Skip to main content

Advertisement

Advertisement

Law allowing detention without trial extended

SINGAPORE — A law allowing some perpetrators of serious crimes to be detained without trial was extended unopposed for another five years yesterday, but not before Members of Parliament (MPs) sought more disclosure on detention numbers and assurances of safeguards against abuse.

SINGAPORE — A law allowing some perpetrators of serious crimes to be detained without trial was extended unopposed for another five years yesterday, but not before Members of Parliament (MPs) sought more disclosure on detention numbers and assurances of safeguards against abuse.

The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA) — which allows the detention of suspected criminals that the Home Affairs Minister deems “in the interests of public safety, peace and good order” — remains an essential component of Singapore’s law enforcement effort, said Second Home Affairs Minister S Iswaran in his speech at the start of the debate on the Bill.

Although prosecution in court is the “first and preferred course of action against any offender”, it may not be possible to prosecute some perpetrators, such as those involved in drug trafficking syndicates, due to difficulty in securing witnesses to testify in court.

In recent years, the CLTPA has been invoked against gang members in the November 2010 Bukit Panjang armed attacks and against two Nigerians in 2009 who were part of a syndicate recruiting Singaporean women as drug runners.

Jurong GRC MP Ang Wei Neng asked for annual disclosures of the number of detainees under the CLTPA, their duration of detention, nationalities and the kinds of criminal activities involved. To this, Mr Iswaran said “relevant statistics” would be included in annual numbers released by the Singapore Prison Service.

The robustness of checks and balances featured heavily on several MPs’ minds. Mr Iswaran had said every case proposed under the Act is scrutinised by senior Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) officials and the Public Prosecutor has to agree before an order is issued by the Home Affairs Minister.

The cases are heard and reviewed by independent advisory committees.

Criminal Law Hearing Committees also scrutinise investigation reports and may examine detainees, who can present their case and be represented by a lawyer.

The hearing committee then makes recommendations to the President, who acts on the advice of the Cabinet, whether to confirm, vary or cancel an order. Each detention order is reviewed annually by a separate Criminal Law Review Committee.

Mr Ang and Aljunied GRC MP Sylvia Lim questioned how often advisory committees have called for additional evidence or summoned and examined witnesses, while Nominated MP (NMP) Eugene Tan asked how many proposals have been rejected by the Public Prosecutor or the MHA.

Mr Iswaran did not reveal numbers but said “there have been instances” where MHA officials or the Public Prosecutor disagreed with proposals.

Moulmein-Kallang GRC MP Edwin Tong, having served on advisory committees, said he could “personally attest to the robustness of this committee’s work”, where members have access to all documents, including statements and eyewitness accounts. The detainee also has the right to seek a judicial review of a detention order in court, he said.

Four detention orders and one police supervision order issued last month for involvement in global football match-fixing activities led several MPs, including Mr Hri Kumar Nair (Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC) and Ms Lim, to question if match-fixing was a sufficiently serious crime for the CLTPA to be invoked.

Mr Iswaran replied that match-fixing syndicates operate no differently from drug traffickers and unlicensed moneylenders — with transnational links and resorting to violence to settle scores. If allowed to take root, they would “cause a profound decay in public order in Singapore”. Where cross-border illegal activities are involved, it can be more difficult to secure witnesses willing to cooperate and testify in open court, he said.

On a call made by NMP Tan to revamp the Act by restricting its scope and application — perhaps by shifting its provisions on illegal strikes and lock-outs in essential services to other legislation, such as those dealing with employment or trade unions — Mr Iswaran said detention powers have not been used so far on strikes and lock-outs, which are dealt with through court prosecution. The powers under the Act will continue to be exercised judiciously for public safety, peace and good order, said Mr Iswaran.

As at Oct 31, there were 209 detainees under the Act. Two in three of them were detained for secret society activities, a quarter for unlicensed moneylending and the rest for drug trafficking and other syndicated crimes.

The number of detention orders issued annually has decreased in recent years and the majority are detained for less than four years. Currently, only one detained individual has been in detention for over 10 years for involvement in drug trafficking activities, said Mr Iswaran.

Read more of the latest in

Advertisement

Advertisement

Stay in the know. Anytime. Anywhere.

Subscribe to get daily news updates, insights and must reads delivered straight to your inbox.

By clicking subscribe, I agree for my personal data to be used to send me TODAY newsletters, promotional offers and for research and analysis.