5 In this connection, we wish to make some observations in relation to compensation orders. We consider that the Prosecution’s request would result in precisely what the compensation regime under the CPC should seek to avoid – undue protraction of proceedings by converting a concluded criminal matter into “quasi-civil” enforcement proceedings over which extended judicial oversight has to be exercised. We had cautioned against such a prospect in our supplementary judgment in Tay Wee Kiat and another v PP and another appeal [2018] 5 SLR 438 at [8]. The court would have to direct further inquiries into the offenders’ means and assets, and thereafter consider the further exercise of its powers under s 360(1) of the CPC. This places undue strain on limited judicial resources and investigative resources, since the investigation officer should continue to assist in facilitating payment to the victim. For similar reasons, we decline to prescribe a “two-step framework”, as proposed by the Prosecution, for how compensation orders should be made. Instead, in cases where the Prosecution is seeking a compensation order, the Prosecution should also consider which of the default mechanisms prescribed in s 360(1) CPC it wishes to seek. The court will be well-placed to consider how best to deal with the case at hand. There is in any case no evidence to suggest that existing practices and processes for the making of compensation orders are seriously deficient or unworkable for the majority of cases.