Law Ministry responds to calls to justify repatriation

SINGAPORE — Responding to a human rights group’s call for the Government to explain its executive discretion on repatriation decisions, the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) yesterday reiterated the need to distinguish criminal charges and civil claims from issues of security and assessment of risk and immigration matters.

Should the courts have to preside over every administrative executive decision, “it would mean that persons with no right to stay and work in Singapore can challenge a decision to repatriate them even after they have been assessed to jeopardise our security”, said Ms Praveen Randhawa, Press Secretary to the Law Minister.

“It would mean that Singaporeans would face additional social and security risks, while at the same time incurring the multiple costs of keeping such foreign nationals. Is this the system we want?”

Ms Praveen was responding to MARUAH President Braema Mathi who had, among other things, called on the Government to publish the reasons for repatriation decisions, for a start. Noting that repatriation orders — which carry serious repercussions for foreign nationals and their families — are “not transparent and open”, Ms Mathi said: “The Government should also explain how its executive discretion on repatriation decisions operates consistently with the Public Prosecutor’s independence in making prosecutorial decisions.”

Yesterday’s exchange was the latest between MARUAH and MinLaw. It was triggered by letters to TODAY Voices last week from Ms Mathi and Workfair Singapore social worker Jolovan Wham, both of whom expressed concerns about the Government’s repatriation regime that has come under the spotlight following the Dec 8 riot in Little India. After the completion of police investigations, 57 foreign workers were deported.

In response to the letters, Ms Praveen wrote to the newspaper. In her letter which was published yesterday, she said, among other things, that Mr Wham and Ms Mathi had confused the issues of persons who have been charged before a court of law and foreign workers seeking to enter, work and/or remain in Singapore.

Ms Praveen’s letter, in turn, prompted a reply from Ms Mathi yesterday, where the latter reiterated that MARUAH was not asserting that the Government makes such orders lightly. “But we do think Singapore can and must do more to ensure that decisions on any punishment of such vulnerable workers via repatriation are justified, reliable and transparent.”

Ms Mathi added: “For example, in this case, based on Ms Praveen’s statement, it seems that the Government has played judge, jury and executioner in deciding who should be charged, repatriated or given advisories. But the public is none the wiser on how and why the Government arrived at those decisions.”

And without an avenue of appeal, “there is no way to test the validity of such administrative decisions”, she said. Noting that rioting charges were eventually dropped against seven foreign workers, she added: “This demonstrates that these decisions and investigations are not infallible, that there is room for error.”

“Singaporeans value a society that upholds the rule of law. A society that upholds the rule of law must be mindful of, and do its best to guard against, the possibility of mistakes by administrative bodies acting in good faith.”

In response, Ms Praveen pointed out that the charges “were not dropped as a result of judicial adjudication, but voluntarily by the Government where after further review of the evidence, it did not consider criminal charges were warranted”. She reiterated that criminal charges and civil claims are decided by the courts, while “matters of security and assessment of risk and immigration matters are decided by the Government. Indeed that is one of the core functions of government”.

The Republic’s current law “allows the Government to take firm and quick action to minimise the risk of a recurrence of an incident that has imposed such a heavy toll on Singaporeans”. “Shouldn’t Ms Mathi agree that Singaporeans have a right to protect themselves thus?” she said. Ultimately, the matter is for Singaporeans to decide, she said. “Thus far, Singaporeans have chosen the system that ensures the safety and security of our society. The Government will honour this mandate.”