Skip to main content

New! You can personalise your feed. Try it now

Advertisement

Advertisement

Shanmugam says MHA takes 'different view' over court judgement on wrongful arrest, warns against 'defensive policing'

SINGAPORE — The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has a "different view" from a recent High Court judgement that awarded a man with SS$20,000 in damages for being wrongly imprisoned by the police, and it is considering filing an appeal against the judgement.

A file photo of Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam in Parliament.
A file photo of Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam in Parliament.
Follow TODAY on WhatsApp
  • The Ministry of Home Affairs is mulling an appeal against a recent High Court judgement that awarded a man with SS$20,000 in damages for being wrongly imprisoned
  • Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said that the court’s findings may adversely affect the police’s ability to detain persons 
  • He also said that if police officers have their actions unfairly critiqued, it could lead to a situation of defensive policing

SINGAPORE — The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has a "different view" from a recent High Court judgement that awarded a man with SS$20,000 in damages for being wrongly imprisoned by the police, and it is considering filing an appeal against the judgement.

Apart from this, the ministry is also mulling whether legislative changes are needed to address “any gaps that may have arisen” between the policy intent of the Mental Health (Care & Treatment) Act and the position in law.

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said this in Parliament on Tuesday (Feb 7) when he was responding to questions from Members of Parliament (MPs) regarding the arrest of Mr Mah Kiat Seng in 2017.

The minister contended that unfair criticism of police officers and their operating procedures would lead to “defensive policing”.

Mr Mah, who was imprisoned for less than a day on the basis of mental illness, had allegedly touched the head of a stranger's four-year-old child. The child's mother later called the police.

On Jan 19 this year in the High Court, Justice Philip Jeyaretnam found that one of the officers, Staff Sergeant (SSgt) Mohamed Rosli Mohamed, arrested Mr Mah because he disliked him and not because he genuinely believed that Mr Mah was a danger because of a mental disorder.

The case had drawn criticism from the public over the police’s operating procedures, Mr Shanmugam noted on Tuesday.

He was responding to Mr Ang Wei Neng, MP for West Coast Group Representation Constituency (GRC), Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC MP Saktiandi Supaat and Non-Constituency MP Leong Mun Wai.

Both Mr Ang and Mr Saktiandi asked questions related to whether the police will consider reviewing its operating procedures, while Mr Leong wanted to know what lapses had occurred in the case involving Mr Mah and if any action will be taken against the officers involved.

In response, Mr Shanmugam said that MHA is “studying the court’s comments carefully” because it has some concerns about the judgement delivered.

He added that the police took a different view from the court’s conclusion that Mr Mah's unusual behaviour did not qualify as symptoms of someone with a mental disorder, and that SSgt Rosli had arrested Mr Mah because he disliked him.

If MHA eventually concludes that the court’s findings are “reasonable and correct, (it will) internalise that and make sure the key points are made clear to our officers” so that they understand the situation better, Mr Shanmugam said.

But right now, the sense among police officers is what liability may befall them for actions that they may take in the discharge of their duties, he added.

WHY THIS CASE MATTERS

Mr Shanmugam said that the court’s findings may adversely affect the police’s ability to detain persons under the provisions of the Mental Health (Care & Treatment) Act.

This is because police officers work in high-stress and dynamic environments, and often have to make split-second decisions and take decisive action based on limited information.

Under Section 7 of the Act, which pertains to the apprehension of a mentally disordered person, it is the duty of law enforcement officers to "apprehend any person believed to be dangerous to himself or herself or other persons".

The law first came into force in 2008 after a parliamentary debate on how police officers are trained to handle persons with mental disorders and assess that they are dangerous to themselves or others.

Such danger, the law states, must be reasonably suspected to be attributable to a mental disorder.  

Mr Shanmugam noted that the court "made some comments about several issues" related to the law.

They included:

  • What constitutes danger for officers on the ground when dealing with someone under the Act
  • Whether the police have the same powers to apprehend someone under the Act as they do when arresting someone under the Criminal Procedure Code

Mr Shanmugam said that these comments might have an impact on how the police can exercise their powers and may have adverse public safety implications.

WHY DEFENSIVE POLICING HARMS SOCIETY

Mr Shanmugam then said that it would be unrealistic for the police to bear up to public scrutiny with the benefit of hindsight for every decision and move. 

Officers must be given “sufficient latitude” to make swift ground assessments and decisions done in good faith, he added.

If police officers have their actions unfairly critiqued, it will inevitably undermine public trust in the police and lead to "defensive policing".

Defensive policing means that:

  • Ground officers will then try to do the least possible because they fear everything they do will be over-analysed and “picked apart unfairly”
  • This will then have a detrimental effect on Singapore’s safety and security
  • An unfair characterisation of the police force will also lead to the public viewing the police as the "enemy" and with suspicion

POLICE'S CHECKS AND BALANCES

In his speech, Mr Shanmugam outlined the existing frameworks that function as layers of checks to ensure that police officers behave in accordance with the law.

There are three layers:

1. The first is a disciplinary process to probe any accusations of abuse of power internally. To this end, police officers also wear body-worn cameras so that their actions can be assessed and actions taken where necessary.

Any errant officer will be taken to task following this internal probe. Over the past three years, 78 police officers have been subject to disciplinary proceedings yearly, and about 10 police officers have been charged each year over the same period for criminal offences.

2. The second layer involves an independent review panel consisting of former judges, former senior public officers and other individuals with “significant standing in society”. The panel provides an independent assessment on whether internal investigations were "fair and thorough".

3. The final layer involves court prosecution if criminal offences are potentially disclosed.

Mr Shanmugam said: "While we have to be strict about upholding the highest standards for the police, we have to ensure that our analysis of officers’ ground judgements is reasonable and fair."

Related topics

false imprisonment arrest K Shanmugam police

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.