Introduction

In a scenario where one is entrusted with property during his work, he may become tempted to use the property for his own gain instead. This is especially true for people working in positions of power, such as a director of a company,¹ a lawyer managing funds for his client,² or a public servant entrusted with taxpayer’s money. This is the behaviour that the offence of Criminal Breach of Trust (CBT) targets. As stated in Lam Leng Hung,³ CBT targets the accused’s betrayal of trust after he has been entrusted with property and he uses the property for his own gain.

The recent spate of individuals in positions of power being arrested for committing CBT have rocked the trust of the public. Between 2017 to 2021, around 18,700 instances of white-collar crimes (such as CBT) occurred with a total subject matter value of around $4.49 billion.⁴ These recent trends serve as a strong reminder of the need for accountability, transparency, and professionalism for those in positions of power. Where the public relies on one’s trade or title as an indicator of trustworthiness and integrity, it is critical for society that these functions are performed honestly.⁵

This article explains the offence of CBT, the policy reasons underlying CBT, and the importance of preventing CBT in the way forward.

1. What is CBT?

CBT is an offence in the Penal Code which is defined in s 405. Breaking down s 405 into its constituent elements, CBT will read as follows:

(a) The accused was entrusted with property or had dominion over the property.
(b) The accused used the entrusted property in violation of a direction of law, or an express or implied contract which prescribed the mode in which such trust was supposed to be discharged, or intentionally causes any other person to do so.
(c) The accused was dishonest in doing the actions described in (b).

s 405 also illustrates certain situations where CBT is committed. For example, the executor of a will who misappropriates the property of the deceased (illustration a), a warehouse owner who temporarily holds onto furniture for his client and sells the furniture (illustration b), or an investment agent who receives money from his client intended for investment and the money was used for the agent’s own purposes (illustration c) would all have committed CBT.

Having outlined the 3 elements of CBT, their legal meaning will be further explained in turn.

1.1. Element (a): Is complete control over the property required?

The essence of CBT targets the betrayal of trust committed by someone after he has been entrusted with property.⁶ Therefore, it is not necessary for there to be complete control over the property for the property to be “entrusted” to the individual.

This was clarified in Lam Leng Hung, where the issue was whether the group of accused making up a minority of a managerial board of the organisation could be said to possess dominion over the funds of the organisation. The group of accused in that case argued that they lacked control given their minority position, as the plans they devised for the alleged misappropriation had to be approved by other innocent directors on the board before implementation. However, the court rejected this argument, stating that the element of dominion is satisfied even where the dominion is concurrently exercised by other individuals.⁷ Where a group of persons has dominion over the property, each individual member of the group has the requisite control over the property for this element of dominion to be satisfied. The other innocent directors may have facilitated the CBT, but this does not absolve the offenders of liability. Further, allowing the accused to rely on the other directors’ innocence to absolve themselves of criminal liability also runs counter to the purpose of CBT offences which is to punish the betrayal of the trust bestowed upon the individual.

1.2. Element (b): What is the direction of the law that must be violated?

For CBT to occur, there must be an entrustment of property with a specific instruction of how that property is to be used. The accused commits CBT if he uses the property in a way different from that instruction. This instruction may be contained in a contract between the two parties. Alternatively, this instruction can be provided for by a direction of law, which is to say in accordance with a statute. Therefore, much will turn on what a statutory provision expressly or impliedly prohibits (or allows).

For instance, in Cheam Tat Pang,⁸ the 2 accused were directors of a company who used the company’s funds to purchase the shares of a Hong Kong company (LMP). The company’s board of directors approved the purchase of the shares, but the 2 accused effected the purchase through the instrument of APL, another company that the 2 accused had an interest in. This allowed them to make secret profits in their capacity as shareholders of APL. The Prosecution argued that the two violated a direction of law, specifically s 157(1) of the Companies Act, which stated directors of a company must exercise reasonable diligence and honesty in the discharge of their duties. However, this argument failed as it was held that s 157(1) of the Companies Act did not state any specific way the trust was to be discharged. There must be a degree of specificity in how the accused ought to have handled the property entrusted to him; vague directives of “honesty” and “reasonable diligence” are not specific enough. 

