Social Service (NCSS) launched the Beyond the Label Collective in 2022. At the launch of the Collective, former President Halimah Yaacob noted in her speech that we should not erroneously associate criminality or violence with mental health conditions, as this is rarely the case. We therefore need more public education campaigns to help Singaporeans better appreciate the difficulties involved in achieving the tricky balance between public safety and the needs and dignity of those living with mental health conditions, which may end up being infringed when they are unable to get appropriate support and treatment that is needed to get them and their loved ones when they may be experiencing a mental health crisis.

Second, interested members of the public can be trained as community first responders to support persons experiencing mental health crises. Currently, the Community Life-Saving Programme, offered jointly by the People's Association and MHA, offers the standard First Aid plus AED Awareness Course, SFAA and the CPR AED certification. This can be expanded to include the Singapore Emergency Responder Academy's First Aid and Mental Health Training Programme. Volunteers with the People's Association Community Emergency Response Team should also attend such training so that they are able to respond to persons experiencing mental health crises. With their knowledge, these trained volunteers can also serve as ambassadors to educate their communities and persons living with mental health conditions.

Mr Yip Hon Weng.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will focus on two topics: first, on local SIM card misuse; and second, on the enhancement of police officers' powers in apprehending people who show signs of a mental disorder and pose a safety risk to themselves or others.

First, local SIM card misuse has seen an exponential surge in recent years. The statistics are alarming. The number of local mobile lines implicated in scams and other cybercrimes has quadrupled in just two years. This worrying trend is reflected in the financial losses as well, with victims losing nearly triple the amount in 2023 – a staggering $384 million compared to $137 million in 2021.

The nature of these scams has also evolved, making them more insidious. In the past, a simple rule of thumb of ignoring unexpected calls with foreign numbers sufficed as a cautionary measure. However, criminals have now shifted tactics, exploiting local phone numbers to lure unsuspecting victims. This shift preys on the inherent trust we place on local calls, especially for our vulnerable elderly population. Our seniors are more likely to answer local calls, creating a prime opportunity for scammers to exploit their trust. The consequences can be devastating when victims fall prey to such deception.

While I commend the Government's initiative to tighten regulations and combat this issue, I believe that there are several key clarifications that need to be addressed.

First, Mr Speaker, Sir, we must acknowledge the vulnerability of certain individuals. These very people can become unwitting accomplices, having their SIM cards misused either by mistake or through exploitation. They are, in essence, both victims and potential targets. I am glad that those who have legitimate reasons or were genuinely tricked into giving up their particulars would not be held liable. Nevertheless, I also understand that this could complicate enforcement and proving intent is always difficult. Hence, we must try to tackle the problem at its roots.

How will this Bill target family members, relatives, caregivers and persons who exploit their close contact with vulnerable elderly, in misusing their identity to register SIM cards? Are there plans to educate and warn the elderly against the misuse of their identity in SIM card registration? Likewise, how does this Bill address situations where multiple SIM cards have been misused by family members, but the elderly person feigns or alleges ignorance? Will there be penalties for the elderly and subsequently, the main perpetrator?

Second, Mr Speaker, Sir, we should create a system that empowers retailers to whistle blow conveniently and anonymously. The role of retailers in combating this issue cannot be overstated. Retailers are on the front lines. Empowering them to act as a safeguard is critical. But expecting them to reject every suspected case of bulk SIM card purchases for malicious purposes may not be practical. Customer service personnel may face pressure from their superiors or irate customers if a purchase is mistakenly flagged.

Therefore, exploring alternative avenues for retailers to report suspicious activities is essential. The Government should develop an avenue that allows for convenient and anonymous whistle blowing. This would alleviate the burden of direct confrontation for customer service personnel and will encourage more proactive reporting.

Furthermore, exploring incentives for such reporting is worth considering. Recognising retailers who actively participate in combating SIM card misuse could be highly effective. For example, a public recognition program that designates them as "Trusted SIM Retailers" would not only incentivise vigilance, but also boost their reputation among customers seeking secure and responsible service providers. It may also deter possible perpetrators from approaching such retailers. This approach fosters collaboration and promotes ethical practices within the retail sector.

Next, Mr Speaker, Sir, I will move on to address the amendments relating to the apprehension of mentally disordered persons. In particular, the lowering of the threshold before a mentally disordered individual may be apprehended to one of reasonable suspicion, when an act of possible harm is reasonably likely to occur and not only when it is imminent and mental disorder is suspected.

I support the move to empower Police officers to apprehend the said individuals. The harm they may cause to themselves or others around them is irreparable. An obvious example is if they end up successfully committing suicide or homicide. The move is a pre-emptive approach that protects both the person, as well as those around them.

At the outset, we must always remember that mental illness is not a crime. Mental illness expressed as anti-social behaviour in and of itself may not be life-threatening. Even among the mentally ill, there is a wide spectrum of behaviours. It is thus imperative that our Police officers must be better equipped to identify potential signs of mental illness, both in the individuals with a history and those without, always with the view of harm reduction and not the stigmatisation of the mentally ill.

I am concerned that if our Police officers lack the expertise to do so, they may not be able to use the powers effectively or responsibly. The recent case of Mah Kiat Seng vs Attorney-General and Others has raised some concerns. In this case, Mr Mah claimed he was wrongly arrested and imprisoned based on false information provided by a Police officer. How can the Government prevent similar situations from happening again?

With great power comes great responsibility. The good standing of our men in blue relies on them being able to exercise their powers in a manner that balances the need for decisive action in high-stress operational situations, with a keen sense of human dignity and skillful instinct honed through experience and training. This is all the more delicate when Police deal with the mentally ill who have already been triggered by stressful situations and this becomes further exacerbated by Police intervention.

While the law empowers Police to apprehend individuals believed to be a danger to themselves or others due to mental health concerns, it is critical to have safeguards against misuse. The Court acknowledged the importance of Police discretion in such situations, but also highlighted the need for responsible action. This case raises the question: what safeguards are in place to prevent Police officers from overstepping their authority, as seen in the Mah Kiat Seng case?

Public trust in our institutions hinges on the belief that we act in the best interests of all Singaporeans. This extends to our Police force, who require proper training and clear guidelines to uphold their duty effectively. Unclear procedures create apprehension for both the public and Police officers, potentially hindering enforcement and fostering disputes. The proposed law empowers Police to apprehend individuals under specific circumstances. To ensure transparency and to minimise apprehension, the Ministry should clarify these thresholds.

Additionally, clear guidelines are critical to prevent potential power abuses and ensure effective collaboration with mental health professionals. While traditional training methods have value, equipping Police with real-world case studies, hands-on experience and access to mental health experts is vital. Training should emphasise de-escalation tactics and provide a framework for officers to escalate complex situations to appropriate personnel for further evaluation.

Moving on, Mr Speaker, Sir, as we delve into other aspects of the Bill, it is critical to acknowledge the limitations of some of the new regulations while exploring further solutions. While section 39H of the Bill allows for extraterritorial effect, the question of enforcement remains. How will this provision be effectively implemented? How will we establish collaborative efforts with other foreign jurisdictions to apprehend perpetrators operating outside our borders?

Additionally, part 2 clause 6 empowers the Police to decide against pursuing non-arrestable offenses. The criteria outlined – cases deemed "not of a serious nature" or with "insufficient grounds" – warrant further clarification. For instance, how will this impact issues like neighbourly disputes or noise complaints? Will isolated incidents of nuisance be entirely dismissed, leaving residents with no avenue for recourse? A clear framework for addressing such situations is necessary.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill represents a positive step towards combating the rise of SIM card misuse and enhancing public safety. However, to maximise its effectiveness, I urge the House to consider the following: first, protect vulnerable populations. We must establish clear guidelines to address the misuse of seniors' identities for SIM card registration. Educational initiatives can empower them to identify and prevent such exploitation.

Second, empower retailers. A system for anonymous whistleblowing by retailers, coupled with an incentive program like "Trusted SIM Retailer" designation, can significantly improve vigilance and reporting.

Next, regarding the amendments to Police powers, while empowering officers to apprehend individuals with mental health issues is critical, ensuring fair implementation is paramount. To this end, transparency and clear guidelines are essential to prevent misuse of power and public fear. We also need to equip Police officers with comprehensive training, with real-world scenarios, giving them access to mental health professionals, and providing a framework to escalate complex cases.

By prioritising these recommendations, we can strengthen the Bill and ensure it safeguards both our citizens and their security. Let us work together to send a clear message: zero tolerance for SIM card misuse and having trust in the enforcement of Police powers. With the proposed amendments, we can create a more secure Singapore for all. I support the Bill.

Dr Syed Harun.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. My contribution to this debate relates specifically to part 3 of the Bill, the Amendments Relating To Apprehension under the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act and the Police Force Act. I wish to declare that I am a psychiatrist in private practice and am the Honorary Secretary of the Singapore Psychiatric Association. I am also a visiting consultant psychiatrist at a restructured hospital.

I wish to also add that I have dealt with many a psychiatric emergency in my line of work. I have myself been conflicted and made the harrowing call to law enforcement over grave concerns that an acquaintance was at risk of potential suicide.

Firstly, let me qualify categorically that by an overwhelming proportion and majority, most individuals labouring under mental illness would not fulfil the threshold set out within this proposed Bill for apprehension by Police. The large majority of those with mental illness struggle silently, may appear normal to most and are able to navigate life's challenges with some treatment and support from family and loved ones.

