Can You Be Held Criminally Liable for Doing Nothing?

Imagine you are walking home late at night and see a stranger collapse in front of you on the footpath. You do not stop to help, and instead continue on your way. Or perhaps you witness what looks like a violent assault in a car park, but choose not to intervene or call the police. In these situations, many would consider your inaction morally questionable – but could it also land you in legal trouble?

Under Singapore law, the general principle is that a person is not criminally liable for merely failing to act. Our legal system primarily punishes acts, not omissions. In other words, you typically cannot be charged with a crime simply because you did nothing. However, this general rule is subject to important exceptions. There are specific situations where the law does impose a legal duty to act, and failing to do so can result in criminal liability.

This article examines the circumstances under which you could face criminal charges for doing nothing, and the various legal duties that, if breached, could expose you to prosecution. In this regard, this article will cover the following topics:

• Can you generally be held criminally liable for failing to act?
• When does the law impose a duty to act?
• Outside of these legally prescribed scenarios, can there be any liability for failing to act?
• What should you do if you are unsure of your legal obligations?

Can You Generally be Held Criminally Liable for Failing to Act in Singapore?

The short answer is: generally, no. Under Singapore law, a person is generally not criminally liable for an omission – that is, a failure to act. The law draws a fundamental distinction between moral responsibility and legal responsibility.

Moral responsibility vs legal responsibility

From a moral standpoint, we might consider someone who ignores a drowning child or walks past an injured person as a ‘bad Samaritan’. Society may judge such inaction harshly. However, being morally blameworthy does not, on its own, make a person criminally liable.

Legal responsibility, on the other hand, arises only where the law specifically imposes a duty to act. For example, if you witness a crime being committed which you are required by law to report. You can refer to our other article on whether there is a legal duty to report a crime in Singapore for a more detailed discussion on this topic.

This distinction is important because it means that the so-called ‘bystander effect’ – where onlookers fail to intervene during an emergency – does not automatically give rise to criminal liability in Singapore. A bystander who does nothing is not, by default, committing a crime. In other words, unless there is a specific legal obligation requiring you to do something, you generally cannot be punished for doing nothing – no matter how morally reprehensible your inaction may appear.

When Does the Law Impose a Duty to Act?

While the general rule is that omissions are not punishable, there are several specific situations where the law does impose a legal duty to act. In these situations, failing to act may result in criminal liability. These duties can be broadly categorised as follows:

Duties created by statute

Some laws explicitly require people to act in certain situations, and failing to do so constitutes a criminal offence.

(i) Duty not to conceal evidence of an offence (Penal Code)

Under section 201 of the Penal Code, a person commits an offence if he/she:

• Knows or has reason to believe that an offence has been committed; and
• Hides or gets rid of evidence of the offence, or gives false information about the offence, intending to protect the offender from being punished by the law.

The punishment for committing an offence under section 201 differs depending on the severity of the underlying offence, i.e. the offence that the person knows or has reason to believe has been committed:

• If the underlying offence is punishable with death, the person may be liable to a maximum imprisonment term of 10 years and a fine.
• If the underlying offence is punishable with imprisonment for life or with a maximum imprisonment term of 20 years, the person may be liable for a maximum imprisonment term of 7 years and a fine.
• If the underlying offence is punishable with a maximum imprisonment term of 20 years, the person may be liable for an imprisonment term up to one-quarter of the longest term provided for the underlying offence, with a fine, or both. For example, if person A knows that person B stole a handphone from someone else, and hid the handphone in his house so that the handphone would not be discovered in person B’s possession, person A may be held liable under section 201 for hiding evidence of the offence. The punishment for theft under section 379 of the Penal Code is a maximum imprisonment term of 3 years, a fine, or both. Hence, if person A is convicted under section 201, he may be liable for a maximum imprisonment term of one-quarter of 3 years (i.e. 9 months), a fine, or both.

To illustrate when someone may be found to be liable under section 201, in one case, the accused was charged with committing offences under section 201 of the Penal Code – she knew that the principal offender (her boyfriend and boss) had murdered two victims. However, she aided him in destroying evidence by hiding the body of the victims, removing bloodstains from the crime scene and disposing of the victims’ personal belongings. These were clearly actions to hide and get rid of evidence of the offence, in order to protect the offender from being punished. She was sentenced to 12 years’ imprisonment after pleading guilty to two charges under section 201 of the Penal Code.