In contrast, the direction of law relied upon in Tong Keng Wah⁹ was sufficiently specific to have imposed a prohibition against the impugned behavior. In Tong Keng Wah, the accused was a police inspector who committed CBT by failing to return his service revolver and 12 rounds of ammunition after being dismissed from the force. The Prosecution argued that he violated s 24(1) of the Police Force Act which specifically stated every police officer who leaves the force must return his arms and his ammunition. As noted by the court in Cheam Tat Pang,¹⁰ it was not a general directive to maintain good order and discipline like s 157(1) of the Companies’ Act.

1.3. Element (c): What makes one dishonest in the eyes of the law?

The legal meaning of “dishonesty” was clarified in Lam Leng Hung¹¹ to refer to an individual doing an act with the intention to obtain something he was not legally entitled to, or to deprive someone of property the person was legally entitled to. In other words, “dishonesty” is concerned with legal entitlement to the property.

Since legal entitlement is the linchpin, a critical consideration is whether the accused knew the act he did (i.e. the alleged misappropriation) was unauthorised.¹² Thus, where it can be shown that the accused genuinely believed the act was authorised, there is no dishonest intention, and this element is not satisfied.

Intention must be separated from the motive of the accused. As noted by the court in Lam Leng Hung,¹³ the reason why the accused did the act is not relevant to what he thought or knew at the time he committed the crime. It is possible for an accused to have benign or even good motives, but still have dishonest intent to misappropriate. This position is also taken in other non-CBT criminal cases, and is justified as allowing private motive to serve as a defence would essentially “allow any man to substitute for law his own notions of right would be in effect to subvert the law.”¹⁴

1.4. Conclusion on the elements of CBT

The essence of CBT to punish the betrayal of trust by those entrusted with property. Therefore, there must first be an entrustment of property to the accused with an accompanying directive of how exactly he was to use the property. The accused must have violated the directive and acquired property he was not legally entitled to possess.

2. Why CBT is a big issue for society

CBT committed by individuals in positions of power threaten to undermine the very foundations of society by eroding the trust of the public. While CBT exists on a “sliding scale of offences”,¹⁵ the most severe offence for CBT under s 409 is committed by those performing public functions or those in esteemed occupations that command the trust of the public.

Turning to the statutory framework of CBT, it is clear that Parliament intended for CBT to have differing levels of severity depending on the class of persons that commits CBT. At the lowest level of severity, CBT committed by individuals hired on an ad-hoc basis attracts a maximum sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment, as stipulated by s 406. Next is s 407, which covers CBT done by someone entrusted with property for transportation or storage, which carries a maximum sentence of 15 years. On the same level there is s 408 which is CBT done by employees, which also has a maximum sentence of 15 years. Finally at the highest end of the spectrum, there is s 409 that targets specific classes of people such as public servants, attorneys, directors, and bankers where CBT would be punishable with a maximum of 20 years’ imprisonment. The common thread in all the classes of people in s 409 is that they are all esteemed occupations that command the trust and respect of the public, so those who choose to enrich themselves by disregarding the faith the public has in them would rightfully deserve a higher sentence.

One would not have to look further than the case of Tan Cheng Yew¹⁶ for the court’s view on CBT committed classes of people specified in s 409. In Tan Cheng Yew, the accused was a lawyer who pocketed his client’s funds to pay off debts he accrued from gambling. He was entrusted with $1.5 million by his client intended to be loaned to a church, which he then converted to his own use. During trial, the accused admitted during cross-examination that he never intended to give the $1.5 million to the church but intended to use the money to pay off his debts.¹⁷ He was also entrusted with $1.9 million from the sales proceeds of the shares owned by his client which he also used to pay off his gambling debts. The accused was found guilty and disbarred from being a lawyer, being sentenced with 13 years imprisonment for his CBT, amidst other charges.

The High Court in Tan Cheng Yew ¹⁸ explained why lawyers such as Tan Cheng Yew need to be punished with a heavier sentence.

