CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

4.34 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA) was enacted on 21st October 1955. Since then, Parliament has extended it 11 times. The last time was in 2004. The Act will expire on 20th October this year. This Bill seeks to extend the Act for another five years with effect from 21st October 2009.

Rationale for the Act

The Act provides for the maintenance of public order and detention of criminals in the interest of public safety, peace and good order, in particular, for the detention and supervision of persons associated with secret society, drug trafficking and other serious criminal activities. The Act is also used for the prevention of strikes and lock-outs relating to essential services.

The CLTPA has proven to be an effective tool in suppressing serious crimes, secret societies and drug trafficking. It is not always possible to prosecute crime syndicate and secret society members in court as witnesses are

Column: 3277

unwilling to give evidence, fearing reprisals to themselves or their families. Secret society members also often refuse to give evidence against fellow members. This is also the case with drug traffickers and their accomplices.

Sir, an additional difficulty is that leaders of crime syndicates use couriers and go-betweens to shield themselves from liability. Sophisticated communications equipment and systems allow "kingpins" to remain in the shadows, revealing their true identity and locations to no one other than their closest criminal associates.

Modern relevance of the Act

Secret society cases continue to account for a majority of detention and supervision orders issued. Last year, secret society cases accounted for 50% of orders issued. Gangs with secret society elements pose a constant threat to public safety. They engage in fights, sometimes with no real reason, in public places, which may result in serious injuries or even deaths. Because they operate within a known territory, victims are often reluctant to identify them openly. Sir, to give you an example, there was a very vicious gang attack against a group of suspected rival gang members at Eunos Crescent in September 2007. Five innocent victims who were mistaken as rival gang members sustained serious injuries. Although there were eye-witnesses to the gang clash, none of them was willing to testify in court against the offenders. Eventually, we detained six persons under the Act to prevent them from causing further harm. There is also always a potential risk that such gang violence can develop along ethnic lines in our plural society. We cannot allow a gang culture to emerge in our society and must continue to take tough action pre-emptively to prevent this from happening.

Column: 3278

We have used the CLTPA against drug traffickers since 1974. It has enabled the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) to cripple many drug trafficking syndicates and their distributors, and helped to keep the drug situation under control. For example, in July last year, the Act was used to detain a leader of a drug syndicate which operated in Singapore and Malaysia. The syndicate leader had conducted his drug trafficking activities through trusted secret society members. He obtained his supply of heroin, Ecstasy and Ice directly from suppliers in Malaysia and stored the drugs in Johor Baru before smuggling them into Singapore. The syndicate leader was confident that his fellow gang members would not testify against him. Hence, he was detained under the Act and his crime syndicate was crippled.

The Act is also used to deal with syndicate kingpins who do not get involved in day-to-day operations or who use Singapore as a transit point to move their drugs or exploit Singaporeans as drug couriers to collect and deliver drugs outside Singapore. In 2007, an international drug syndicate leader, who targeted Singaporeans as drug couriers to smuggle "cannabis resin" from India and Nepal to Europe, was dealt with under the Act by CNB. He had arranged and coordinated with his Singaporean drug couriers to smuggle a total of more than 78 kg of "cannabis resin" with an estimated value of US$546,000 in Western Europe on no less than nine occasions. The drugs trafficked by his syndicate did not enter Singapore and the syndicate's drug dealings were conducted overseas. However, we were able to deal with him under the Act for exploiting Singaporeans as drug couriers.

The number of persons detained in a year for drug cases dropped from 28 in 1999 to five in 2008, constituting 38% of persons detained in 1999 and 8% last

Column: 3279

year. However, over the past eight years, the drug situation in the region has worsened. Clandestine drug production laboratories have sprung up, which are able to produce drugs on an almost industrial scale. These developments have significantly increased the risks to Singaporeans and pose an even greater challenge to CNB’s enforcement efforts.

Since 1998, we have also used the Act against loansharking syndicates for the same reason that witnesses are often unwilling to testify against loansharks. Even with the enhancement of penalties including caning, as Members well know, loanshark operatives continue to resort to harassment, vandalism and violence without compunction. When arrested, these operatives are typically defiant, uncooperative and will not testify against their bosses. Loansharks and their runners continue to pose a menace to society. There are many reports of harassment, many perpetrated against innocent households. Between 2005 and 2008, the number of reported cases of loanshark harassment increased from 8,174 to 11,400. The increase in harassment cases reported in recent years is largely attributed to the evolution of harassment tactics adopted by these loansharks, which has extended to the indiscriminate harassment of innocent parties whose only connection with the borrower is that they live in the same vicinity. We must use all available means at our disposal to deal with this scourge. The CLTPA is one such critical means without which the situation would be even worse.

Keep foreign criminal organisations out of Singapore

The Act has contributed to keeping serious crime under control and deterred overseas criminal organisations from setting up in Singapore. In many countries, their Police face difficult

Column: 3280

challenges in fighting against organised crime because of the lack of deterrent penalties and tough laws. The CLTPA deters these overseas criminal syndicates from coming here.

Two casinos will open in Singapore within the next year or so. The Home Team is gearing up to deal with criminal syndicates, both local or foreign, which may be tempted by the lure of free flowing money. Just as there will be people looking for a flutter at the tables, there will be others who want to make money away from the gaming tables, in activities such as money laundering, loansharking or vice. The Act sends a strong signal to such groups that they should not attempt to infiltrate the casino industry here.