Additionally, under section 202 of the Penal Code, if someone knows or has reason to believe that an offence has been committed but intentionally omits to give any information regarding that offence which he is legally bound to give, that is an offence. Upon conviction, an individual may be liable for a maximum imprisonment term of 6 months, or a fine, or both.

For example, in one case, three accused persons saw two victims go to sleep in an unused lorry. That same night, they awoke and saw the lorry engulfed in fire. The evidence showed that all three accused persons suspected that the deaths were caused by another group of workers who had set the lorry on fire, as they had witnessed a heated quarrel between the other group and the victims earlier. They had reason to believe that an offence of murder had been committed. However, they did not report the incident to the authorities and were found guilty under section 202 of the Penal Code. They were sentenced to 6 months’ imprisonment each.

(ii) Duty to stop and report an accident (Road Traffic Act)

Under section 84 of the Road Traffic Act (RTA), if a motor vehicle is involved in an accident resulting in damage or injury to any person, vehicle, structure or animal, the driver of the motor vehicle must stop the vehicle and provide his particulars to anyone who has reasonable grounds for requiring them. If someone is injured and requires medical treatment, the driver must also report the accident to the police within 24 hours. Failing to do so is an offence. Upon conviction for a first offence, an individual may be liable to a maximum fine of $3,000 or a maximum imprisonment term of 12 months, or both.

As an example of when someone may be found liable under section 84 of the RTA, in one reported incident, an accused person was driving home after consuming alcohol at a pub when he lost control of his vehicle and got into a road traffic accident with a motorcycle. The victim was flung off her motorcycle and sustained severe injuries. The accused person drove away from the scene of the accident. For the offence of failing to help the victim after the accident, the accused was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment with a disqualification period of 48 months.

(iii) Duty to report certain illnesses or comply with health orders (Infectious Diseases Act)

Under section 6 of the Infectious Diseases Act (IDA), medical practitioners who suspect or diagnose certain communicable diseases must notify the authorities. Communicable diseases are illnesses caused by microorganisms (e.g. bacteria or viruses) that are infectious and can be transmitted from person to person. Examples of communicable diseases include sexually transmitted diseases, chickenpox, COVID-19, dengue fever, hand, food, and mouth disease, malaria, and tuberculosis, among others.

In a case before the Singapore Medical Council (SMC) Disciplinary Tribunal, a doctor conducting a routine medical screening for a patient ordered a chest X-ray for tuberculosis screening. Upon receiving the report showing abnormalities suggesting possible tuberculosis, the doctor nonetheless prescribed antibiotics and cough mixture and certified the patient as tuberculosis-negative. The Tribunal found that the doctor had failed to provide appropriate care. One of the observations made by the Tribunal was that under section 6(1) of the IDA, he was obliged to notify the Tuberculosis Control Unit of his suspicion within 72 hours but had not done so. The Tribunal imposed a sentence of 15 months’ suspension from medical practice for the doctor’s failure to provide adequate care. It should be highlighted that the outcome was a professional sanction rather than a criminal penalty because this was a disciplinary proceeding before the SMC Disciplinary Tribunal, and not a prosecution under section 6(1) of the IDA.

Additionally, individuals who are suspected of being a case of a communicable disease may be required to submit to medical examination or treatment. Failing to comply with such orders without reasonable excuse is an offence. Upon conviction for a first offence, an individual may be liable to a maximum fine of $10,000 or a maximum imprisonment term of 6 months, or both. For more information, you can refer to our other article on the laws and regulations governing infectious diseases in Singapore.

Duties arising from special relationships

Certain relationships create legal duties to act on the part of the parties in that particular relationship. A failure to fulfil these duties can result in criminal liability.

(i) Parent and child

Under Singapore law, parents have a legal duty to care for and provide for their children. Section 68 of the Women’s Charter (WC) imposes a duty on parents to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of their children, either by providing them with such accommodation, clothing, food and education as may be reasonable or by paying for the same. Therefore, if a parent does nothing to maintain or contribute to the maintenance of his/her child, that would in itself be a violation of the legal duty, which the court is empowered to make orders to rectify . For example, the court may order that parent to pay monthly sums or a lump sum for the maintenance of his/her child.

Additionally, under section 6 of the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA), it is an offence for a person who has custody, charge or care of a child to ill-treat that child, or to knowingly permit the child to be ill-treated by another person. Importantly, ill treatment does not just involve positive acts (e.g. physically abusing the child), but also includes the wilful or unreasonable neglect of the child in circumstances which would cause the child physical pain, emotional harm, injury to his/her health etc.