The individuals for whom this Bill could apply represent but a slither of individuals who are afflicted with mental illness or mental health concerns. When placed under much duress, entrenched and severe mental illness can impair one's mind, to the extent that he or she may consider life not worth living anymore and contemplate suicide. Often, at this juncture, all hope appears lost, reasonableness is absent and negative thoughts have festered well beyond fleeting moments of self-doubt in themselves and their lives.

If we are lucky, such individuals – with encouragement from family and loved ones – would agree to present themselves to a psychiatrist much earlier for treatment. However, there are times where family members, who themselves could also be at a loss, reach out for external help from community organisations or call upon law enforcement, especially when they are deeply concerned for the safety of the individual.

I can say with some confidence that our Police officers are confronted with this on a daily basis. Almost a daily occurrence, at the IMH Emergency Room, ever so often there would be some Police presence bringing a distressed person to be assessed by a designated medical practitioner, on account of section 7 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act, or MHCTA.

When someone is on the brink of suicide and immense despair, they would have lost all hope, are taxed with a sense of worthlessness and with no longing to continue living. Police officers and their Home Team colleagues remain their last hope for rescue, and such officers often put themselves at risk to honour their duty to protect fellow Singaporeans.

For context, often these apprehensions take place in unfamiliar surroundings and home environments, in the presence of sharp objects like blades and knives, with open ungrilled windows or even at corridors of significant height. The tension in the air would be palpable, sometimes with raised voices of frustration and emotions running high.

Time is of the essence and where reasonable grounds are sufficiently present to suggest a potential threat to self and others, my view is that apprehension may be necessary to save a life under such circumstances.

This Bill, Mr Speaker, gives some latitude for Police officers to act with some urgency and not reactively, before a suicide attempt becomes imminent and before rescue could be more risky, both for the person who is under duress and for those who are trying to make a genuine attempt at rescue.

Where suicide risk assessment, even for psychiatrists, is not a perfect science, my view is that it is fair and appropriate for Police officers to exercise reasonable judgement without waiting for a suicide to be imminently clear or after such attempt at lethal harm has been actualised.

Mr Speaker, there are ground concerns that stigma could be further perpetuated as a direct result of the proposed changes in the Bill, but I beg to differ, in that this Bill is scoped within a very specific circumstance of a psychiatric emergency and only where there is a patent risk of suicide.

Even as I advocate for this Bill today, there are three things I hope the Ministry can look into moving forward, if not already done today, to really reassure concerns on the ground and hon Members of the House today.

First, it is to ensure structured training. Structured training for Police officers in the apprehension of attempted suicide cases would be important to guide Police officers fronting such work, and this could be coupled with considered inputs from care professionals and specialists in the field. Such structured training would also be important to ensure that while there is some latitude and range for judgement by Police officers on the ground, the exercise of such powers of apprehension continues to be done with propriety, with confidence and with safety in mind.

Second, to ensure access to psychiatric evaluation and assessment without delay after apprehension. Where the apprehension is done under subsections 26A to 26F of the Police Force Act, the Ministry must then ensure that the individuals are sent for a formal assessment by a medical practitioner or a designated medical practitioner at a psychiatric institution under the sections 9 and 10 of the MHTCA with expedience and without delay. If the premise of the apprehension was due to concerns over a potential suicide attempt and a mental disorder, then it follows that it is treatment that the individual needs and care and assessment must be forthcoming as soon as safety is established.

Third, to work more closely with mental health professionals in such crisis work. I think there is scope for the Ministry to study the prospect of closer collaboration between mental health professionals and law enforcement especially when dealing with crisis calls relating to mentally disordered individuals. There could be value in having combined teams of law enforcement and mental health practitioners as collaborative first responders to ensure that, on one hand, there is Police resource for swift apprehension to safety of such individuals where required and if the threshold is not met and care can be safely given, mental health professionals, in turn, could be the ones offering supportive care thereafter.

In conclusion, Mr Speaker, I would like to thank our Police officers on the ground for the work that they do in relation to such apprehensions, where there needs to be a delicate balance in their approach of care for the person in distress, alongside a swift desire to bring the person to safety.

As a clinician and psychiatrist, my role in addressing psychiatric emergencies is moot without first ensuring that any patient of mine is safe, first and foremost. No meaningful medical treatment is possible without first ensuring safety of the patient and rescuer.

This parallels our approach to dealing with medical emergencies too, as is the protocol for Basic Cardiac Life Support which I am sure many Members of the House are trained and are familiar with. The acronym is DRSABCD – Assess for Danger, Assess for Responsiveness, Send for Help, Airway, Breathing, CPR and Defibrillation, where in the first instance, danger must be ameliorated as a first and utmost priority and remains several steps ahead before CPR treatment can take place.

Similarly, in the face of a psychiatric emergency, where there is an active threat or concern over suicide, a danger to life either imminent or reasonably anticipated, the work of our Police officers and their Civil Defence counterpart remain important. Within reasonable grounds, my view is that they should be empowered to exercise appropriate means to perform such a lifesaving role, before any ensuing treatment can be administered accordingly. Mr Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill.

Mr Louis Chua.

Mr Speaker, my speech today will touch on the proposed amendments to deter the misuse of local SIM cards.

By now, we are all well aware of how the proliferation of scams and cybercrimes and hence, the overall crime rate in Singapore is on a sharp rise in recent years. While physical crime cases have declined over the past five years, from 23,980 cases in 2019 to 19,966 cases in 2023, the reverse has happened for scam and cybercrime cases, rising almost five times from 11,135 cases in 2019 to 50,376 cases in 2023, with the increase seen last year the largest annual increase yet, at 16,707 cases or an almost 50% jump compared to the year before.

While we may not be living in the metaverse per se as yet, our digital lives and online footprint are increasingly inescapable aspects of our everyday lives – from the way we communicate and socialise via online messaging apps and social media, the way we go about our daily jobs in front of our laptops and even the way we transact in the offline world buying lunch or groceries, with Singapore moving closer towards a cashless society.

The Gallup's Law and Order Index uses four questions to gauge people's sense of personal security and their own experiences with crime and law enforcement. While much of these relate to one's sense of physical safety and security, in this day and age, it is worth looking at these questions from the digital sphere as well.

For example, one of the questions relate to, "within the last 12 months, have you had money or property stolen from you or another household member?" These days, the losses from scams are likely to be way more significant, sometimes involving our life savings, than losing one's wallet from snatch theft or robbery. And while we may "feel safe walking alone at night", it is noteworthy that 96% of the population, aged 15 and above, are at least somewhat concerned about becoming a victim of scams; with 99% of seniors, aged 60 and above, sharing the same concern.

As scammers and criminal networks continue to evolve their approach in committing scams and cybercrimes against Singaporeans, we need to step up our game to reverse the worrying trend in scam cases and I believe the new measures would be a welcome addition into our arsenal in the war against scammers and cybercriminals. Nonetheless, I have a few areas of concern which I hope the Minister will be able to address.

The Bill introduces offences targeting three groups of offenders – irresponsible registrants; those receiving, supplying or possessing local SIM cards; and retailers facilitating fraudulent registration of local SIM cards.

Given our earlier efforts to tighten SIM card registration requirements and the implementation of the +65 prefix to identify foreign scam syndicates spoofing local numbers, these scammers have turned to using local SIM cards instead.

As set out in the MHA's press release, the rampant misuse of local SIM cards to perpetuate scams has been driven by people who give away their SIM cards or provide their particulars to others to be used to sign up for SIM cards, typically for money, also known as "irresponsible registrants".

While it certainly is irresponsible of such people when viewed from a rational third-party perspective, it may be the case of ignorance from the perspective of certain persons, of the significant harms such a seemingly innocent move can cause. To me, it is much less defensible to feign ignorance when it comes to cases involving lending one's identity to be a phantom employee, even earning extra Central Provident Fund (CPF) along the way, while enabling dishonest companies to sidestep foreign worker quotas, or to wilfully lend one's bank accounts in return for a fee to facilitate money laundering.

Under section 39B, it would be presumed that a person has reasonable grounds to believe, that the local SIM card would be used to commit or facilitate a crime and until the contrary is proved, could be found guilty of an offence and liable to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both. To what extent do we wish to pursue or even imprison an elderly person, or someone who may not be literate or sophisticated enough to see the criminal element of this act, even as someone gave him a "token sum" to thank him for his time and efforts and would have "ticked the box" on receiving "any gain"? What kind of educational or information campaigns will be conducted to protect those who may not have wilfully committed an offence for a quick buck and could now face imprisonment?

I welcome section 39G, which makes it an offence for a retailer or telecommunication licensee to register a local SIM card using any person's particulars without that person's authorisation or knowing the particulars were false or misleading under certain conditions.

We have certainly seen cases in the past, where errant retailers were taken to task; such as earlier this year, where an authorised dealer was fined $48,000 for exploiting customers' personal data to register SIM cards without their knowledge or consent, making an estimated profit of $35,000 along the way.

However, just as we censure financial institutions for not putting in place adequate Anti-Money Laundering and Counter-Terrorism Financing measures, to what extent does the buck stop at the retailers and authorised dealers themselves; and when would the telecommunication licensee itself be liable for failing to prevent, detect and address such abuses of their SIM cards and telecommunications networks to facilitate crime? Beyond employees of retailers or the mobile service providers, who may have been directly involved in facilitating the SIM card registrations, to what extent would the management team and the board of these companies be liable themselves under the new section 39G, especially since the employees of these mobile service providers are specifically identified as such? Mr Speaker, allow me to say a few words in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] As we all know, while physical crimes have decreased over the past five years, scams and cybercrime cases have risen sharply, leading to increase in the overall crime rate in Singapore in recent years.

