Shanmugam updates on slow progress of video-recorded interviews in law enforcement, citing resource challenges

In a 13 November parliamentary session, Workers’ Party MP Jamus Lim questioned Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam about the progress of implementing video recording of interviews (VRI) in law enforcement.

The query highlighted the gradual rollout of this technology, initially introduced in 2018 for specific cases and anticipated to expand more broadly across the criminal justice system. Shanmugam responded with an update on VRI’s current use, but the resource-heavy nature of the technology, he said, continues to impede further expansion.

Shanmugam explained that VRI began with rape cases in 2018 and has since been extended to cover a broader range of serious crimes.

“Last year, we updated Parliament that VRI had been expanded to include other offences, such as serious sexual offences like aggravated outrage of modesty and sexual assault by penetration, as well as child abuse, maid abuse and non-capital drug-related offences.”

He also noted that VRI now includes “vulnerable suspects investigated for non-capital cases, specifically for young suspects where there is no Appropriate Adult in attendance, and offenders with mental disabilities.”

Since last year, the ministry further expanded VRI to cover additional serious cases.

“We have expanded VRI further to cover trafficking in persons and more sexual offences, including the sexual penetration of minors, and procurement of sexual activity with a person with mental disability or by deception. We have also completed the expansion of VRI to all non-capital cases involving the vulnerable suspects I mentioned earlier.”

Despite these gains, Shanmugam acknowledged that VRI’s expansion has been slower than anticipated due to the substantial time and resources required to operate it.

“Moving forward, we are carefully studying how we can expand VRI to more cases, including capital cases and interviews with victims or witnesses,” he said.

The minister explained that the process “takes up far more of the investigation officer’s time compared to a written statement” and comes with additional administrative needs, such as ensuring VRI facilities’ functionality and transcribing footage accurately.

Although technological advancements, such as speech-to-text software, could theoretically speed up transcription, Shanmugam pointed out that “it is not yet at the accuracy that avoids the need for time-consuming verification against the interview footage.”

The ministry is exploring whether an in-house transcription capability could facilitate further VRI expansion, he noted.

Shanmugam’s response underscored the ministry’s cautious approach, citing high operational demands despite the government’s capacity for significant investment.

His statements come six years after VRI was approved as part of a sweeping reform in Singapore’s criminal justice system.

At that time, Senior Minister of State for Law Indranee Rajah outlined VRI’s anticipated role in bringing transparency and accountability to law enforcement practices.

In 2018, Indranee informed Parliament that video recordings would “provide an objective account to help the court in deciding on allegations that may be raised about how the interview was conducted.”

According to Indranee, VRI would begin with recording interviews of suspects in certain rape cases and then expand, with the necessary training already provided to police officers to conduct these interviews. The gradual, resource-heavy implementation seen today, however, contrasts with those early statements, which gave Parliament a clear expectation of VRI’s wide and relatively swift adoption.

Six years on, the implementation remains piecemeal.

While operational and administrative requirements may be complex, the government has not yet prioritised a faster rollout.

With no timeline provided, Shanmugam’s statements raise questions about when, if at all, VRI will become a fully integrated standard in Singapore’s law enforcement, especially given its anticipated role in improving transparency and justice system accountability.