Apostille Bill
(4min) Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Sir, like Mr Murali, I am extremely excited about this Bill as well. Sir, if this Bill is passed, Singapore will join 118 countries as a party to the Apostille Convention.
This Bill gives effect to our obligations under the Convention. This will streamline our processes for recognising foreign public documents and make it easier for our public documents to be recognised in other contracting states. With the apostille process in place, individuals will not have to go to two sets of government authorities to legalise foreign public documents. This will significantly cut down on bureaucratic processes, which I think we can all agree, is a good thing.
I just have four points of clarification to make.
My first point is on the criteria for disproving certified documents. Section 11 of the Bill provides that the origin of a foreign public document certified with an Apostille will be presumed to be "sufficiently proven" unless "the contrary is proven". The origin of a foreign public document, as Minister mentioned, is defined in section 7 as comprising three elements: the authenticity of signature, the capacity of the person signing and the identity of the seal or stamp. Can Minister clarify whether problems with just one element of the origin, such as the authenticity of the signature, is enough to cause the origins of the document to be insufficiently proven?
My second point is on the scope of verification that will be done by the Singapore Academy of Law or SAL before issuing an apostille. Generally, SAL is only supposed to authenticate the origin of the public document and not whether the document is valid. However, defects in the document’s validity may mean the document does not qualify as a public document. Can Minister share whether SAL will verify that the document complies with content and format requirements to qualify as a public document?
My third point is on apostille fraud which is a problem within the international apostille system. One example of apostille fraud is using an apostille to legitimise a fake document. This may be done, for instance, to legitimise a fake academic certificate issued by a degree mill. There are existing offences for forging documents or providing false information to a public servant, which potentially may cover instances of apostille fraud. However, apostille fraud is arguably even more serious given that it undermines the integrity of Singapore's systems on the international stage. While the Apostilles Convention itself does not provide for any penalties, the Apostilles Handbook makes clear that sanctions may be provided for by domestic law. Can Minister share the rationale for deciding not to introduce specific offences for apostille fraud under the Bill?
Finally, can Minister share whether Singapore will be adopting both the e-Apostilles and e-Registers system. An e-Apostille is an apostille that is issued in electronic format with an electronic signature. An e-Register on the other hand is a register of apostilles that is kept in electronic form and which is accessible online by the recipient of the Apostille.
COVID-19 has restricted cross-border mobility but individuals still have to get their foreign public documents authenticated. The e-Apostille and e-Register system have provided a convenient way to get around this problem for many other countries, such as Brazil, Bulgaria, the Dominican Republic, Venezuela and the US. However, adoption of these systems could also mean there are more opportunities for bad faith actors to interfere. If we are adopting both or either systems, can Minister share what steps will be taken to protect the integrity of the e-Apostilles or e-Registers given that the documents may contain extremely sensitive information?
Notwithstanding these points, I stand in support of the Bill.
Response from Mr Edwin Tong Chun Fai: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. And I am very pleased to be speaking on this suddenly very exciting Bill. I think it is exciting because it is the last speech of the day.
But I want to thank Mr Pillai. I think it is true what he has said that his contributions from the backbench with his experience over several years, have contributed to our thinking on this. We looked more closely at the Convention and eventually, having satisfied ourselves that it is a Convention that we can accede to and that we have the necessary infrastructure in place to play the role as envisaged in the Convention, we have decided to proceed with this. So, thank you very much, Mr Pillai, for your contributions.
Sir, let me go directly to the questions raised.
First, on this question of the e-Apostille and the e-Register. Both Mr Pillai and Mr Ng raised this.
Sir, of course, we welcome the use of technology to enhance the processes as long as they are safe and secure. And I am pleased to inform Mr Pillai and Mr Ng that SAL, which is the designated Competent Authority, is already working towards digitalising the entire apostillisation process. And this would include the issuance of electronic apostilles, and the operation of electronic registers of apostilles that can be accessed online by recipients so that they can verify the paper apostilles or e-Apostilles that they have received and this, I think is the "e-Register” that Mr Ng had in mind. Once this is ready, announcements will be made so that the process can then be explained and it will be known when this can be implemented.
Mr Pillai and Mr Tan raised the question of fees that will be charged once SAL takes over. For the apostille fees, SAL intends to charge $10 for each apostille certificate at the inception. So, whatever it starts off with, $10. And Members will note that this is the same fee as charged by MFA. So, to Mr Tan's query earlier, be aswe have sured.
The fee is being charged on the basis that SAL adopts the same manual, over-the-counter authentication services. I just want to note that private documents have to be notarised first before being authenticated by SAL. That is the process today anyway, and the apostille fee does not include the cost of such notarisation fees, if applicable.
Similar to other fees for services, SAL, like any other agencies, will regularly look at its fee structure and will conduct the review at some stage as to whether the fee structure is appropriate for the kind of services that it is designed to support.
Mr Ng asked whether if you have one element of the origin of a foreign public document not being satisfied, whether that would vitiate the entire document.
Clause 7 provides for three requirements and the three requirements go together to establish the veracity of that document that is being apostillised. So, if any one element is missing, then a document will not be able to be established. So, Mr Ng would note that, in particular, if the authenticity of the signature cannot be established, then that one fundamental aspect of the document's veracity is cast into doubt.
As to Mr Ng's about whether SAL will verify a document that complies with content and format requirements to qualify for a public document, for such Singapore public documents, SAL must be satisfied with the origin of the document before it issues the apostille. This is provided for in clause 17 of the Bill.
SAL will establish very clear procedures for every request for an apostille and is also building up a database of all the public specimen signatures of public officers who are authorised to sign public documents so that there can also be ease of verification. But that database is being built. I should just caution to add to Mr Ng's point that such an apostillisation, like legalisation, does not look at the underlying veracity of the contents. So, the truth or falsity of the contents of the document is not something that is certified by the apostillisation.
Mr Ng asked about offences for apostille fraud under the Bill.
It is a serious offence and I agree with Mr Ng, but there is an existing framework now in the Penal Code to deal with this. So, to Mr Ng's example of an academic certificate that is brought fraudulently or dishonestly, if one applies for an apostille on the basis of a false underlying document, then an offence under section 471 read with section 466 of the Penal Code, which is punishable with a term of imprisonment, that person can be charged under those offences. It is thus not necessary to create a separate set of offences to support only the apostillisation process.
Mr Ng would also note that one of the grounds on which the Competent Authority might refuse to issue an apostille is if there are, itself reasonable grounds, either on the face of it or upon review that the document has been falsified or is otherwise forged.
Sir, on Mr Murali Pillai's point on the Convention and acceding to the Convention, we have taken some time to study it, as I mentioned at the outset, to look at the details and also assess the merits. And we had extensive consultations with various domestic agencies and also stakeholders to ensure that we are ready with it and that upon accession to the Convention, we will be able to discharge the obligations. We have since done so and we are satisfied that we can adopt this regime.
The new regime will modernise and streamline the authentication process and, as I mentioned at the outset, facilitate the use of documents for cross-border purposes, saving time and expense for parties, both ways. Mr Deputy Speaker, with that, I beg to move.
Source: Hansard