Signs indicate that more scammers are using local SIM cards for scams and illegal lending, even setting up accounts such as PayNow to receive illicit funds and creating accounts on messaging apps such as WhatsApp. After the passing of the Law Enforcement and Other Matters Bill, providing personal information to strangers for the registration of local SIM cards, selling SIM cards registered under one's own or another person's name, or receiving, supplying or possessing someone else's SIM card without proper justification can constitute criminal offences.

Many of us may intuitively know that providing one’s identity to dishonest companies as a phantom employee to earn CPF funds, or handing over one’s bank accounts to strangers to help unscrupulous individuals abuse the accounts, or even facilitating money laundering activities, are all illegal. However, many people may not realise the significant harm that can result from providing one’s identity to strangers for the registration of local SIM cards.

Therefore, I urge the Government to conduct more publicity campaigns on this topic to protect our fellow citizens who may unwittingly commit an offense, such as the elderly and those with diminished mental capacity.

Ms Yeo Wan Ling.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I met N – not his real name – a few years ago over at my Meet-the-People Sessions (MPS). He was frequently at our MPS and we learnt of his many challenges as he grew to trust us and confide in us. N was in his 60s and I believe him to be an undiagnosed special needs adult, a high-functioning one capable of independent living, albeit an awkward one when it comes to relationships and social norms. During one of our MPS, he came distraught and shared that he was arrested by the Police recently.

He had ordered fast food delivery to be sent to his mother, who is living in an aged home. When his mother told him that she did not receive the delivery, he charged down to the local fast food restaurant, demanding to be compensated for the food his family had failed to receive. N is a tall man and when he is angry, he talks in a very loud voice and can be quite intimidating for the uninitiated. Needless to say, our local fast food counter staff was ill-equipped to deal with him and she called in the mall security and the local Police team for assistance. That day, according to N, he caused the rather elderly security guard to fall. He pushed a passerby who came in to help and he nearly fell on a policeman. He was subsequently taken in by the Police.

When N recounted the event to me, he was distraught but thankful that he did not cause more harm to the people involved. He still wanted his fast food delivered, which was why he came to see us at the MPS, but acknowledged that he would be in deeper trouble, or perhaps have even injured himself seriously, should there not be intervention by the Police. It was, after all, a whole store of people against one N. I later found out that our Police Force are indeed trained to recognise, manage and diffuse such situations and I call for the Singapore Police Force (SPF) to ensure that such training be made mandatory for all enforcers, NSFs included, if it if not already done so and this should be conducted in a timely and frequent manner.

While N's situation is perhaps an extreme one, we see semblances of this in our everyday lives. For example, when someone on the public transport has a meltdown, Singaporeans do not often react kindly. More often than not, the commuters would give them a dirty look, or exchange disapproving looks with their fellow commuters, if not simply resigning to "mind their own businesses". It goes without saying, that the social rejection does not help someone who is already over-sensitised.

If our commuters could react to the meltdown with some understanding and compassion, very much like if during that period, N had been treated with some empathy and understanding, the commuter and N would have a much easier time coaching themselves to calm down. Better yet, if most of the commuters have a basic understanding on how to help someone in a meltdown situation, the Police may not even have to be involved in the first place.

This particular amendment clearly is not here to vest more power for law enforcement to make arrests. Instead, it is quite the contrary. It sets clear limits to their power so that we can make the Police Force a force for the nation, to make Singapore the safest place in the world, if I may quote the SPF's vision. More importantly, the heart of this amendment is not to correct behaviours, but to make more Singaporeans aware of people with amplified needs, so that the whole kampung can come together and make a home for us in this city.

I have full support that this conviction will continue its work beyond the matter of enforcement in time to come. With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Keith Chua.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I first mention my involvement in a number of mental health support service agencies, particularly as board member.

In February 2024, this Parliament overwhelmingly passed a landmark Motion on advancing mental health. This House recognised the importance of mental health as a health, social and economic issue and called for a whole-of-Singapore effort. This followed the October 2023 launch of the National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy.

The October 2023 report and the February 2024 Motion collectively brought tremendous encouragement to anyone and everyone with interest and concern with mental health and wellness. Persons in recovery, caregivers, mental health professionals and service providers – all found comfort, fresh hope and renewed expectations.

When I first read this proposed Law Enforcement and Other Matters Bill – specifically in the reference to mental health and also read the resulting media comment, I was alarmed and concerned. Why the need to make the change now just as we are building a national collective toward enhanced mental health support?

Plugging gaps in the law is the task of the Government. This Bill is wide-ranging and mental health is just one of many proposed amendments. I have no issue with the other amendments proposed in the Bill.

Could this amendment relating to mental health have been introduced at another time? This would enable the many follow-up aspects from the October 2023 Ministry of Health (MOH) strategy plan and the February 2024 Parliamentary Motion to settle in and gain traction.

Would we not be a better prepared community having given this bit more time? Can we still consider deferring this if we are truly trying to send a positive signal of hope for persons coping with mental health issues, especially while we are doing all we can to encourage more to come forward and seek help early and while we continue to fight the stigma associated with mental health?

This House is likely to be aware of several articles that have since been written about the Bill. Most of these articles expressed varying degrees of concerns on the proposed amendments and have been written by persons in recovery, by caregivers and by mental healthcare professionals.

Let me start with the article from Ms Chan Li Shan entitled, "I object: mental illness is not a crime". Ms Chan is a patient advocate, an author and a person with lived experience. I met Ms Chan some years back and heard her story of recovery. In Singapore, we do not have many individuals like Ms Chan Li Shan, who have documented their journeys of recovery. I have also heard mental health professionals expressing the need for more persons in recovery to write of their experiences so we can better understand this from the perspective of one receiving treatment and care, understand the challenges, appreciate their feelings and emotions and recognise that just like everyone else, persons in recovery are fellow human beings who have views, who can feel hurt and rejection and can appreciate care and affection.

Today, mental health care at the patient level has improved. Individuals, such as Ms Chan, have shared about the pain and trauma in the use of restraints in hospitals. In her article she voices the issue of real risk of trauma on individuals in recovery if the law is not applied in the way it may be intended. She concludes with these words, "Mental illness is not a crime and our laws should not be constructed to make it so. I object."

Ms Sabrina Ooi, CEO of Calm Collective Asia, also shared her experience on the trauma of getting arrested. She calls on us to find compassion to look beyond the surface and to broaden our perspective on what it means to keep our society safe from the mentally disordered.

Dr Jonathan Kuek, clinical mental health researcher, raised the concern on the thresholds for apprehension. Under the proposed new law, as long as the danger to human life or personal safety is reasonably likely to occur, police officers will be allowed to take someone into custody before any actual harm is caused. The danger need not be imminent.

Mr Speaker, Sir, could the hon Minister kindly clarify how the law enforcement officers will make this judgement call. Can the hon Minister give reasonable assurance to persons in recovery and their caregivers and families, that degrees of unusual or undesirable behaviour can be sufficiently calibrated before apprehension is deemed necessary?

Ms Porsche Poh, Executive Director of Silver Ribbon, wrote on ensuring that police are competent in managing mental health crises.

Mr Speaker, Sir, most of those who wrote in expressing concerns about this new law agreed that we have excellent law enforcement officers. The concerns are not questioning the integrity and existing capabilities. Many give credit for the thoughtful and professional way our law enforcement officers execute their roles.

I sought the views of Mr Nicholas Lee, Executive Director of Resilience Collective, a mental health charity powered by peers for peers. Peers are persons in recovery and persons with lived experience.

Mr Lee shared this with me, "When I first heard the news of enhancing our police officers' powers when making arrests of people with mental health conditions, I immediately felt there would be a reintroduction of stigma on mental health. 'Why would normal powers not be enough? Are people with mental health conditions violent?'. These potentially new perceptions are not healthy for us as we have been slowly chipping away at this huge, seemingly insurmountable, boulder called stigma."

I have read briefly that law enforcement agencies would send officers for training. While I applaud this, I am concerned how thorough this training would be. I say this because each person is different and triggers may take very different forms. As a person being subject to such an arrest, one must always remember that emotions will be at play and whether or not I can control my emotions.

The law, I agree, is meant for good. But perhaps, what is needed is a joint effort to develop these methods so that both officers and persons with mental health conditions are protected. A group with representation from all – from the Police, psychiatrists, mental health professionals and persons with mental health conditions – so that no one is left behind or not considered.

Ms Anthea Ong, former Nominated Member of Parliament; Ms Cassandra Chia, President of the Disabled People's Association; and Dr Rayner Tan from the Saw Swee Hock School of Public Health penned an article entitled, "When someone has a mental health crisis, arrest is not the answer". They too speak up for the persons facing mental health issues.

We do have specialised response teams for mental health. Should we therefore scale these up so that as far as possible this will be the first line of response to individuals in mental health crises thus enabling law enforcement officers to focus on their primary duties?

The challenge would be to differentiate the correct response when a call for help or action is received. As with the issue faced by our Accidents and Emergency (A&E) departments as a first port of call for any semblance of a health emergency, so will calls to the police be a likely default position for disruptive behaviour.

I would also like to refer the commentary written by SG Mental Health Matters. Concerns expressed here relate to the significant discretion handed to Police officers. There is also the concern about the potential resultant trauma on persons with mental health conditions.

