Bill allowing police to collect DNA from more people passed as MPs sound privacy, security concerns

Bill allowing police to collect DNA from more people passed as MPs sound privacy, security concerns

Ms Sun said in her closing presentation that the Government offers looked at the DNA collection regime within foreign jurisdictions.

For instance, in the Australian state associated with South Australia, GENETICS information is collected for all imprisonable offences, while England collects DNA information for any imprisonable offences plus some non-imprisonable offences.

“We did not just adopt wholesale the practices of various other countries, but exactly where appropriate, adapted it to suit our framework, ” she mentioned.

“We possess chosen to expand our own collection only to offences that are punishable by imprisonment and not compoundable under any written law, unless the offence is specified in the fourth schedule towards the Criminal Procedure Program code 2010.

“This strikes the appropriate stability in our local context. ”

In terms of security concerns, Microsoft Sun reiterated that will only authorised people are allowed to access the DNA database.

“All access is certainly logged and recorded, and there will be a good audit trail in order to detect any information access. The GENETICS information is stored on a standalone, secured network to prevent unauthorised access, ” the girl said.

“When there is unauthorised accessibility, action will be taken. This could include felony charges being brought. ”

Microsoft Sun also pointed to an existing platform to manage government information incidents.

“In the event of an information breach, appropriate remedial actions will be taken in accordance with standard operating procedures plus workflows, ” the girl added.

Beyond the police’s GENETICS database, MP Melvin Yong (PAP-Radin Mas) urged the Government to think about establishing a national DNA registry, comprising the DNA sequence of every Singaporean plus resident.

“Beyond identifying criminals, the DNA registry can also be helpful in identifying missing victims, or in an event with mass casualties, ” he said.

“To the family of a victim in a murder case, every possible tool to help bring the enemy to justice matters. To deter a potential criminal (and increase) his risk of being caught, counts. ”

In response, Ms Sun said the federal government would study this particular suggestion.


Some MPs also raised difficulties with how the Bill needs individuals to apply to remove their DNA info from the database.

Under current regulation, the police are required to instantly remove an individual’s DNA data off their records if he could be subsequently acquitted or discharged by the court, or if their offence is compounded, or if they are found to not be involved in the commission of any crime.

But under the brand new Bill, this is no longer automatically done and eligible individuals should now apply to have their data removed.

Even so, the police can choose not to do so –  when it has reasonable grounds to believe that retaining the DNA is either highly relevant to other ongoing prosecutions or investigations, or necessary to safeguard national security.  

If the police reject the application, the individual can appeal to a looking at tribunal within thirty days of the police’s dedication.  

“This current Bill changes the default — from automatic deletion to automatic preservation. Why is there a shift in plan? Is it necessitated by a change in the regulation and order scenario? ” asked MP Murali Pillai (PAP-Bukit Batok).

“Why is it not more suitable for the current system of automatic elimination to be maintained? The present system is fair to all, the proposed system appears to benefit those with the resources, time, and the know-how to request for such a removal. ”

For this, Ms Sun replied that the database’s objective is to assist in resolving crime.

“When the acquitted charged applies to have their information removed, we are going to remove it except under two circumstances, ” she said.

“Subject to that, it is in society’s attention that there is a larger data source of DNA. The particular DNA has to be gathered and retained within acceptable ways. ”

MPs Louis Ng (PAP-Nee Soon) and Sharael Taha (PAP-Pasir Ris-Punggol) furthermore asked for more details within the process of seeking data removal.

Microsoft Sun noted that the individual will have to apply for removal online with their particulars and case details. The registrar will then review the application and provide an official reply within 30 days.  

Details of the application process will be made available on SPF’s internet site in due course, she added.

“When the registrar rejects …  an individual’s application to remove his (DNA) from the data source, the registrar will certainly notify the candidate and state the causes for the rejection, ” she said.

“If his information has been retained since there is an ongoing prosecution or even investigation, the individual should be aware when these are came to the conclusion, such that he may reapply for expungement. ”

If the person’s data is retained due to national protection concerns, authorities will not be able to inform your pet when these worries no longer exist, Ms Sun said.

“If he disagrees with the decision of the registrar, he can attract the reviewing tribunal. Even if the reviewing tribunal dismisses the attractiveness, the individual may be requested removal at any time, ” she said.