“In my view, the mischief that s 409 targets is the commission of CBT by persons who perform certain trusted trades, when they act in the way of their business… Where it is normal for the public to rely on a person’s trade as a mark of his trustworthiness and integrity, and where such trust facilitates commercial transactions, it is important that such transactions are above board. A commission of CBT by a person in the performance of his trade would shake the confidence of the public in those trades and impede the ability of persons in such trades to serve the public. A breach of trust in such circumstances “may have severe … public repercussions” (see Butterworth’s commentary at p 621). Therefore, s 409 provides that CBT committed in the capacity of a public servant or in the way of business of a banker, a merchant, a factor, a broker, an attorney or an agent, would be punished more severely than CBT committed by persons who are trusted on an ad hoc basis under s 406.”

The court’s pronouncement serves as a grave warning to those in esteemed professions not to abuse the trust the public has in them, that the power they possess comes with an equally steep responsibility. The current trend of those in positions of power abusing their power is worrying, such as the Maybank Service Manager who misappropriated more than $1.4 million from a workplace safe,¹⁹ police officers who pocketed restitution money from suspects,²⁰ or a religious teacher who pocketed almost $61,000 from victims.²¹ There is a need to curb CBT in these professions to prevent the reputation of these occupations from being tarnished from a few bad eggs. It is hoped that those in positions of power understand the faith society has in them, and not abuse the trust they command.

3. Conclusion

It is undeniable that the legal system has been effective in arresting those who committed CBT. However, the recent string of CBT committed by those who command the trust of the public struck at the very heart of the integrity of their respective professions. What may be needed is a stern reminder towards those in positions of power that they command the trust of the public, and that the public does not take a betrayal of that trust lightly. 

Written by: Boh Cheng Kang

*The views and opinions expressed in this article do not constitute legal advice and solely belong to the author and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of the NUS Criminal Justice Club or its affiliates.

[1] Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and other appeals [2017] 4 SLR 474

[2] Public Prosecutor v Tan Cheng Yew and another appeal [2012] 1 SLR 1095

[3] Public Prosecutor v Lam Leng Hung and other appeals [2017] 4 SLR 474 at [71]

[4] K Shanmugam. 03 Oct 2020. Written Reply to Parliamentary Question on Number of White Collar Crime Cases Investigated by Police Land Divisions in the Past Five Years. Retrieved December 2023, from https://www.mha.gov.sg/mediaroom/parliamentary/written-reply-to-pq-on-number-of-white-collar-crime-cases-investigated-by-police-land-divisions-in-the-past-five-years/

[5] Public Prosecutor v Tan Cheng Yew and another appeal [2012] 1 SLR 1095 at [103]

[6] Supra, n 3.

[7] Supra, n 1 at [74] and [87]

[8] Cheam Tat Pang and another v Public Prosecutor [1996] 1 SLR(R) 161

[9] Tong Keng Wah v Public Prosecutor [1977-1978] SLR(R) 578; [1978-1979] SLR 404

[10] Supra, n 12 at [22]

[11] Supra, n 1 at [177]

[12] Tan Tze Chye v Public Prosecutor [1997] 1 SLR(R) 876 at [49]

[13] Supra, n 1 at [180].

[14] Mohammed Ali bin Johari v Public Prosecutor [2008] 4 SLR(R) 1058 at [102]

[15] Supra, n 2 at [102]

[17] Supra, n 2 at [129].

[18] Supra, n 2 at [103].

[19] Shaffiq Alkhatib. 28 Sept 2023. Jail for ex-Maybank employee who took more than $1.4m from workplace safe. Retrieved Dec 2023, from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/jail-for-ex-maybank-employee-who-took-more-than-14m-from-workplace-safe

[20] Shaffiq Alkhatib, Aqil Hamzah. 12 Aug 2023. 2 cops charged after they allegedly took restitution money from suspects. Retrieved Dec 2023, from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/two-police-officers-charged-with-al

legedly-taking-money-from-suspects-over-several-years

[21] Shaffiq Alkhatib. 26 Sept 2023. Jail for ex-religious teacher who made off with nearly $61k from victims, including pilgrims. Retrieved Dec 2023, from https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/jail-for-ex-religious-teacher-who-made-off-with-nearly-61k-from-victims-including-pilgrims

Ms Monica Baey had sparked a national debate after bringing to light her experiences with sexual harassment on campus. She was a victim of voyeurism, where her harasser deliberately and wilfully intruded upon her privacy when he secretly filmed her while she was showering. Voyeurism, an act that has recently gained traction in the local discourse about sexual misconduct since the Monica Baey exposé, will now be punishable under section 377BB of the Penal Code.