Dr Jared Ng's commentary, "Expanded police powers don't have to mean 'three steps forward, two steps back' for mental health in Singapore", looks at the differing views and offers this proposal: "Mental health professionals and law enforcement officers have a responsibility to work together to ensure the best possible outcomes. A multi-stakeholder committee could give and gather feedback on operational processes, evaluate intervention strategies to inform policy adjustments. Only then can we ensure both public safety and the compassionate treatment of those in mental health crises. What matters now, is how stakeholders are engaged and collaborate so that Singapore does not detract from the strides made in mental healthcare."

Dr Ng was chief of emergency and crisis care at IMH and therefore a voice with experience. He speaks on the interface between the Police and mental health and cites some collaborative models from the United States, the Nordic countries and Australia.

Several years ago, I was introduced to the value of response teams which included trained peers, or persons with a lived experience, as part of the team. A person with a lived experience may often be better at communicating with another person facing similar challenges. They may be better equipped in helping to de-escalate certain situations. Hence, I would suggest that should a multi-stakeholder committee be considered, we need to include persons with lived experience as mentioned by Mr Lee from Resilience Collective.

With a troubled mind, I consulted psychiatrist Dr Muni Winslow for his advice and guidance.

Since the release of the Second Reading of the Bill, Dr Winslow has received calls of concern from his community. Allow me to share Dr Winslow's views and this is with his permission: "I think the key drawback is that most police knowledge is no better than a layman. It would be helpful if all public-facing police personnel get at least some basic training in identifying symptoms of mental illness – the different types – as it will help them in de-escalating violence, for example, alcoholism and domestic violence and so forth; and identifying signs of dangerousness in folks with mental conditions. Autism spectrum and ADHD folk are considered neurodivergent and more likely to have confrontations with the law as they do not know how to back down, or sometimes, cannot."

With resources available in Singapore, it would be good to see all MHA personnel, within a year if the Bill passes, given some training in assessing the various types of mental health conditions and skills to de-escalate and bring them to a safe place.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to raise the concern I have for families with children with autism. They should continue to be free to enjoy public outings and all forms of suitable recreation as citizens. They may have a teenager, young or older adult with autism and we are all familiar that in some instances meltdowns happen.

Can we get an assurance that nothing in the passing of this Bill will diminish their rights or be disrupted in day-to-day living because a member of the public chooses to seek the intervention of the Police prematurely? In addition, persons with certain other conditions may also find themselves under greater scrutiny just because they exhibit behaviour different from what society perceives as the norm? We must not be seen to have taken three steps forward only to take two steps backwards.

Mr Jeffery Tan, CEO of Mindset Care Limited, a charity established to make a tangible difference to the Singapore mental health community, had this to share with me, "To borrow the phrase from Professor Tommy Koh, as a 'loving Singaporean critic', we often 'overengineer' solution to situations. In so doing, we have the tendency to inordinately apply more 'head logic' than 'heart logic'. If it is eminently clear that the person is struggling under a mental illness, it begs the question whether arresting the individual will offer any valuable solution to the situation at hand and more importantly, the individual. We do not need more 'head logic', which is arrest and apprehension, in this proposed change. Instead, we need more 'heart logic'. Admittedly, the latter may take more effort, time, and resources – but that is the reflection of an enlightened and matured community and not just one that focuses only on expedience and efficiency. As a maturing society that seeks to more inclusive, there is need for us to have greater tolerance, understanding, compassion and a clear demonstration of heart and not just head. The maintenance of public safety and order is important for the community. This is not denied. But this cannot be at the expense of those in the community that will need our help and support – the weak, the vulnerable, the mentally unwell."

Mr Tan concludes with this question: is it possible that the proposed change in the law is not addressing the real issues that need to be focused on?

If this House passes this Bill, I can see the silver lining should we consider the following.

I see a silver lining in a better equipped law enforcement team, because we will also train them in basic knowledge of mental health conditions. Therefore, could we delay implementation of the new law, if passed, until the Home Team has been equipped?

I see a silver lining because we have seen many from across the mental health sector come forward and speak up. All these voices bring us better understanding as a community, greater public awareness, hopefully, with more care and compassion and understanding and resulting in overall improvement in our support systems. This will lead us closer to normalising mental health and wellness.

I see a sliver lining because we all now know that trauma in recovery is something we must prevent.

I see a silver lining because the elephant in the room can be debated for the benefit of all who continue to suffer in silence.

I see a silver lining as persons in recovery will be given every opportunity and every support to do so at their own pace and with respect.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this House continues to hold the key to better mental health and wellness in our nation. Many concerns have been raised, many questions have been asked. MHA has come forward with at least three clarifications that I am aware of on the proposed new law in response to concerns. The hon Minister has also given some background and clarifications in the introduction of the Bill. I have added some additional specific questions for the hon Minister to kindly address and clarify.

I continue to be unsettled when I think of the possible undesirable consequences of this Bill on individuals in our society. We want a Singapore that is both safe and at the same time inclusive and respectful. I trust the hon Minister will give us the assurances that not just Members in this House need but also to the persons in recovery, their families, their caregivers and the mental health professionals and healthcare staff.

I also acknowledge the Minister will need to give equal assurance to the public and continue to give unwavering support to the excellent work of the Home Team.

Mr Edward Chia.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I will speak on the proposed amendments to the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act and the Police Force Act. They have been a topic of passionate discussion and I wish to convey some concerns and seek clarifications on behalf of those we serve.

As we debate these amendments, we need to ensure that these changes enable our police officers to effectively discharge their duties while providing care and support for individuals struggling with mental health issues, as well as their loved ones and caregivers.

Firstly, with the proposed changes granting additional authority to our officers, I would like to ask the Minister if the existing Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) will be updated to align with the proposed amendments.

I am concerned about the treatment of individuals who have been apprehended. These individuals are often in a vulnerable state, and it is imperative that we treat them with kindness and empathy.  Can the Minister provide clarity on the procedures in place for their rehabilitation and treatment? How do we further improve these processes to ensure better outcomes for these individuals, providing them with the support and care that they need during these difficult times?

Moreover, I would like to inquire about the follow-up mechanisms with psychiatric institutions and social services. Ensuring continuity of care is essential for the holistic well-being of such individuals and their caregivers.

The amendment clarifies that the Police do not have to wait for an "imminent" danger before taking action. However, it is also essential to understand the limits of what constitutes "reasonable" to prevent overreach. The term "reasonable" is subjective and can vary from one situation to another. On the other hand, any ambiguity could force officers to hastily assess individuals' mental health, placing an unfair burden on them. Our officers must be adequately trained and supported to help them navigate these complex scenarios with compassion and discernment.

Secondly, we should also extend our care to individuals with mental health conditions who come into police custody. Training our officers in active listening and de-escalation techniques can enable them to interact with individuals experiencing mental health crises with greater empathy. For instance, an officer equipped with these skills can more effectively assist someone having a panic attack in public, using non-threatening body language and a gentle tone to offer support and guide the individual to appropriate help.

In other jurisdictions, there is a growing understanding of the importance of collaboration between law enforcement agencies and mental health professionals. These collaborative approaches between the two entities seek to integrate mental health expertise into police responses, prioritise the well-being of individuals in crisis, and reduce reliance on punitive measures. Advancing community mental health support will also mean increased support for Police Officers and downstream care for individuals.

A more collaborative approach between law enforcement and mental health professionals is essential to prioritise the well-being of individuals in crisis. Specialised Crisis Intervention Team (CIT) programmes, like those in some jurisdictions, train officers to de-escalate mental health crises and connect individuals with services than resorting to arrest or apprehension. Research shows CIT improves officer attitudes and reduces injuries during crisis calls. Some Australian states employ unified teams of police and mental health professionals for specialised crisis responses. I am sure that the Ministry has considered some of the models for adaptation in our context and considered the challenges.

In addressing these challenges, enhancing upstream structural interactions between community mental health teams and Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs) is crucial for better coordination of responses and support. Currently, Singapore boasts over 70 Community Resource, Engagement and Support Teams (CREST) spread across various regions. I would like to ask the Minister for a status update on any current collaborative efforts between CREST teams and NPC teams. Furthermore, is the Ministry exploring models for fostering deeper collaboration in this regard?

Third, our front-line police officers, including younger National Servicemen, are often the first responders to incidents involving individuals in mental health crises. Witnessing such situations can take a significant emotional toll on them.

The Police Psychological Services Department (PPSD) offers a multi-faceted approach for officers. Dedicated para counsellors are present in all Police units and departments, while PPSD psychologists and Home Team psychiatrists offer professional in-house counselling. This is a good start. In line with these amendments, what more can we do to ensure our front-line officers’ mental health is taken care of?

Lastly, the decriminalisation of suicide was a significant legislative reform aimed at recognising mental health issues as medical concerns rather than criminal acts. I have received feedback expressing concerns about how this amendment aligns with the decriminalisation of suicide. Can the Ministry confirm whether the amendment grants powers to the Police to intervene when someone attempts to self-harm, with the assurance that the individual is unlikely to face charges but will instead receive mental health support?

In conclusion, Sir, as we discuss these amendments, let us ensure that our approach is rooted in empathy, care and collaboration to effectively support both individuals in crisis and those who serve in our front lines. Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Assoc Prof Razwana Begum Abdul Rahim.

Mr Speaker, I stand in support of the Law Enforcement and Other Matters Bill.

This Bill suggests several important legislative changes. Notably, the Bill strives to enhance our nation's ability to combat scams, strengthen the effectiveness of Home Team operations, and ensure the seamless functioning of Yellow Ribbon Singapore.

Mr Speaker, to achieve the goals outlined in this Bill, several pieces of legislation will need to be amended. While I acknowledge the objectives and benefits of these amendments, I have some clarifications and suggestions that I will now discuss.

