Second Reading Speech on Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters (Amendment) Bill

13 FEB 2006

13 Feb 2006 Posted in Parliamentary speeches and responses

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

  2. The Mutual Assistance in Criminal Matters Act was enacted some 6 years ago in 2000 as a part of Singapore’s commitment to help combat crime on a global scale. That Act, Sir, provides for various forms of assistance to foreign countries.

  3. This law was enacted before the events of September 11, 2001. Post 911, it has become increasingly urgent for countries to cooperate closely, especially in the combating of terrorism. In the light of our experience and also in the light of this changing international climate after 911, we have concluded that we need to make some amendments to the Act.

  4. The present Act can be said to have an element of rigidity. For example, certain forms of assistance which involve coercive measures, such as search warrants in aid of a criminal prosecution in a foreign country, can only be provided if there already exists a mutual legal assistance treaty or MLAT between us and the requesting country. In practice, it is desirable to have some flexibility. The purpose of this Bill therefore is to amend the Act to allow us to render such assistance, on a case-by-case basis, to countries where there is no such treaty.

  5. This is provided for in Clause 3 of the Bill, which provides for discretionary assistance in the absence of a treaty, but only if the requesting country gives an undertaking of reciprocity, that means that it will comply with a future request by Singapore for similar assistance involving a similar offence.

  6. Clause 2 of the Bill makes consequential amendments to the definition section of the Act to allow Singapore to enforce a foreign confiscation order from a country with which we do not have a mutual legal assistance treaty. This will be at our discretion, and it will not be applied retrospectively to confiscation orders made before the changes are brought into force.

  7. Let me hasten to assure the House, Sir, that this does not mean that we will not enter into mutual legal assistance treaties in the future. We will still do so in specific cases, for example, where a bilateral treaty would give both sides greater assurance of mutual assistance. However, what this amendment seeks to achieve is to avoid a situation where we cannot give timely assistance to a non-treaty country which needs our assistance to prosecute a terrorist or a major international criminal.

  8. The present approach can also be a disadvantage for us when we seek assistance from a country with whom we do not have a treaty, if they invoke the reciprocity principle.

Safeguards

  1. I also wish to assure the House that there are many safeguards to prevent abuse and to prevent unnecessary intrusion by foreign authorities into the privacy of our businesses and individuals.
  1. All the current safeguards which are in the Act will continue to apply. For example, there is a general power to decline a request if it is not in the public interest to provide the assistance. Our own investigations will take priority and no assistance will be rendered if it could prejudice a local investigation or local criminal proceeding. Assistance will also be declined if a foreign authority is merely “fishing” for information that might be of use against a person or a corporation. The Act has many safeguards against such “fishing expeditions”. For example, section 22 of the Act, on production orders, requires that a foreign request must be made for a particular item or document. Assistance will also be declined if there are substantial grounds to believe that the accused is being targeted by the foreign country on account of his race, religion, sex, ethnic origin, nationality or political opinions.
  1. Sir, I beg to move.

Last updated on 25 Nov 2012