Changes to statutes

To better combat offences relating to voyeurism, the new section 377BB was introduced with effect from 1 January 2020, which establishes a specific offence for voyeurism. This provision was enacted due to the recent rise in voyeurism cases, as well as the increasing use of technology to commit such offences.

s 377BB’s gender neutral language recognises the reality that any individual, regardless of their gender, can potentially be a victim of voyeurism. To this end, the word “woman” used in s 509 has been replaced with “person” in s 377BB.

1. At its most basic level, s 377 BB(1) makes it an offence for a person (A) to observe another person (B) doing a private act without B’s consent (and with the knowledge or belief that B does not consent).
2. The other subsections ss 377BB(2) and (3) gradually build on this by targeting voyeurism which is achieved either through operating equipment to observe person (B) or in situations where person (A) intentionally or knowingly records person (B).
3. ss 377BB(4) and (5) deal with the aggravated situation where person (A) operates equipment to observe or record (B)’s private parts.

Changes to sentencing

The maximum sentence that can be imposed on an individual who is found guilty under s 377BB is 2 years’ imprisonment. This is double the previous 1 year maximum jail term for the offence of insulting modesty under s 509. In addition, a fine or caning, or any such combination of all three punishments can also be imposed. Where the offence is committed against a person below 14 years old, imprisonment will be made mandatory. The prevalence of voyeurism cases imposes the need for a higher punishment to deter the proliferation of voyeuristic recordings.

Previously, voyeurism was dealt under s 509 ‘Insulting the Modesty of a Woman’ in the Penal Code. This section provided as such:

“Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.”

While there were only 8 charges under s 509 between 2001 and 2008, the number of charges surged between 2008 to 2021, reaching a whopping total of 2826 charges. The increase in prosecutions can most likely be attributed to the advancements in technology. However, there was no specific provision to deal with this contemporary problem of voyeurism through technology, leading to s 509 being used instead. For instance, in PP v Chandran s/o Natesan [2013] SGDC 33, the Defendant was charged under s 509 for the offence of uttering words intended to insult the modesty of a woman. Similarly, in PP v Tan Huat Heng [2012] SGMC 1, the Defendant who was found guilty of the more severe offence of using his camera phone to take “up-skirt” videos of several women, was also charged under s 509.

Furthermore, since voyeurism was dealt under ‘Insulting the Modesty of a Woman’, the accused could not be charged under s 509 if the victim was male. Instead, the accused would be charged with another offence. While male victims of voyeurism are rare, they still exist. For example, Mr Koh Kah Hock had filmed men showering in a clubhouse without their knowledge and kept their obscene videos on his laptop. For his acts, since Mr Koh could not be charged under s 509, he was merely charged with making obscene films.

The key problems of s 509 can be summarised as follows:

1. As a repurposed piece of legislation, it was not adequately equipped to deal with voyeurism. Since the offence was gender-specific, voyeuristic videos taken of men without their consent could not be prosecuted under section 509 and had to be dealt with potentially under the films act, which led to different sentencing outcomes.
2. It does not contemplate the myriad of ways voyeurism could be committed. Hence, all offenders were subjected to the same range of punishments and the Courts were left to rely on aggravating factors to distinguish between varying degrees of culpability.

In formulating its recommendations on the voyeurism offence, the Penal Code Review Committee studied other countries’ approaches, namely England, Wales, Scotland, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia. This comparative approach to legislating is crucial to bring the law in line with contemporary social values and norms – for example, Ms Monica Baey revealed that she decided to speak out when a friend from an American university told her that the offender would have faced much harsher punishment in the USA.

The PCRC also considered the increasing ubiquity of image-capturing devices, which amplifies the potential harm arising from voyeurism. Technological improvements would mean that such crimes were no longer being contained between the victim and perpetrator, since the potential for mass dissemination is much higher. Technology has also caused the proliferation of sexual violence in cyberspace, and many people must deal with unwanted sexual massages and calls, non-consensual sharing of intimate images, voyeurism, harassment and objectification. Institutional processes must accordingly keep up with the times. The new offence of voyeurism reflects the gravity of the offence and has doubled the maximum imprisonment term from one to two years and provided for the possibility of caning as well.