Before I do so, I would like to declare my current role as the Head of the Public Safety and Security Programme at Singapore University of Social Sciences and have previously worked as a Probation Officer for the Ministry of Social and Family Development.

Mr Speaker, my first comments relate to the proposed amendments to the Miscellenaous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act 1906. The proposed changes are timely and necessary.

They are designed to bolster our defence against fraudulent activities and provide our law enforcement agencies with more robust mechanisms to tackle this evolving threat. By doing so, we are not only safeguarding the financial well-being of our citizens but also upholding the integrity of our nation's economy.

Mr Speaker, one significant concern that we must address is the ongoing threat of phishing. This malicious practice, where cybercriminals pose as legitimate entities, is a growing risk that threatens the operation of many organisations in Singapore.

An important question that we must ask ourselves is, how do we equip our employees to recognise and avoid such at? One potential answer lies in real-life simulations that mimic phishing scenarios. By providing employees with these scenarios, we enable them to understand the tactics of cybercriminals and equip them with the necessary skills to identify and avoid phishing attempts.

Mr Speaker, in adopting this approach, we need to find a balance and ensure that these simulations are realistic enough to enhance their learning. The quality of the training materials and the competence of the trainers play a vital role in the effectiveness of this experiential training.

Accordingly: would the Ministry consider encouraging individuals or organisations undertaking training exercises on phishing to use the Playbook for the Conduct of Phishing Simulation Exercises, as published by the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore?

I will now turn my attention to the proposed amendments outlined in section 14D, which would exempt responsibility for transmitting a message that is false or fabricated for the legitimate purpose of raising public awareness.

This amendment has significant implications. On one hand, it could aid in spreading awareness about phishing and other cyber threats. On the other hand, it could potentially be misused by individuals with malicious intent.

Mr Speaker, false messages erode trust and can lead to scepticism even towards genuine cybersecurity warnings and advice. Given the potential for bad actors to exploit this exemption: what strategies are in place to minimise the risk of individuals being misled or confused by genuine cybersecurity warnings and advice?

Next, I welcome the introduction of Part 6A. These rules are indeed a significant step towards deterring the misuse of local SIM cards and I commend the Ministry for their proactive approach in addressing this issue.

I appreciate the safeguard in place as these offences are not used against those who are genuinely unaware of the unlawful act or those who are tricked into registration. This shows the Ministry's commitment to fairness and justice, and this is an important measure in protecting those who are manipulated into acquiring a SIM card or those who may not be aware that their action is illegal in Singapore.

Mr Speaker, the latest data on SIM card misuse paints a worrying picture, yet with the introduction of these amendments we will have an additional tool to combat this issue.

It is, however, important that we continue to monitor the situation closely and make necessary adjustments to ensure that this rule remains effective in preventing scams.

Just last month, The Straits Times reported, and I quote: "More than 300 people are being investigated for their involvement in more than 1,000 scam cases in which victims lost over $11 million".

On that note, I would like to clarify: what resources, including training, are being provided to the Anti-Scam Command (ASCom) to strengthen their expertise and capabilities? And what resources, including training, are being provided to general Home Team officers to increase their capacity to recognise, investigate and prosecute scams?

Additionally, with regards to section 39H, how does the Ministry work with telecommunication organisations and enforcement agencies outside of Singapore to prevent, investigate and prosecute scams?

Mr Speaker, my final consideration on this aspect of the amendment is related to the new section 40A on offences by corporations, and section 40B on offences by unincorporated associations or partnerships. I welcome these amendments, noting the high likelihood of bad actors using corporations and associations as a façade to conduct unlawful and criminal activities. On that note, I would like to clarify: what legislative provisions exist to hold individuals personally liable for scams perpetrated by individuals or entities for whom they are administratively or legally responsible?

Mr Speaker, my next point is related to expansion of police power that aims to enhance the efficacy of Home Team operations. Our Police force and law enforcement agencies work tirelessly to ensure the safety and security of our nation and its people. However, to effectively carry out their duties, they require legislative support that is responsive to the evolving nature of security challenges.

The proposed amendments will provide our Home Team with the necessary legal framework to optimise their operations, streamline processes and enhance coordination between various agencies. This will undoubtedly result in a more efficient and cohesive approach towards maintaining law and order, as well as responding swiftly to emerging threats.

Mr Speaker, the concept of "law and order" is fundamental in our society, representing a holistic approach to preserving peace, stability, and justice. Being efficient is one pillar of law and order. The other pillar is transparency and legitimacy.

Mr Speaker, the proposed amendments to section 13 of the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act 2008 provide the police with the authority to apprehend those who are reasonably suspected of having a mental disorder and pose a potential risk to themselves or others, even if there is no imminent danger.

While I recognise the importance of this measure in protecting the public, it is essential to consider the potential drawbacks. Police are not mental health professionals and their interactions with individuals experiencing mental health crises can be complex and challenging. The use of this power must be balanced with the need to respect individual rights and dignity.

There are several arguments against police apprehending mentally ill individuals. Firstly, it may lead to an over-reactive approach, where individuals are apprehended based on their mental health status rather than their behaviour. Secondly, it could potentially criminalise mental illness, which is a stigma we should strive to avoid.

However, as highlighted by the Minister earlier, the purpose of section 13 is to authorise the detention of people living with mental illness to prevent harm that these individuals may inflict on others or themselves. In other words, to prevent a criminal act and to provide for their treatment and care.

Mr Speaker, it is crucial to provide the Police with comprehensive knowledge and training on how to handle individuals with mental health issues. This includes understanding the signs of a mental health crisis, developing specialised responses and learning how to de-escalate situations effectively.

On that note, I seek clarifications on the following issues.

What training is being provided to Police officers to ensure they understand and comply with the legal requirement that people can only be detained under section 13 as a last resort and only when they pose a danger to themselves or others?

What training is being provided to Police officers to increase their understanding of mental illness and how people living with mental illness may present or behave?

What training is being provided to Police officers to increase their capacity to interact sensitively and appropriately with people living with mental illness?

And what mechanisms are in place to protect the rights of people apprehended under section 13, including their right to independent legal advice?

Mr Speaker, my final comments relate to the proposed amendments to the Police Force Act 2004 relating to the pursuit and prevention of suicide attempts.

The proposed amendments grant Police officers the authority to pursue individuals who have attempted suicide and are failing to stop, to be assisted by police. Furthermore, it permits any person to apprehend such individuals, emphasising the collective responsibility to prevent suicide. I support this change, but it is crucial to examine potential challenges associated with this amendment.

First and foremost, let us acknowledge the significance of this amendment in addressing the pressing issue of suicide prevention. By allowing Police officers to pursue individuals attempting suicide, we enhance our capacity to intervene promptly and provide the necessary support and assistance. Moreover, empowering others to apprehend individuals in distress underscores the importance of community involvement in suicide prevention efforts. This collective responsibility emphasises that every individual has a role to play in safeguarding the well-being of others.

It is, however, important that we approach the matter with sensitivity and understanding. Suicidal ideation is a complex and deeply personal struggle, often stemming from underlying mental health issues and emotional distress. Therefore, we must ensure that our actions are guided by empathy and compassion – recognising the vulnerability of those experiencing suicidal thoughts.

Moreover, while the intention behind this amendment is to prevent harm and provide support, there is a risk of unintended consequences. Pursuing individuals who have attempted suicide may exacerbate feelings of distress and increase the likelihood of further harm. Therefore, it is imperative to implement safeguards and measures to mitigate these risks and ensure that interventions are conducted with the utmost care and consideration.

To ensure the successful implementation of this amendment, several measures must be put in place. Firstly, recognised comprehensive training programmes should be provided to law enforcement officers and citizens alike, equipping them with the knowledge and skills necessary to handle situations involving individuals at risk of suicide. Additionally, protocols should be established to guide the appropriate response and intervention, taking into account the mental health and well-being of the individual in distress.

Furthermore, efforts should be made to enhance mental health support services and resources, ensuring that individuals in crisis have access to the help they need. This includes increasing awareness of available support networks and promoting destigmatisation of mental health issues within our society.

I would also like to take this opportunity to share an initiative rolled out in Australia called Police, Ambulance and Clinician Early Response (PACER). This is a collaborative effort with the Australian Capital Territory (ACT) Ambulance Service and Canberra Health Services to enhance mental health crisis response. PACER offers a more comprehensive approach by deploying a team consisting of a paramedic, clinician and police officer, to address the needs of the most vulnerable mental health patients.

On that note, I would like to clarify: would the Ministry consider such partnerships and inter-agency cooperation to ensure positive outcomes for individuals with mental illness or disorder? Would the Ministry consider recruiting suitably qualified volunteers, including those with qualifications in psychology, counselling and social work, to enhance the provision of support to people living with mental illness?

Mr Speaker, while there are concerns about the potential misuse of clause 13, with the right training, resources and initiatives, we can strengthen the Police's powers to apprehend mentally ill individuals, ensuring both public safety and the respect for individual rights.

Mr Speaker, these amendments represent a significant step forward, too, in our collective efforts to prevent suicide and protect the well-being of individuals in distress. However, as we move forward, let us remember the importance of approaching this issue with empathy, understanding and sensitivity. Together, we can create a society where every individual feels supported, valued and empowered to seek help when they need it most.

