Law allowing detention without trial extended, Shanmugam addresses concerns over new clause

SINGAPORE — A law that allows some criminal suspects to be detained without trial was extended another five years on Tuesday (Feb 6). This came after a debate lasting almost four hours, where several Members of Parliament questioned a new clause stating that the Home Affairs Minister’s decision on matters such as detention is final.

Amendments specifying the scope of criminal activities covered under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act were also passed, with 77 out of 89 MPs voting “yes”.

Nominated MPs Kok Heng Leun and Azmoon Ahmad, as well as eight Workers’ Party MPs — excluding Mr Chen Show Mao, who was absent from the sitting — voted against the amendments, while NMPs Mahdev Mohan and Kuik Shiao-Yin abstained from the vote.

The addition of a finality clause was a concern for many MPs, who asked if this would crimp the judiciary’s powers to interfere with the Government’s decisions.

A growing number of Singaporeans have been seeking judicial reviews to clarify wide-ranging public law matters, WP MP Pritam Singh said, citing past instances such as whether elections ought to be called in a Single Member Constituency or a Group Representation Constituency, and the banning of musical instruments being played during the religious procession for Thaipusam.

“In concert with a more educated population and a greater recognition of the critical role an independent judiciary plays as a co-equal organ alongside the executive and legislature, it is unsurprising that more Singaporeans are seeking (this) avenue… and for the judiciary to have the final say on the legality of government actions,” Mr Singh said.

Fellow WP MPs Sylvia Lim and Dennis Tan, as well as Mr Mohan, also raised similar concerns.

In response, Law and Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam said that the clause does not overrule the grounds for judicial review.

The clause maintains the “current position”, he said. “The courts are not to substitute their views of the facts, or engage in the exercise of scrutinising the evidential basis of detention.”

Besides, the laws allow the courts to review and sometimes overturn the Government’s decisions when there is illegality, irrationality or procedural impropriety in the exercise of administrative authority.

He recalled these principles highlighted by the apex court in the case of international match-fixer Tan Seet Eng, whose detention under the Act was ruled unlawful by the courts in Nov 2015.

“(The position) is unchanged. So it crystallises the position as it stands now,” Mr Shanmugam said.

The Act, which was put into effect in 1955, has to be renewed every five years. It was extended for the 14th time on Tuesday.

TYPES OF CRIMINAL ACTIVITY TO BE LISTED

Among other things, amendments passed on Tuesday will allow for the listing of the types of criminal activity, and the Home Affairs Minister can make orders for detention or police supervision.

The list of activities will include unlicensed moneylending, involvement in secret society activities, human trafficking, murder, robbery with firearms, gang rape and kidnapping.

The changes will also give the Government more flexibility in imposing different conditions on those subject to police supervision, based on the their varying risks and needs.

Another issue debated in the House was why the Government had sought to extend the Act ahead of its expiry in October next year, when such extensions were typically sought between one-and-a-half and 12 months before expiry.

Ms Lim and Bukit Batok MP Murali Pillai made the case that parliamentarians ought to take into account the latest security landscape in considering an extension.

Ms Lim said: “Things can always change. How will Parliament make a reasonable assessment of prevailing circumstances so far ahead of time? Does this not make a mockery of the careful consideration Parliament is to exercise, when assessing whether prevailing circumstances justify a renewal of this draconian law?”

While agreeing that there is typically a shorter lead time between the first reading of bills to amend this Act and its expiry date, Mr Shanmugam said that the Government is “taking the opportunity” to extend the Act while introducing a series of other amendments.

‘TOOL OF FINAL RESORT’

To some MPs’ questions on whether the Act remains necessary, the Home Affairs Minister stressed that the Government wants to retain it as a “tool of final resort, if necessary”.

Noting that the number of people detained under the Act have fallen from 317 to 103 over the last seven years, Mr Shanmugam said: “Again, the approach is, where we can, we move to the criminal justice system and use the (Act) as sparingly as possible.”

Mr Shanmugam reiterated that the powers under the Act have been and will continue to be exercised in cases where prosecution in court was not possible, for example, when witnesses were unwilling to give evidence in a trial due to fear of reprisals.

Mr Kok asked whether other options for achieving the same objectives could be considered, such as exploring better ways of protecting witnesses.

In response, the minister maintained that this Act is an “essential tool in the arsenal” of maintaining law and order in Singapore.

“There is no right and wrong approach, but you have to be very clear (about) the trade-offs. Society as a whole must be able to accept the trade-offs… I have come to accept that the path we are taking is probably better for Singapore and for society. It is possible to make grand statements about liberty and security if you don’t have to deal with real-world problems,” Mr Shanmugam said.

In addition to the legislative amendments, he also announced that from next month, independent advisory committees — which make recommendations to the President regarding criminal detention and police supervision orders under this Act — will be chaired by High Court judges.

“The (advisory committees will be) an essential safeguard for the system. (It) being chaired by sitting judges will make the process more robust,” he said.