The Rapid Transit Link is expected to start passenger service at the end of this year. This Bill seeks to co-locate border control procedures by both Singapore and Malaysia at the point of departure, enabling passengers to disembark upon arrival without further checks. Having personally taken the Eurostar train from the UK to Continental Europe, I have experienced how the co-location of British and French border police at the St Pancras Station in London saved time for passengers entering Europe by rail. Similarly, to ease travel between Singapore and Malaysia, this Bill to co-locate border controls should be supported.
My party colleague Dennis Tan has asked for clarifications on various aspects of the Bill. On my part, I wish to make brief observations on Part 7 of the Bill dealing with Criminal Jurisdiction.
According to the MHA’s Media Release of 7 April, there will be concurrent jurisdiction between Singapore and Malaysia for incidents on trains in transit and on the railway tracks between the two countries. This is reflected in Clause 39(1) of the Bill. As both countries could potentially exercise jurisdiction over crimes committed in these locations, the Ministry states that there are arrangements on which country has precedence. It is explained that in general, the country in whose territory the train journey is completed has the primary right to exercise jurisdiction. The Minister confirmed this earlier in his Second Reading speech. Thus, if the journey is completed in Johor, Malaysia would have primary jurisdiction, and vice versa if the journey is completed in Singapore.
These arrangements mentioned in the media release are not reflected in the language of Part 7 of the Bill. In contrast, the Malaysian law on this matter is more explicit. Section 19(2) of Malaysia’s Johor Bahru-Singapore Rapid Transit System Link Bill 2026 states that “the Government in whose territory the train journey is completed shall have the primary right to exercise its criminal jurisdiction”. Is there a reason why our Bill does not say this expressly?
The Ministry’s media release goes on to state that the country with primary jurisdiction may waive its right if there is a request by the other country to take over the case on the ground that there is a greater public interest for the requesting country to investigate and prosecute. We are thus given to understand that there would be situations where, even though the train was travelling to Singapore, Singapore may give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia.
When Singapore may give up primary jurisdiction to Malaysia is found in Clause 39(2) of the Bill. Clause 39(2) contains three cumulative conditions: first, the person must be subject to the criminal jurisdiction of the country the conduct was engaged in, in this case Malaysia; second, Malaysia must not be subject to any obligation to cede jurisdiction to Singapore; and third, Malaysia must have brought criminal proceedings. If my understanding is correct, when all three conditions are met, Singapore cannot prosecute the offender, even if the conduct occurred on a trip completed at Woodlands.
The second pre-condition is not clear to me. Under what circumstances would Malaysia be obligated to cede jurisdiction to Singapore? Could the Minister please clarify where these obligations are from, and in what situations would they arise?
Additionally, I note that the Bills of both countries do not mention an important consideration highlighted in MHA’s Media Release – that one country may waive its jurisdiction at the request of the other if there is a greater public interest for the requesting country to investigate and prosecute. Perhaps the omission is because it is difficult to codify how a greater public interest should be assessed.
Nonetheless, there will cases whereby both countries have real stakes in curbing the criminal activity and be equally interested to handle the case. For example, someone who is bringing controlled drugs from Malaysia to Singapore through the RTS would be simultaneously committing offences under the laws of both countries. What would be the protocol here? Who will determine whether there is greater public interest for Malaysia to prosecute? And how will this determination be made?
In that regard, I would like to make an observation about potential bilateral sensitivities that may arise. From my brief research into Malaysian law, it is clear that while we share a colonial heritage and had similar laws at one time, the criminal laws of our two countries have evolved to show significant differences. For example, while the offence of theft in both countries is still criminalised under Section 379 of the Penal Codes of both countries, the punishment for theft in Singapore carries a maximum imprisonment of 3 years while in Malaysia the maximum jail term is up to 7 yrs. As for our drug laws, in Singapore the mandatory death penalty still exists for certain offences under the Misuse of Drugs Act, while under Malaysia’s Dangerous Drugs Act the mandatory death penalty has been abolished.
Regardless of which country may have primary jurisdiction over a particular case, both governments may feel pressured to retain cases involving their own nationals. This could be for various reasons, such as the differences in the law and punishments, or to give their nationals better access to justice in their home countries. I personally do not think we need to harmonise the laws of both countries, as each country is sovereign, has its own priorities and determines its own laws. Nevertheless, it would be useful to know if the Ministry foresees that such bilateral tensions may arise, and whether there are any protocols in place to manage them.