Before I conclude, I would like to share some words from Deputy Prime Minister Wong’s Motion on Advancing Mental Health on 7 February 2024, “We need to do more to destigmatise mental health conditions, so that people do not hesitate to seek help. Stigma reduces a complex and difficult problem into unhelpful labels or stereotypes. It opens people struggling with mental health to discrimination, such as in the job market. It may cause them to be socially ostracised. It makes them feel ashamed, isolated and stops them from seeking treatment.”

Mr Speaker, clarifications notwithstanding, I support the Bill.

Dr Wan Rizal.

Mr Speaker, in my speech today, I will cover the mental health aspect of the Bill. Although it represents a small segment of the Bill, it has drawn much attention within the mental health community. I would like to thank the Minister for mentioning and reiterating and assuring that mental health is a national priority and the amendments in this Bill aim to uphold that spirit.

As we navigate the complexities of mental health and the pivotal role of law enforcement in our community, it is imperative to recognise the delicate balance required in addressing such sensitive issues.

My experience as a Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) officer handling suicide calls has significantly influenced my perspective for today. I recall the urgency and the critical decisions that need to be made in split seconds, because lives are at stake. These experiences have taught me an invaluable lesson. Behind every call is a human being in need, a family in despair and a family waiting for an officer's safe return.

With this understanding, I approach the amendments proposed in the Bill, striving to highlight the balance that protects all that are involved; those experiencing the crisis and the officers responding with the hope of making a positive impact.

The amendments proposed under the Bill seek to refine and clarify law enforcement's powers when responding to individuals experiencing mental health crises. This initiative underscores our commitment to enhancing public safety while preserving the dignity and well-being of those in vulnerable states. Importantly, these changes aim to provide officers with a clear guideline, enabling them to act decisively and compassionately in situations where individuals may pose a risk to themselves or others. Therefore, the potential risk of harm, rather than imminence, can be the basis for intervention.

Last week, I had a dialogue with mental health advocates, including Total Wellness Initiative, Calm Collective, Silver Ribbon Society, Singapore Association for Mental Health, Mental Act and even PERGAS, where they raised concerns and sought to understand the Bill better. There is an apprehension that, without careful implementation, these amendments could inadvertently contribute to the stigma surrounding mental health or lead to discrimination.

This fear is not unfounded; that in our pursuit of safety, it is possible that we may overlook the necessity for understanding and respect towards those experiencing mental health issues. They highlighted stories and studies pointing to the potential for increased anxiety and trauma stemming from such interventions or interactions, advocating for response mechanisms that are not only effective but also empathetic and respectful.

To that end, I would like to ask how are our Police officers equipped with mental health awareness and knowledge and de-escalation training to use these expanded powers appropriately, with empathy and understanding? Would the Ministry consider periodically reviewing apprehension processes with inputs from mental health experts or even the new Mental Health Office? With the new tier system, we could have a different approach to addressing apprehension processes.

Sir, as the dialogue progresses, one pertinent point emerged.

There is a misunderstanding between apprehension and arrest – apprehension and arrest – and understanding the scope of the proposed amendments. For example, some thought the proposed amendments would give Police officers the power to search and restrain apprehended subjects, similar to when arresting criminal suspects. Also, there is a misunderstanding that the amendments will impact the decriminalisation of suicides or impact the Mental Health (Care and Treatment) Act and change the approach or processes that the Police may take in apprehending a person with a mental health condition.

The consensus from the dialogue is that, such misunderstandings must be clarified and communicated clearly and the public must be aware of them, too, as the spread of such misunderstandings can be detrimental in our efforts to destigmatise mental health.

Therefore, I am glad that the Minister elaborated in her Reading earlier and gave clear examples of how we aim to solve these problems.

Sir, in conclusion, my aim today is very clear. I would like to offer a balanced approach that supports our Police force while addressing the community's concerns and misunderstandings, or rather, misinformation, that is being shared.

Our Police force plays a critical role in ensuring the safety and security of our community, a duty that extends into the complex realm of mental health and it is not easy. The proposed amendments are about striking a balance; ensuring that our officers have the clarity and guidance they need to make compassionate decisions in the heat of the moment, which could save lives as well.

And on that point, I also note that there are proposals about having a team to go along with the Police officers and my experience tells me that sometimes we do not have the luxury of time. It could take seconds or minutes or even hours and that is when a team could be possible. But usually, the decisions need to be made in a split second and I do not envy the challenges that our Police officers and other Home Team officers face.

Notwithstanding the concerns I shared, and the clarifications sought to quell misunderstandings, or rather, misinformation, that is being shared, I support the amendments to the Bill.

Mr Louis Ng.

Sir, this Bill will strengthen our ability to tackle scams, make Home Team operations more efficient and facilitate Yellow Ribbon Singapore's operations.

I have three points for clarification.

My first point is on the handling of attempted suicide cases. The new section 26AA sets out the manner of apprehension in attempted suicide cases. Under this section, the Police may apprehend a person who is reasonably suspected to be about to attempt to commit suicide. The media has reported on how the Police is working with the IMH crisis response team for cases where there are signs of attempted suicide by calling a dedicated IMH hotline to conduct a suicide risk assessment. The Police also has a Crisis Negotiation Unit to handle attempted suicide cases.

Can the Minister share the Police's process for dealing with an attempted suicide case, including the involvement of the IMH crisis response team and the Crisis Negotiation Unit? At what point will the Police apprehend a person reasonably suspected to be about to commit suicide? What training is provided to officers to handle attempted suicide cases and to apprehend a person involved in an attempted suicide case?

Under the section 26AA(5), every person is bound to help an authorised Police officer in apprehending a person, the Police officer is authorised to apprehend. Can the Minister elaborate on the nature of this obligation imposed on a person “bound to help”? What are the consequences if the person “bound to help” refuses to provide help? Is a layperson expected to know of their obligation to help and, if so, what steps will be taken to communicate to laypersons that they are obliged to help? Lastly, can Minister also explain, practically speaking, how a person requested to help should determine whether the Police is authorised or not to apprehend a person?

Next, my second point is on the apprehension of mentally disordered persons. The Bill introduces amendments to allow the Police to apprehend a mentally disordered person, when there is a reasonable likelihood of danger to human life or personal safety posed by the person. The danger does not have to be imminent and actual harm does not have to be caused.

Some have raised concerns that we may be over-reliant on the Police in cases of mental health crisis. One alternative that has been raised is that mental health professionals should lead the emergency response in such cases, where possible.

This is already done in several cities. In the city of Eugene, Oregon, crisis counsellors from a community programme called Crisis Assistance Helping Out On The Streets or CAHOOTS, receive hundreds of hours of training and send responders to 3% to 8% of police calls.

Can the Minister share if Police officers responding to cases of mental health crisis could be accompanied, where possible, by a mental health professional or someone with specialist training? For instance, we have Victim Care Officers who are specially trained to work with the Police to support victims of crime. Would it be possible to similarly train specialist community-first responders to support the Police in responding to cases involving individuals with mental health conditions?

As for the Police officers, I understand that they are trained to handle persons with mental health conditions. That said, the Bill now requires a Police officer to assess if there is sufficient basis for the reasonable suspicion that a conduct is attributable to a mental disorder before apprehending a person. This is a different skillset from handling a person with mental health conditions. Can the Minister share what training will be provided to Police officers to assess whether the threat of physical harm is attributable to a mental disorder?

The Ministry explained in a press release that a person may be traced in Police's records to have a history of mental disorder. Can the Minister share what other records are available to the Police in determining whether the threat of physical harm is attributable to a mental disorder? For example, does the Police have access to records maintained by IMH or other medical institutions?

Further, can the Minister share what steps will be taken after the individual has been apprehended? For example, will the person be referred for immediate treatment for the mental disorder? If so, are the medical institutions ready for the potential increase in these referrals? Is there a possibility of the person being released back into the community instead of being referred for immediate treatment? If so, how will the Police assess whether the person is suitable for release back into the community?

My third and final point is on the new SIM-card related offences. The Bill introduces new SIM card-related offences. These offences target irresponsible or fraudulent registration, transfer and possession of SIM cards.

I appreciate that the new offences target a set of conduct that is facilitating the growing social problem of scams. However, the ways of using technology for wrongdoings are constantly evolving. Constantly introducing new offences in order to tackle specific methods and technologies if unchecked may lead to an extensive, fragmented and unwieldy set of criminal laws. This may be difficult for the layperson to keep track of and understand.

Just last year, we amended the Computer Misuse Act and the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act to introduce new offences involving the use of Singpass credentials.

Existing Penal Code provisions on abetment or conspiracy may potentially be broad enough to cover some of the new SIM-card related offences. For instance, the Bill introduces new offences of providing a person's personal information to register a SIM card that the person knows will be used to commit an offence. Such conduct may potentially be covered under the existing provisions for abetment or conspiracy.

Can the Minister share the rationale for introducing new offences instead of relying on existing provisions for abetment and conspiracy offences? Are the new provisions intended to address gaps in our laws where individuals could not be prosecuted because our laws were not precise enough to tackle that form of wrongdoing? My concern is that we end up with a proliferation of laws which become too complicated to understand. Sir, notwithstanding these clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Minister Josephine Teo.

Mr Speaker, I thank Members for their support of the Bill. They raised many relevant questions which I will try my best to respond to.

First, those on the new SIM card offences. Mr Louis Ng asked why MHA is introducing new offences, instead of relying on existing laws.

The limitation of the current law is that for irresponsible subscribers and middlemen who deal in local SIM cards, we would need to prove that they had intended to abet an offence. But proving intent is incredibly difficult and often impossible.