Mitigating and aggravating factors regarding sentencing

With regards to sentencing under the new s 377BB, there are various aggravating and mitigating factors that can affect the harshness of the sentence handed out. The table below illustrates the types of factors and how they affect sentencing.

How have the changes affected sentencing

While the changes made to the Penal Code are still relatively new, there is a recent case that has applied the updated sentencing principles.

In PP v Sean Lee Yang, the accused had placed a spycam with an SD card in a gym, with the intention of recording men urinating without their consent. By installing a piece of equipment with the intention of enabling himself to commit an offence under s 377BB (3) of the Penal Code, the offender has committed an offence under s 377BB (6), punishable under section 377BB (7).

The prosecution highlighted the following aggravating factors for the offence under s 377BB(6):

1. The offender’s great degree of foresight and premeditation, since he had purchased the spycam 2 weeks prior and experimented with it prior to his offence.
2. The captured recordings could be repeatedly re-viewed by the offender, or even disseminated to third parties.
3. The offence was the last of a course of conduct that took place over one to two weeks involving multiple victims involved who were not identified as the recorded videos were not recovered.
4. The use of miniaturised, disguised, or hidden cameras to record films of unsuspecting men in public/private toilets.

The defence counsel highlighted the following mitigation factors to urge the court to place the offender on probation or under an MTO.

1. The offender’s previous sexual assault and PTSD.
2. His ongoing treatment in IMH.

Taking into consideration that acts of voyeurism are on an upward trend in Singapore, as well as legislative intent for s 377BB to impose higher penalties to deal with such offences, the court held that the principle of sentencing in this case is predominantly that of deterrence. The culpability of the offender is moderately high, as he had purchased a spy camera that was disguised as an innocuous clothing hook, designed to be inconspicuous and ordinary looking. Furthermore, the offender had bought the item from Lazada, which suggests that such devices are easily accessible to the public. A strong deterrent message needed to be sent out to turn away like-minded persons from being tempted to embark on such a course.

With regards to probation, the court did not find that the offender has demonstrated “an extremely strong propensity for reform”, and thus found that rehabilitation has clearly not displaced deterrence as the primary sentencing consideration. With regards to an MTO, the court found that the offender had clearly acted with deliberation and a composed mind. He did not panic and own up immediately to his wrongdoing but instead was able to process through a plan to try to get away scot-free. Hence, the offender was not suffering from any mental disorder of a kind that could possibly satisfy the criteria for the imposition of an MTO.

Under s 377BB (6), the offender was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment, giving a global sentence of 6 months’ imprisonment.

Conclusion

In closing, this article has introduced the offence of voyeurism and highlighted key changes in the law, using a recent case to illustrate the updated sentencing principles for voyeurism cases. It is hoped that these new provisions will curb the uptick in voyeuruism and deter potential offences.  


Written by: Nancy Xu

*The views and opinions expressed in this article do not constitute legal advice and solely belong to the author and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of the NUS Criminal Justice Club or its affiliates.

References

https://www.pdlegal.com.sg/changes-to-the-sentencing-framework-for-voyeurism-offences-in-singapore/ 

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/timeline-of-key-changes-to-the-law-to-protect-victims-of-sexual-and-hurt-offences

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/sprs3topic?reportid=written-answer-na-4520

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/sprs3topic?reportid=oral-answer-1965

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/sprs3topic?reportid=motion-1738

https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/sprs3topic?reportid=bill-523

https://singaporelegaladvice.com/law-articles/crime-voyeurism-singapore-penalties-defences/

Contingency Fee Arrangements are payment arrangements, whereby the legal fees payable to a lawyer by a client is determined by the outcome of the case’s proceedings. Under these arrangements, it is possible for a lawyer to arrange to be paid an agreed percentage of the client’s recovery and is paid nothing if the action is unsuccessful. The high cost of legal proceedings often results in many people being unable to bring their cases to court, simply because they cannot afford to do so. Article 7 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights states that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law.” These arrangements offer a practical avenue for lower income individuals to stand on an equal platform as the state, of proper legal representation, and have the same access to justice when faced with a criminal charge. Unfortunately, this is illegal.

