CRIMINAL LAW (MISCELLANEOUS AMENDMENTS) BILL

Speech by Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC MP) — Parliament, 13 September

I declare that I am a lawyer in a criminal law practice.

The rationale for some of the key amendments was previously discussed in the House in March, during the Ministerial Statement on the Review of the Sentencing Framework for Sexual and Hurt Offences. Earlier, the Minister in his Second Reading speech reiterated the government’s position as well.

Today I wish to instead raise some reservations about another aspect of the Bill – the changes to the offences involving giving false information to public servants or obstructing them in their duty.

Overall, it appears to me that the changes in the Bill will result in a blurring of the distinctions between different offences, and I am not clear as to why this is necessary or desirable.

Let me explain.

Under Clause 12, the scope of the offence under Section 182 of the Penal Code will be expanded. Section 182 deals with the offence of giving false information, with intent to cause a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person.

According to the Explanatory Note to the Bill, and confirmed by the Minister of State earlier, Section 182 is being amended in the light of the High Court decision this year in PP v Chua Wen Hao [2021] SGHC 70.

In that case, the offender falsely told police that he did not know the identity of a person who had set fire to certain property belonging to a hotel. This denial led the police to spend nearly 22 man-hours on investigations to establish the identity of the culprit.

In giving his judgment in the case, as noted by the MOS earlier, the Chief Justice ruled that Section 182 did not cover a situation where the false information simply led to a public servant being inefficient in exercising its lawful powers to investigate the case.

He ruled that Section 182 was meant to cover situations where the offender intended or knew that the false information would likely lead the public servant to abuse or misuse his powers or to improperly omit to use lawful powers.

Such scenarios would include false statements that lead to a wrongful arrest, or which subject innocent persons to annoyance. The Chief Justice made clear that false information leading to a public servant simply being inefficient in carrying out his lawful duties did not come under Section 182.

While Clause 12 of this Bill is clearly intended to plug that gap, what is notable from Chua’s case is that the offender was not let off scot-free, but was convicted of a simpler offence of furnishing false information to a public servant, under Section 177 of the Penal Code.

That being the case, I wonder why it is necessary to amend Section 182 and, in particular, to add another illustration (d) to capture the situation where false information simply leads to an inefficient use of police resources.

Such conduct is already caught by Section 177. In addition, the sub-heading or marginal note to Section 182 is not being amended, so it will still read: “False information, with intent to cause a public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person”.

This could result in some misunderstanding by the public as to the scope of the section.

It therefore seems to me that there will now be a blurring of the lines between Section 177 and 182, and the rationale for this change is not compelling.

Yet further blurring may be caused by Clause 13, which amends Section 186 of the Penal Code. Section 186 deals with “Obstructing public servant in discharge of his public functions”. Under Clause 13, a new subsection (2) will be added, to state that obstructing a public servant may be caused other than by the use of physical means or threatening language.

A new illustration is introduced, where a group of SCDF paramedics is attending to a case of heart attack in a high-rise block, intending to use the lift to the 30th floor; the paramedics are then told by the offender that the lift is out of order, which is not true, causing them to take the stairs.

This new illustration confirms that Section 186 too will be expanded to cover the giving of false information.

There now appears to be yet another overlap between offences, in that giving false information could come within Section 177, and also within Section 186. How will the police decide which section to charge a person under?

In studying this matter, I note that under Section 177, the offender must have been under a legal duty to give information, whereas under Section 186 the offender need not have been under such a duty. Giving false information to a public servant when one is under a legal duty to give information is arguably more serious than when one is not under such a duty.

This raises the additional question of why the maximum jail term under Section 186 is now being brought to the same level as Section 177, being raised from three months to six months, when there is a difference in culpability.

To that end, the Ministry’s clarifications on the changes being made by Clauses 12 and 13 would be useful for future cases.