Take the example I mentioned in my opening speech, where a middleman purchased over 1,000 prepaid SIM cards that were fraudulently registered and sent them to persons in Malaysia who used them for scams. When he was questioned, he claimed that he merely dealt with the SIM cards and did not know that the receiving parties were scammers or that they would use the SIM cards to commit scams. It might indeed be that he did not know, because he did not care to know who bought the SIM cards from him and what they would do with it. It is equally difficult to prove criminal conspiracy.

The new laws address this gap. With the new offences, we will deem irresponsible subscribers and middlemen liable for an offence, without needing to prove criminal intent or knowledge, in certain scenarios. These include, among others, registering for a SIM card and selling it for gain; possessing a large number of unregistered SIM cards for no legitimate reason; and buying or selling SIM cards registered in another person's particulars.

There is no good reason for such acts, because there are legitimate ways to buy and sell SIM cards. But clearly, there is value to avoid such options and we should not accept them being passed off as legitimate economic activities, when, in fact, they are used to cause harms.

As for errant retailers, there is no specific offence under today's laws for fraudulent registration. While the Police may use other laws to prosecute such retailers, such as offences under the Penal Code or Computer Misuse Act, circumstances of each case may not allow us to proceed. As a result, under today's regime, most errant retailers simply lose their contract with the mobile service provider, effectively getting away scot-free with the profits they had made from the fraudulent registrations.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Louis Chua raised concerns about people who exploit elderly persons to obtain SIM cards. In the example given by Mr Yip, where an elderly person's particulars are misused by family members or caregivers to register for SIM cards. The elderly person would not be liable for an offence, if we find that he had no reasonable grounds to believe that his particulars would be used to register for SIM cards.

The Police recognise that there are indeed situations where the elderly might have been tricked into sharing their particulars. The Police will investigate such cases comprehensively and consider any credible evidence that the elderly person was unaware about how his particulars would be used. The Attorney-General's Chambers will also carefully consider each case on its own facts and circumstances and will only pursue prosecution if there is public interest to do so.

On the other hand, the individual who had misused the elderly person's particulars could be liable for an offence of supplying or selling the SIM cards registered in another person's particulars. In addition, if the individual had pretended to be the elderly person and had used his particulars to sign up for a SIM card without his permission, the individual could also be liable for an offence of cheating by personation under section 416 of the Penal Code.

Mr Yip Hon Weng and Mr Louis Chua asked if there are plans to educate the elderly population about the misuse of their particulars for SIM card registrations. Mr Louis Ng shared his concern about the proliferation of laws which are too complicated to understand.

Sir, we are one of the few jurisdictions that have been able to pass new laws to act against scammers. It is something that a lot of my colleagues in law enforcement wish they could do in their systems. But it has been very difficult for them. It would indeed be better and we agree with Mr Louis Ng, if we could streamline these laws. But at this point in time, this is not a luxury we can afford when scam tactics are still evolving so quickly and Police resources are so stretched. This is a trade-off Parliament must consider, whether to prioritise the streamlining of laws or quickly putting in place levers to act against the scammers. If we asked victims, their answer would be clear. I believe we should, in Parliament, similarly accept this trade-off for now.

In any case, to allow members of the public to familiarise themselves with the new offences, we intend for the offences to come into force approximately six months after the Bill is passed. During these six months, we will step up public education efforts to raise awareness of the new offences, red flags that the public ought to be wary about and measures they can adopt to prevent the misuse of their SIM cards and particulars. We will also work with mobile service providers to educate retailers about the new offences and emphasise the penalties that they will face should they be convicted of fraudulent registration.

For the offences of receiving, supplying or possessing SIM cards, Mr Desmond Choo asked how we decided on the threshold of 11 or more SIM cards. Sir, there is no magic formula.

The Police have observed cases of scammers possessing as few as 15 to 20 local SIM cards to send tens of thousands of scam SMSes. Setting a low threshold is therefore important for deterrence from hoarding local SIM cards.

However, we have also tried to ensure that most law-abiding people are not affected. Based on a 2022 poll of all mobile service providers, only about 2,000 subscribers, or less than 0.1% of all subscribers, used their own particulars to register for more than 10 postpaid SIM cards with a single mobile service provider. A typical person is therefore very unlikely to be holding on to more than 10 SIM cards which are registered in his own name and should not even be in possession of cards not registered in his own name. In other words, this amendment is not a concern for legitimate subscribers, even if they have more than 10 cards, as they will not be involved in crime.

Mr Desmond Choo suggested imposing minimum fines and imprisonment terms, as well as pegging fines for retailers to a proportion of their annual revenue.

We assess that the proposed penalties are adequate for now. We do not intend to impose a minimum penalty, so as to give the Courts more flexibility to decide on the appropriate punishment based on the severity of the case. While fines might be a mere slap on the wrists for large retailers, the possibility of an imprisonment term of up to three years should act as a sufficiently strong deterrent.

Assoc Prof Razwana and Mr Louis Chua asked about the legislative provisions to hold key officers and senior management liable for offences committed by entities.

Under the new sections 40A and 40B in the MOA, key officers and senior management who were involved in committing the offence can be held liable. These include officers who were involved in making the executive decision to commit the offence, as well as those who failed to take reasonable steps to prevent an offence that they knew was going to be committed.

Members also gave suggestions on preventing the abuse of local SIM cards.

Mr Louis Chua asked if mobile service providers might also be liable if they are appointed to retailers, conduct fraudulent registrations. Under the new laws, mobile service providers will be liable for an offence, if they were directly involved conducting or facilitating the fraudulent registrations. In addition, we can also take regulatory action against mobile service providers, if we find that they fail to ensure their appointed retailers comply with IMDA's requirements on SIM card registrations.

Mr Desmond Choo asked how we are working with online platforms, such as Telegram. The Police have been working with online platforms to take down accounts involved in scams and other crimes. However, under today's laws, it is not a crime to go online to buy and sell local SIM cards second-hand. This means that there are actually no legal grounds to request the platforms to take down accounts involved in such sales of SIM cards. Once the new offences come into force and the second-hand sale of local SIM cards becomes illegal, we will consider issuing directions under the Online Criminal Harms Act to the platforms to require them to restrict access to accounts involved.

Mr Choo suggested simplifying and standardising the process for a person to authorise another person to register for SIM cards on his behalf. To clarify, IMDA only allows persons to register for SIM cards under their own names, using their own particulars. To ensure this, retailers are required to check the identity of the subscriber during the registration process. Mobile service providers may be in breach of their regulatory obligations, should their appointed retailers fail to conduct such checks. If a person wishes to register SIM cards for his family members, he can do so using his own particulars.

Mr Yip suggested creating an avenue to allow retailers to report suspicious activity conveniently and anonymously. Such avenues already exist. Retailers can file a Police report, which can be done online conveniently using Singpass. They can also submit information through the I-Witness online portal, which can be done anonymously.

Assoc Prof Razwana asked about training and other resources given to Home Team officers, including Anti-Scam Command officers, to recognise, investigate and prosecute scams. To clarify, the key difficulty we face today is with prosecuting scammers, and the people who help them, including SIM card mules. Today’s amendments will help our police officers successfully take to task the SIM card mules that they arrest.

Assoc Prof Razwana also asked how we could work with the telcos to prevent scams. These have been shared earlier in my opening speech, so I suggest not to belabour the point.

Assoc Prof Razwana and Mr Yip asked if we would work with foreign law enforcement agencies to take down scammers operating overseas. The Police have been working with our overseas counterparts, such as the Royal Malaysia Police and INTERPOL, to exchange information and conduct joint operations. This has led to the successful take-down of 19 overseas scam syndicates in 2023. The new SIM card offences will also give the Police more grounds to work with foreign law enforcement agencies to arrest and investigate overseas scammers.

In relation to the proposed amendment to section 14D of the MOA, Assoc Prof Razwana asked if the Ministry would consider encouraging entities to undertake simulated phishing exercises using the Cyber Security Agency's (CSA’s) recently published Playbook for the Conduct of Phishing Simulation Exercises. The short answer is yes. As I earlier noted, such exercises are useful tools for organisations to be better prepared against cybersecurity incidents.

Assoc Prof Razwana asked what strategies are in place to prevent people from being misled by genuine cybersecurity warnings and advice. To clarify, genuine cybersecurity warnings and advice do not fall within the scope of section 14D as they are not false or fabricated messages.

If her concern is that bad actors could take advantage of the proposed exception to section 14D, let me assure her that we have designed the exception carefully. It is not enough for someone to simply claim that they have a legitimate purpose in sending the false message – there is an objective standard that must be met. Furthermore, malicious actors who seek to exploit this exception, for example, by masquerading as public authorities, will be caught under the existing Penal Code offences like cheating by personation.

I will now deal with the questions and suggestions on the handling of cases involving persons with mental health conditions.

I hear all the Members and your concerns, and it is important to reiterate that this Government is fully committed to advancing mental health. We recognise that persons with mental health conditions are part of our society and we should do our best to help them. Our National Mental Health and Well-being Strategy outlines the whole-of-society approach that we are taking to address this important issue and there are many components of them.

Members were concerned about social stigma that mental health patients may face and the appropriate care, which we fully understand and agree with. In fact, we are actively working towards destigmatising mental health conditions, so that people do not hesitate to seek help. Please be assured that Police does not seek to put more burdens on such persons or their families.

