Commentary: This is how Singapore can counter the scourge of bomb hoaxes

There have been at least 20 reported bomb hoaxes between the months of August and October at multiple locations across Singapore, including the Environment Building.

Making a bomb threat to blow something up carries stiff penalties. Under Regulation 8(1) of the United Nations (Anti-Terrorism Measures) Regulations, it is illegal for someone to intentionally communicate or make available false information to another person, with the aim of causing them or anyone else to believe that a terrorist act has been, is being, or will be carried out.

The punishment, under Section 5 of the United Nations Act 2001, is a fine not exceeding S$500,000 or an imprisonment term of up to 10 years, or both. This was increased, through amendments in 2014, from the former maximum sentence of a fine not exceeding S$100,000 or an imprisonment term of up to five years, or both. 

In Singapore, most terrorism-related offences involving bomb threats are charged under the United Nations Act and the Regulations, while reporting bomb hoaxes (threats that turn out to be false) are usually charged under Section 268A of the Penal Code 1871. This carries an imprisonment term of up to seven years, or a fine not exceeding S$50,000, or both.

For incidents involving aircraft while in flight, Section 3 of the Tokyo Convention Act 1971 states that for acts committed on board a Singapore-controlled aircraft flying outside of Singapore, the offender can be charged with the offence under Singapore laws.

Given the increased incidences of bomb hoaxes, penalties for bomb hoax perpetrators should be increased and made harsher to deter would-be offenders.

DETERRENCE

In Singapore, the main sentencing consideration for bomb hoaxes is general deterrence.

The High Court in 2007 said: “Given the current climate where international and domestic terrorist security threats are more prevalent than before, bomb hoaxers must inexorably be visited with draconian sentences… Such offences are easy to commit and difficult to detect and could become rampant if not firmly dealt with.”

In 2016, Sze Kai Xuan was sentenced to 18 months’ jail by a District Court for his hoax threat to bomb City Hall in January 2016. As a result, the Public Transport Security Command had to divert 95 per cent of its resources to sweep through 18 MRT stations along three lines to search for the threat.

In 2022, La Andy Hien Duc made a hoax bomb threat on a Singapore Airlines flight. The incident caused a four-hour delay, and Republic of Singapore Air Force (RSAF) fighter jets had to escort the plane to Changi Airport.

A report from the Institute of Mental Health found that Hien Duc was suffering from schizophrenia. In light of this, the court gave him a stern warning for the offence. He also faced other charges, including voluntarily causing hurt by slapping a cabin crew member.

LOOKING OVERSEAS

In the United States, the state of Massachusetts provides for penalties of up to 20 years in prison, up to US$50,000 (S$68,700) fine, and restitution for the costs of the disruption.

In July 2022, a Georgia man was ordered to pay nearly US$40,000 in restitution for making a bomb threat that shut down his workplace. The company was forced to halt operations at two warehouses at the cost of US$38,400.

Most legislations advocate severe sanctions on bomb hoaxes, with a longer maximum imprisonment term posing as a deterrent.

However, TiMeS Law Firm’s Dr Timbo Sirait found that such penalties are rarely exercised to the fullest: Indonesian law states that bomb hoaxers can be subject to a maximum of eight years’ imprisonment, a sentence that is typically reduced to several months in practice.

In some situations, they are asked to produce an apology letter in which they must declare they will not repeat the offence.

Perhaps hefty fines could also serve as an adequate deterrence. In July 2022, it was reported that a British teenager could be subject to a £50,000 (S$83,242) fine by a Spanish court after he made a bomb hoax on board an easyJet flight to Spain.

WHAT MORE CAN BE DONE?

When a bomb threat is received, critical public resources must be diverted to attend to the situation.

First, the police will need to conduct a thorough search of the area to ensure that there is no immediate danger to the public. For aircraft bomb hoaxes, the RSAF would also have to be activated and fighter jets scrambled to escort the aircraft back to Singapore.

Such hoaxes cause major disruptions to members of the public: For a plane that’s held up dealing with a bomb threat, for example, other flights also have to be delayed or diverted.

For individuals who are suffering from mental impairments, one solution could be for airports to require that they are accompanied by another person.

This could be a family member, caretaker, or companion. Even so, it may be practically difficult to ascertain whether someone has a mental impairment at the time of flying.

There is also a possibility that punishments for such offences can be further enhanced. For instance, to send a strong deterrent signal, imprisonment sentences for bomb hoaxes could be doubled or even tripled to deter would-be offenders.

Airlines also have conditions of carriage which permit them to refuse to carry a passenger if they have committed misconduct on a previous flight.

Perhaps a worldwide flight ban can be imposed on offenders, but this would require the joint cooperation of all international airlines, and a mutual sharing of information on past hoax offenders.

In addition, corporal punishment, such as caning, could be introduced where malicious intent is involved.

In situations where significant measures of public resources are expended to deal with the hoax, a more draconian measure could be for the public agency to seek monetary compensation from the offender as a form of restitution to the agency for the costs incurred to mobilise such an operation.

Apart from legal remedies, it remains important to err on the side of caution when bomb hoaxes are received. Preventing the loss of lives is a far greater priority than the costs or inconvenience incurred in these security operations.

The public can also play a vital role in preventing bomb hoaxes by reporting any suspicious activity or concerning behaviour to the authorities.

It is important to remain vigilant, especially on the ground, so that threats can be swiftly identified and dealt with before the plane takes off.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR:

Ben Chester Cheong is a law lecturer at the Singapore University of Social Sciences and practising lawyer at RHTLaw Asia LLP. He is also a doctoral student at the University of Cambridge.