The history of contingency fee arrangements can be traced to the case of Re Trepca Mines (No 2) [1962] 3 WLR 955. Then, Lord Denning held that “The reason why the common law condemns champerty is because of the abuses to which it may give rise. The common law fears that the champertous maintainer might be tempted, for his own personal gain, to inflame the damages, to suppress evidence, or even to suborn witnesses. These fears may be exaggerated; but, be that so or not, the law for centuries has declared champerty to be unlawful, and we cannot do otherwise than enforce the law, and I may observe that it has received statutory support, in the case of solicitors, in section 65 of the Solicitors Act, 1957.”

The concern here is that lawyers, having arranged to have their legal fees determined by the , will be tempted to cross legal and ethical lines for their own profit. This stance was written into Singapore’s statute, in the Legal Professions Act, where Section 18 of the Legal Profession Rules states that

18. A legal practitioner or law practice must not enter into any negotiations with a client of the legal practitioner or law practice —

(a) for an interest in the subject matter of litigation or of any other contentious proceedings; or

(b) except to the extent permitted by any applicable scale of costs, for remuneration proportionate to the amount which may be recovered by the client in the proceedings.

Under this statute, lawyers can be charged if they arrange for any sort of payment structure with a client that allows them a financial stake in the outcome of the proceedings. This has remained a consistent stance in the Singapore Courts, where just this February the Law Society filed an action against one of its members for entering a contingency fee arrangement with his client.

Faced with the illegality of contingency fee arrangements, accused persons facing criminal charges who cannot afford legal representation can only turn to the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme.

To qualify for legal aid under the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme in Singapore, one must first pass the Means Test, a test which determines if an individual is in sufficient financial need to deserve legal aid. In order to pass this test, one must have a disposable income of not more than $10,000 per annum and a disposable capital of not more than $10,000. In 2013, only 17% of the population met this criterion, leaving 1 in 6 Singaporeans and PRs outside the coverage of the Scheme. Under the initial scheme, Only 431 people were given help in 2014 and 427 in 2013.

There have been efforts by Singapore’s Parliament to address this, and with the passing of the Legal Aid and Advice Act in 2013, the financial threshold that needed to be met was lowered under the enhanced Legal Aid scheme. The latest statistics from the Ministry of Law show that 2,433 people were helped under the enhanced scheme last year – more than five times the people who received help in 2014. While this shows good progress, the new scheme only covers 25% of the country’s population.

Steps toward the legalisation of contingency fee arrangements have already been taken in other countries. With the passing of the Access to Justice Act 1999 in the UK, the courts from which we took the basis of the statute in the first place have already moved to allow for such arrangements, albeit not in the context of criminal proceedings.  It has also been already partially legalised in Singapore under the Civil Law (Amendment) Act 2016, where third party funders of case proceedings are allowed, provided the solicitor does not directly gain any financial benefit.

The main issue that concerns the legalisation of such fees is that of legal ethics, where lawyers might abuse the system, crossing moral lines for the sake of economic gain. However, is there not a line already drawn with the current system of billable hours, where lawyers are “rewarded” for slow, inefficient work. Making the ethical decision for professional conduct might extend in a similar manner to lawyers, should the contingency fee payment be legalised in Singapore. If Singapore’s Courts and Parliaments find a way to reconcile the ethical and legal considerations of this issue, Singapore could take a big step toward having complete access to justice for its citizens.

Written in 2018 by Darryl Lau


*The views and opinions expressed in this article do not constitute legal advice and solely belong to the author and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of the NUS Criminal Justice Club or its affiliates.

With reference to the Children and Young Person’s Act (CYPA), a juvenile is someone aged 7 or above and below 16 years old.

Over the years, the number of juveniles arrested have decreased, according to statistics provided by Ministry of Home Affairs, updated as of 4 April 2017.[1] However, a Straits Times article has also reported that the police have found a soar in juvenile arrests for shop theft and possession of offensive weapons. [2]

In fact, numerous cases of youth riots and their involvements in gang fights have surfaced as more teenagers turn to violence. In Oct 2014, 4 teenage boys aged 15-19 met up at a void deck at 3am to look for foreign workers to beat up and attacked a Chinese national by punching him several times before fleeing. These boys had also previously attacked an Indian foreign worker, two weeks prior to this. The 19 year old assailant pleaded guilty and was thus sentenced to 10 days in detention. In that same month, five youths aged 16 to 22 were arrested for rioting with a deadly weapon and attacking a 21-year-old man in Woodlands. In 2010, an infamous gang fight at Downtown East broke out between rival gangs that led to the slashing and subsequent death of a 19 year old Darren Ng.[3] More recently, 9 youths aged 14-16 were arrested for rioting in Woodlands on 27 April 2017.