As I explained at the start of the debate, Police will not get involved unless called to prevent harm from happening. And the idea that section 7 of the MHCTA is being used for mental health management is entirely mistaken, as I have explained earlier and reiterate again. I would also urge Members to help clarify this mischaracterisation and put the minds of the mental health patients themselves and their families at ease, as Dr Wan Rizal has helpfully sought to do through his engagements with the community. In reality, as pointed out so well by Dr Syed Harun, the vast majority of individuals with mental illness would not fulfil the threshold set out in this Bill for apprehension by the Police and, rightly so. In fact, without being told or having been told previously, Police will have no idea who these patients are.

In the circumstances that warrant Police's intervention, Police are well aware and minded to calibrate their responses, and let medical professionals take over as soon as practicable. That is the overriding priority of the Police if they are called to a scene and they make the assessment that most likely this person would be best served by having medical attention.

When an individual has been apprehended under the MHCTA, they will be brought to a medical practitioner for assessment. That is the whole design of section 7 and the rules governing apprehension.

As I have explained earlier too, this is not the same as arrest, where the person will be placed in a lock-up. The amendments we are discussing are in fact to better achieve the objective of letting medical professionals manage persons with mental health issues, as my responses to specific queries will also show.

Mr Ng and Mr Edward Chia asked about the Police’s procedures for responding to cases of attempted suicide. Such cases involve both persons who have, and persons who do not have mental health conditions. When attending to such cases, the key objective of the Police is to ensure the safety of the person and others around him. If there is risk of imminent harm and a stand-off ensues, such as a distressed person standing on a ledge in a high-rise building, the Police’s Crisis Negotiation Unit, comprising Police officers and psychologists, will be activated. They will try to dissuade him from committing suicide.

After the Police have ensured the safety of the various parties, they may apprehend the person under the MHCTA if they assess that the person still poses a danger to himself, or others, and bring him to seek psychiatric treatment. If not, other relevant personnel may then be brought in to attend to the suicidal person and to provide the necessary support. This may include mental health professionals from the IMH Crisis Response Team. To reiterate, apprehension under MHCTA is not a criminal offence for which the person can be prosecuted.

Mr Ng and Mr Chia asked about treatment of individuals who have been apprehended. These individuals will be assessed by the medical practitioners at IMH to determine the likely medical causes for their behaviour. The medical practitioners may recommend further treatment in either inpatient or outpatient settings, or refer the individuals to social service providers to address their social needs where warranted, for example, where there is employment support and financial assistance.

Mr Chia asked about collaboration between the Police and the Community Outreach Teams, also known as CREST teams, which are set up by AIC. Where appropriate, the Police will refer persons with mental health conditions to the CREST teams in the region or to AIC, which will refer the cases to other appropriate mental health service providers. Keeping in mind that some of these individuals may well prefer to maintain their privacy and not have whatever action that they have taken be made known so widely so I think Police is also mindful of that and they will have to decide whether it is appropriate for them to make a referral.

To Ms He's question on whether the Crisis Response Team may be expanded, Police and IMH are already reviewing this suggestion.

Mr Ng, Assoc Prof Razwana, Dr Syed Harun and Mr Chua asked whether Police should be accompanied by mental health professionals or community first responders when responding to cases involving persons with mental health conditions. Firstly, prior to attending to the scene, Police may not be in a position to assess that there is a mental health condition involved in the person being attended to. But in any case, even if the Police have some sense that this was so, for this idea to work, we will need to have sufficient numbers of such professionals on 24/7 standby, and for them to be able to respond immediately with the Police to all cases at all parts of our island. Unfortunately, I think this will be very difficult to accomplish. The practical approach is for the Police, after dealing with the danger, to refer such persons to mental health professionals for treatment or, as we discussed earlier, to other community support organisations.

Mr Choo, Ms He and Mr Ng asked how the Police assess whether the threat of physical harm is attributable to a mental disorder. The role of the Police is not to assess or diagnose mental health conditions or disorders. They are not best placed to do so. Their role is to deal with the threat of harm and protect public safety. This is why the current MHCTA states that a Police officer’s belief that a person is doing or about to do an act which is dangerous to himself is sufficient basis for the officer to suspect that the danger to that person is attributable to a mental disorder and to apprehend the person.

The Police have access to reports of past incidents associated with the person, whether he had sought treatment at IMH then, and other relevant information including medical history from the family members, to aid their assessment. Police officers can also consult mental health professionals at IMH via a dedicated phone line.

The Police regularly update their training, conducted by suitably qualified professionals, to ensure that it remains relevant. This point was reinforced by several Members, and we could not agree more the importance of training. For example, Police officers undergo a mental health awareness course designed by the Agency for Integrated Care which helps the officers identify and respond to persons observed with indications of mental health conditions. Apart from training, officers are also guided by a specific set of internal SOPs, which are regularly updated. To Mr Chua’s questions on amendment and implementation timelines, we will ensure that the amendments and the training provided to police officers will continue to enable them to intervene in a more timely manner while making decisions that underscore respect and empathy for persons with mental health conditions.

Mr Choo and Mr Yip alluded to the need for clarity on when the Police may make an apprehension. Ms He also asked about the time frame police would now apply in the assessment for danger.

The powers of apprehension under the MHCTA have been in place since 2008. The proposed amendments seek to allow the Police to intervene in a more timely manner, when the danger is there, even though it may not be immediately clear that the danger is imminent or when the person may turn violent.

I would like to echo Dr Syed Harun’s point that risk assessment, even for psychiatrists, is not a perfect science. It is not practicable to be too prescriptive. Doing so could bind the Police officers’ hands or prevent them from acting quickly when they should.

Situations on the ground can be dynamic, and they need to be given the latitude to make quick decisions in difficult situations. The safety of the public and family members around such a person, and of the person himself, should be a priority. As Dr Syed Harun puts it, no meaningful medical treatment is possible without first ensuring the safety of the patient and rescuer.

We agree with Mr Yip and Ms He that safeguards are nonetheless important. Let me state categorically that MHA and the Police do not condone officers abusing their powers or acting inappropriately. Police ground response force officers don body-worn cameras which ensure accountability and transparency. Their actions can be audited very easily because it is recorded.

If the officers have breached the law and committed criminal offences, the Police will refer the matter to the Attorney-General's Chamber for criminal prosecution.

If the officers are guilty of misconduct but it is not a criminal offence, the Police will conduct internal investigations and take disciplinary action as necessary. In serious cases, the officers are dismissed.

To Mr Ng's question on resourcing, we do not expect a significant increase in the number of referrals as a result of the amendments because the threshold is still quite high as pointed out previously by Dr Syed Harun. So, it is not a case that you suddenly are going to go out and make apprehensions. So, there is no anticipated increase in resourcing needs.

The Police intervene only when the person poses a danger to himself or others around him. The Police do not get involved in cases involving persons with mental health conditions but who do not pose any danger to himself or others.

Mr Ng and Mr Choo asked about the requirement for the public to assist a Police officer when he is making an apprehension. Such a provision is not new. The Criminal Procedure Code provides the same duty to assist a Police officer or any other person authorised to make an arrest. The intent is for the Police to be able to reasonably call upon members of the public to assist them in preventing individuals with mental health conditions from causing further harm to themselves or others.

To Ms He's question on whether the amendments are in compliance with the CRPD, we can confirm that the MHCTA continues to be in compliance after the amendments.

Sir, I will move on to other queries about the Bill.

Mr Yip asked how the amendment to the Police's obligations for non-arrestable offences apply to neighbour disputes or noise complaints, and whether such cases will be dismissed. The amendment does not affect how the Police respond to such incidents. This is because such incidents, in and of themselves, do not constitute criminal offences. We have explained the Government's view that neighbour disputes and noise complaints should be resolved through a community-based approach, where community partners, Government social or municipal agencies, and grassroots leaders work together to resolve the issues.

Communal issues between neighbours are not and should not be matters for the Police to intervene. The Police's resources should focus on the prevention, deterrence, and detection of crime. They will respond to neighbour disputes and noise complaints only where there are law and order concerns.

Mr Speaker, I hope I have addressed Members' queries. I thank them once again for their support of the Bill. Sir, I beg to move.

Do Members have any clarifications for Minister Teo? Ms He?

I thank the Minister for her reply. I just have one quick clarification. This relates to the High Court judgment in Mah. At paragraph 30 in the High Court judgment, it states that the Attorney-General submits that there is no practical difference between the terms "apprehend" and "arrest", and a person is apprehended under section 7 of the MHCTA when he is compelled to accompany a Police officer to be examined by a medical practitioner.

So, given that the Minister stressed earlier that there is a difference between apprehension and arrest, I would like to understand and seek clarification about the Attorney-General's submissions during the High Court case, and how that squares with what was said earlier.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not familiar with the case that she cited specifically. But what I was trying to get to is that the treatment of a person who is apprehended and a person who is arrested, from the Police's standpoint, is quite clearly different. When a person has been apprehended, the next course of action is to bring them to a medical facility for treatment. When a person is arrested, that next course of action is to bring them to a lock-up where they may then be investigated further. So, I hope that that clarifies things.

If there is a specific question on whether it conflicts with the specific part of the law that Ms He highlighted, with your permission, Sir, may I invite her to file a PQ so that we can deal with it properly. It probably does not impact the way in which the amendments ought to be considered.

Ms He.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I just wanted to seek clarification about the point made about the procedural difference as well between the apprehension and the arrest, which I think the Minister has clarified. Upon apprehension, can I just confirm that the person being apprehended does not actually get taken in a police cell, or into a lock-up, and instead, is directly taken down to seek medical attention?

I said that probably at least three times, but I am happy to confirm again.

Any other clarifications for Minister Teo?

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mrs Josephine Teo].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.

Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.54 pm until 5.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.10 pm.

[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]