The Government is still not seeking to implement a Good Samaritan Law at this stage, said Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam on Monday (2 August.)
In an answer to a written question from Non-constituency Member of Parliament (NCMP) Hazel Poa on whether the Government has updated its position on implementing such a law in Singapore, Mr Shanmugam said that the Government’s position “remains the same, at this time”.
The minister, however, said that the position “will be reviewed as necessary”.
Reasons behind the Government’s stance were fleshed out on multiple occasions in the past in Parliament.
Former People’s Action Party MP Fatimah Lateef in 2008, 2012, and 2014 had sought answers from the Government on whether it will consider implementing a Good Samaritan law in Singapore.
On 29 May 2014, then-Senior Minister of State for Law, Indranee Rajah told Parliament that Singapore’s laws “do not give rise to any major liability concerns” for Good Samaritans.
“In respect of civil liability, our laws only require a person who offers assistance to comply with the standard of care that can be reasonably expected of a person of his skill and experience.
“As for criminal liability, a person is generally liable only if there is an intent to cause harm or injury. Clearly, a Good Samaritan acting in good faith will not fall into this category,” she said.
Ms Indranee also observed that Singaporeans “are not fearful of helping those in need, as can be seen by examples of our citizens stepping forward in emergency situations”.
“There have been no reported cases where persons had refused to come forward out of fear of incurring legal liability. However, should this context change, we will re-examine this issue,” she said.
Assoc Prof Fatimah then sought clarification on what laws could “circumvent the issues” if such situations were to arise, such as when a victim becomes injured in the process of receiving care as a result of the care administered by an untrained or unskilled person.
Ms Indranee replied that Good Samaritan laws serve to compel people to assist persons in an emergency where they generally would not.
“In some jurisdictions, Good Samaritan laws impose duties on bystanders to provide reasonable assistance in emergency situations.
“More typically, however, Good Samaritan laws protect bystanders who volunteer their assistance in emergencies from liability for any wrong-doing following on for such assistance.
“And that, I think, is the scenario which the Member is alluding to, where somebody comes forward to help, but in the course of assisting may actually render further injury to the person,” she said.
Ms Indranee then reiterated that Singapore’s current laws “only requires a person offering assistance to comply with the standard of care reasonably expected of a person with his skill and responsibility”.
“So, let us say you are somebody who has no medical experience and you go forward to help and you are helping in good faith, you are not expected to render the kind of assistance that a doctor or a paramedic would be rendering because that is not the level of care that is expected, or level of expertise that you have,” she said.
Even in comparison to other jurisdictions where Good Samaritan laws are in place, such laws do not render “blanket protection”, as those helping may still be held liable if they are found to be grossly negligent or have acted recklessly.
Similar explanations were given by Mr Shanmugam and then-Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Law, Professor S Jayakumar on 14 February 2012 and 21 January 2008 respectively.
Ministry of Home Affairs seeking to protect police officers from liability in course of duties
Curiously, however, the Government appears to be seeking to protect police officers from similar liability under the Police Force (Amendment) Bill, which was debated on Monday.
The draft legislation contains provisions that will increase the powers of the police force overall, with some of the changes entailing granting police officers the authority to forcibly enter homes to protect people from injury or death, among others.
Under the Bill, the Commissioner of Police will also be given the power to delegate certain powers to civilian officers.
Explaining the rationale behind seeking to “make explicit” the protection of police officers from liability under the proposed Act, Minister of State for Home Affairs Desmond Tan said during the debate on the Bill that such a provision would apply to officers who act in good faith and with reasonable care.
Even so, police officers found to have acted “irresponsibly will still be subjected to disciplinary proceedings or even criminal proceedings”, he said.
The nature of police officers’ work, who have to make split-second decisions in order to save lives despite the risk of injuring those they need to rescue or damaging property, underlies the need to protect police officers under such legislation, said Mr Tan.
A pertinent question that needs to be asked is: Why is protection from liability being sought for paid civil servants, particularly when it is not unreasonable to assume that they have the appropriate level of training in handling high-stakes situations, and not for ordinary folks who are simply trying to assist others in emergencies?