Moreover, an individual will be found to knowingly permit ill-treatment if he/she knows or has reason to believe that the child was at risk of being ill-treated, and failed to take such steps as could reasonably have been expected to protect the child from that risk. Upon conviction, an individual may be liable to a maximum fine of $8,000, or a maximum imprisonment term of 8 years, or both.

For example, in one case, a mother covered up her son’s rape of his sister, and was charged for knowingly allowing the ill-treatment of her daughter under the CYPA. The mother found her son in compromising situations with her daughter on multiple instances but did not report the matter to the authorities because she was afraid that her son would be arrested. She was convicted and sentenced to 4 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.

(ii) Employer and employee

Under section 12 of the Workplace Safety and Health Act (WSHA), employers have a legal duty to take, so far as is reasonably practicable, such measures as are necessary to ensure the safety and health of their employees at work. This includes providing and maintaining a work environment that is safe and without risks to health. Employers who fail to fulfil this duty, resulting in the death or serious injury of an employee, may face criminal liability. Upon conviction, a corporate employer may be liable to a maximum fine of $500,000, while an individual may be liable for a maximum fine of $200,000, a maximum imprisonment term of 2 years, or both.

In one case, the employer was engaged to carry out electrical installation works at a building. An employee of the employer instructed a worker to carry out the electrical cabling works, which required him to operate a scissor lift and work at height. However, the worker had never attended a scissor lift operator course before. Instead, the employee gave the worker a short briefing on the operation of the scissor lift. Unfortunately, while working, the worker fell to his death from height. The employer was convicted of committing an offence under section 12 of the WSHA, for failing to ensure that only competent persons operated the scissor lift, and for failing to ensure that the worker was working under the immediate supervision of a competent person while working at height. The employer was sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment.

(iii) Caregiver and dependent

For persons who have voluntarily or by virtue of their position assumed the care of elderly or disabled persons, similar duties of care apply. In Singapore, the Vulnerable Adults Act (VAA) was enacted to safeguard vulnerable adults who, due to physical or mental infirmity, disability, or incapacity, are unable to protect themselves from abuse, neglect, or self-neglect. The VAA provides a legal framework that grants powers to government officers to assess, investigate and even enter premises to protect at-risk vulnerable adults. The courts are also empowered to issue orders restraining abusers or compelling assistance.

For example, if there is reason to believe that a vulnerable adult has experienced, is experiencing, or is at risk of abuse or neglect, the court may grant orders such as moving the vulnerable adult to a place of safety or in the care of another person, and also grant orders restraining the abuser (who may potentially even be the caregiver) from abusing the vulnerable adult. For the caregiver, if such an order is made, the failure to comply with the same without reasonable excuse is itself an offence, and he/she may be liable on the first conviction to a maximum fine of $10,000 or a maximum imprisonment term of 12 months, or to both.

For a more detailed discussion on the protection of vulnerable adults in Singapore, you can refer to our other article on the topic.

Duties that are voluntarily assumed

A typical example of duties that are voluntarily assumed is that already discussed above – caregiving duties. When a loved one needs support for everyday tasks on a daily basis, a family member will usually assume the role of a primary caregiver, living with the vulnerable adult and providing their day-to-day care. Hence, if a person takes charge of an elderly relative and voluntarily assumes responsibility for their day-to-day care and welfare, but later neglects them by failing to provide food, medical attention or basic necessities, the court may decide to intervene to protect the vulnerable adult.

An example of such a case involved a caregiver who neglected their elderly relative – an elderly man in his 90s who was bed-bound and suffered from severe dementia – in his care –. A social service agency found the elderly man to be severely malnourished. It was later discovered that his son, his sole caregiver, gave the elderly man only one meal a day, and did not even give him enough water to drink. He also gave his father a shower only once every few days, and sometimes even just once a week.

Duties arising from an official position

Certain occupations give rise to a legal duty to act by virtue of the responsibilities inherent in the role. Where a person in such a position fails to fulfil that duty, their omission may amount to criminal negligence or a breach of duty.