Experts suggest that for youths, the tendency to partake in senseless violence and brutality could be due to an amalgamation of multiple triggering factors such as stress, angst, inebriation as well as their upbringing during the formative years. Violence at home would also expectedly perpetuate violent tendencies of a child in the future. “These youths seem to be people who have anger issues and choose to take it out on people who are less likely to retaliate,” suggests Dr Brian Yeo, a consultant psychiatrist at Mount Elizabeth Medical Centre, according to a report made by The New Paper. [4]

While adolescents committing minor offences may not be prosecuted but sent for rehabilitation instead, the government has taken a firmer stance against youth offenders that have committed serious crimes. “While rehabilitative options are available for young offenders who are suitable, the courts have also meted out more severe punishments if the offence was a serious one, including deterrent sentences to send a strong signal that such criminal behaviour will not be condoned nor taken lightly,” says Second Minister for Home Affairs Mr Masagos Zulkifli.[5] The high certainty of arrest and firm punitive measures are crucial in deterring youth crime, so prompt and effective enforcement by agencies in tandem with strict laws will be necessary. This is reflected in the punishments meted out for the death in the 2010 Downtown East gang fights, where the youth offenders were sentenced 3 to 12 years jail and 3 to 12 strokes of caning, depending on the severity of their involvement.

For minor offences, a second chance is offered through pre-court diversionary programmes such as the Guidance Programme introduced in 1997, which targets youth aged 10 to 19 that have committed minor crimes. This rehabilitative programme lasts for about 6 months and offers a community-based support network and successful completion of the 6 months means a police warning, which prevents youth offenders from having to face the stigma of court prosecution. In fact, Channel News Asia reports that approximately 9 in 10 youths stay crime-free 3 years after completing the programme, demonstrating the effectiveness of this policy.[6]

Aside from these pre-court diversionary programmes, the Children and Young Persons Act involves multiple clauses that protect youth offenders from that the blemishes that court prosecution has on their portfolio, which is vital in the reintegration back to community. CYPA s.35 restricts the publication of information relating to proceedings involving children and young persons to maintain a modicum of privacy and keep the identity of the youth secret.[7] CYPA s.41 stipulates that “words “conviction” and “sentence” shall cease to be used in relation to children and young persons dealt with by a Youth Court”. These clauses depict the sensitivity accorded to cases involving youth offenders and considerations for the child, to ensure that they are not tattooed with an almost-permanent stigmatisation associated to a court prosecution.

Written by Ng Cai Jia Felicia


*The views and opinions expressed in this article do not constitute legal advice and solely belong to the author and do not reflect the opinions and beliefs of the NUS Criminal Justice Club or its affiliates.

[1] Ministry of Social and Family Development (https://www.msf.gov.sg/research-and-data/Research-and-Statistics/Pages/Juvenile-Delinquents-Juveniles-Arrested.aspx)

[2] (The Straits Times, 2017) 14.2% drop in youth arrests in 1^st half of 2017, but more nabbed for shop theft and carrying weapons.

[3] (The Straits Times, 2013) Couple lost son in Downtown East gang fight in 2010, but now save his friends

[4] (Hariz Baharudin, The New Paper, 2016) More young people in Singapore turning to violence

[5] (The Straits Times, 2015) Parliament: Young offenders who commit serious crimes ‘should be severely punished’

[6] (Channel News Asia, 2016) A second chance for young offenders

[7] CYPA s.35—(1) Subject to subsection (2), no person shall —

• (a)  publish or broadcast any information relating to any proceedings in any court or on appeal from any court that reveals the name, address or school or that includes any particulars that are calculated to lead to the identification of any child or young person concerned in the proceedings, either as being the person against or in respect of whom the proceedings are taken or as being a witness therein; or
• (b)  publish or broadcast any picture as being or including a picture of any child or young person so concerned in any such proceedings.