For example, a lifeguard who fails to attempt a rescue, a police officer who ignores a person in danger, or a medical professional, such as a doctor or nurse, who withholds necessary treatment, may all be held liable for their inaction. Similarly, security personnel who are employed to monitor and respond to emergencies but deliberately ignore an unfolding incident may equally be found to have breached their duty. In each of these cases, it is the nature of the occupation itself – and the responsibilities that come with it – that gives rise to the obligation to act.

The duty arising from one’s occupational role is well illustrated by cases involving the deaths of national servicemen in Singapore, where superiors have faced criminal charges for failing to exercise adequate oversight.

• In 2018, Corporal First Class Dave Lee collapsed from heatstroke after completing an 8km fast march and later died from multiple organ failure. His supervising officer, Captain Tan Baoshu, was charged with a rash act causing death after the Committee of Inquiry found significant delays in evacuating Lee and inadequate on-site casualty management. Captain Tan was given a discharge not amounting to acquittal, after he was diagnosed with stage 4 cancer.
• Similarly, in the death of Corporal Kok Yuen Chin – a national serviceman who drowned in a pump well at Tuas View Fire Station during a ragging incident in 2018 – his commanders, Lieutenant Kenneth Chong and First Senior Warrant Officer Nazhan Mohamed Nazi, were charged for failing to prevent their subordinates from making Kok enter the well. The court observed that the safety of servicemen under their charge should have been their utmost priority, and that they were legally obliged as Kok’s commanders to ensure his life and safety were not endangered while he was on duty. The commanders were sentenced to 11 months and 10 months’ imprisonment respectively.

These cases demonstrate that persons in positions of authority can face criminal liability not only for doing something wrong, but also for failing to do what their position requires.

Outside of These Legally Prescribed Scenarios, Can There be Any Liability for Failing to Act?

Even outside of criminal liability, individuals could still face liability for an omission or failure to act under other types of laws:

• Civil liability for breach of contract: If a contract stipulates a duty owed to someone, failing to perform that duty could expose the person to a civil suit for breach of contract. For example, if you enter into a contract to provide caregiving services and subsequently fail to provide those services, you could be sued for damages.
• Civil liability in tort (negligence): In some cases, a person who owes a duty of care to another and fails to act, resulting in harm, could be found liable in negligence. For example, a doctor who fails to provide proper treatment to a patient in their care could face a negligence claim. This was the situation that a doctor in Singapore faced. A patient visited the doctor with conditions in his right foot. The doctor assessed the patient to be suffering from severe cellulitis and severe diabetes, and prescribed oral antibiotics. However, when the patient sought a second opinion, he was informed that he suffered from a severe infection, and was admitted to a hospital where he had to get his right leg amputated. The Singapore Medical Council Disciplinary Tribunal found that the doctor’s failure to refer his patient to a hospital in accordance with existing medical standards amounted to serious negligence. The doctor was suspended from medical practice for 13 months.

These civil claims are different from criminal liability, as they typically result in an order to pay damages (monetary compensation) rather than imprisonment or fines imposed by the state.

What Should You Do If You are Unsure of Your Legal Obligations?

If you are unsure whether you have a legal duty to act in a particular situation, the safest course of action is to err on the side of caution and take reasonable steps to assist or report the matter. While there is no general legal duty to be a ‘Good Samaritan’ in Singapore, taking proactive steps to help others or report incidents can help you avoid potential legal complications.

For example, say you encounter a situation where you witness someone else getting his/her belongings snatched, and the thief is running in your direction. If it is within your ability to do so, you may wish to assist by trying to block the thief’s path. However, if the thief is wielding a knife and waving it around, you may not be reasonably expected to put yourself in harm’s way by physically confronting the thief. Instead, you may still assist by staying in the vicinity and waiting for the police to arrive, so that you can provide information about what you witnessed (e.g. what the thief looked like, what he was doing etc.).

—

In conclusion, while Singapore law does not generally impose criminal liability for doing nothing, there are significant exceptions where failing to act can result in serious criminal consequences. These exceptions arise where the law imposes a specific duty to act – whether through statute, special relationships, voluntarily assumed responsibilities, or official positions. The key takeaway is that if you are in a situation where the law imposes a duty on you to act, inaction can be just as punishable as wrongful action.

If you or your loved ones are facing criminal charges for an omission-related offence, you are strongly encouraged to seek further legal advice from a criminal lawyer. A criminal lawyer will be able to assess the merits of your case, advise you on whether you had a legal duty to act in the circumstances, explain your rights, and whether you can avail of any defences. The lawyer will also be able to represent you in court proceedings, if necessary.