Judicious use of the Act and safeguards

Sir, the prosecution of offenders in Court is and will always remain the primary mechanism for securing criminal justice in Singapore. We are always mindful that the Act is used only as a last resort. Since 1999, the total number of detention orders issued has remained relatively low at between 60 and 80 per year. In 2008, 64 detention orders and six Police supervision orders were issued under the Act. The population of criminal law detainees has correspondingly declined from a high of 1,260 in 1988 to 463 in 1998 and to 290 last year.

In addition, there are substantial safeguards incorporated into the Act and built into the administrative procedures to ensure that enforcement agencies do not abuse their powers and resort to using the Act without the strongest justification.

First, any proposal by Police or CNB to detain a person under the Act or to place him under police supervision will be scrutinised by senior officials in the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Attorney-General's Chambers before a

Column: 3281

detention or Police supervision order is issued by the Minister for Home Affairs. The Police or CNB must justify the use of the Act in every case.

Second, an Advisory Committee comprising prominent private citizens, who are also respected senior lawyers, scrutinises the investigations and documentary evidence. The Committee may examine detainees, investigating officers and witnesses. Detainees are informed as to the case against them. They then have an opportunity to present their case to the Committee, and can be represented by legal counsel in doing so, before the Committee makes its recommendations to the President.

Third, detention orders are reviewed annually by a separate Review Committee, also comprising prominent private citizens. Members of the Review Committee are distinct from the Advisory Committee, ensuring independent decision-making. Any recommendation to extend detention for a further 12-month period must be approved by the President on the advice of the Cabinet.

And fourth, a separate Review Board, also with a different set of members, will consider all cases of detention extending beyond 10 years. This process ensures that cases where persons have been detained beyond 10 years are specially scrutinised to determine that they have not been detained longer than is necessary.

Finally, Sir, coming before Parliament every five years to renew the Act is an additional safeguard to ensure the Act is still needed, taking into account the circumstances prevailing then.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the methods of criminal groups may have evolved since the CLTPA was first enacted in 1955, but the threat they pose to our way of life by instilling fear amongst the law-abiding

Column: 3282

through acts of violence and blatant lawlessness remains. Without this Act, we would not be able to keep such criminal elements and groups at bay, and preserve the level of public safety and security that Singaporeans now enjoy.

Once again, as I conclude, let me assure this House that where there are witnesses willing to testify in court, we will certainly proceed by way of court prosecution. But where victims and accomplices refuse to testify in court, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act prevents criminals from evading responsibility and punishment. Now, even when invoked, the Act is not used as a blunt instrument. There is flexibility to issue either a detention or a supervision order, depending on the circumstances of the case.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

The right to a fair trial is a fundamental human right. For instance, it is embodied in Article 10 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act detracts from this fundamental principle. It allows the Government to detain persons without a criminal prosecution or trial. It was first introduced in 1955, and has been extended 11 times, most recently in 2004.

On principle, and as a trained lawyer, I am minded to oppose the renewal of this Act, because it represents such a significant encroachment into this fundamental right and also because of the inherent possibility of abuse of such powers. But I read the Hansard on the debate in this House when this Act was last extended in 2004, and I have just heard the Senior Minister of State's

Column: 3283

;speech and I am comforted that there exist robust safeguards against abuse of the Act.

Rights are not absolute, and can be limited and qualified in appropriate cases. I am not entirely convinced that the Act is still necessary or justifiable in today’s day and age, but I am convinced that it is not being abused. I will therefore defer to the Ministry’s judgment that the Act remains necessary, and support the extension of the Act.

I would, however, like to make just two points. Firstly, I agree with the Government’s approach in maintaining this Act as a temporary one that has to be explicitly extended by Parliament every five years. It ensures accountability, by giving Parliament the opportunity to question the Ministry on how the Act has been used in the preceding five years. So I hope that the Ministry will not, and will never, ask for this Act to be made permanent.

Secondly, there should be increased transparency in how the Act has been used. Instead of waiting until the Act is up for extension to give figures on the use of the Act, it would be better if the Ministry could proactively disclose figures on the Act’s operation on an annual basis. There should also be aggregated details, on the reasons for the use of the Act, and average detention periods. This would help to assure the public that there has been no abuse.

Sir, with that, I support the Bill.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Marine Parade): Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill. I am glad that I do not have to watch the clock this time.

Sir, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act was enacted on 21st

Column: 3284

October 1955. It was meant to be a temporary addition to the existing criminal laws. In the words of the then Chief Secretary, Mr W A C Good, the law was "intended to include all measures which the Government considers are necessary in the present circumstances in Singapore to strengthen the law against those who seek to overthrow the lawfully elected government by violence or who seek to subvert the minds of the people by intimidation, away from genuine democracy and constitutional advance to self-government to the rule of fear and to ultimate communist domination."

Sir, communist domination is not very relevant today. Over the years, the Bill has gradually evolved as a law to allow for detention and police supervision for those involved in secret societies, drug traffickers and other syndicated criminal activities. I also understand that the law has been used against loansharks. The Act has a sunset clause like the hon. Nominated Member of Parliament says, "it requires the law to be renewed in Parliament every five years". This means that if Parliament does not agree to extend the validity of the Act at this Sitting, then the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act would lapse on 20th October, this year.

The most powerful clause in the Act, Sir, is section 30, and this is to minister the power to order the detention of a person in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. The Minister may also order the person to be subject to the supervision of the Police. Essentially, this gives the power to the Minister to detain a person without having to charge the person and bring him to trial.

The question before this House, surely, is whether this Act is still relevant today, in view of the fact that Singapore has relatively low crime and the number of secret societies has gradually been reduced over the years. Likewise, we

Column: 3285

have a strict anti-drug regime and the number of drug cases has also come down.

Sir, the power to detain a person without the trial is a very powerful tool and would effectively deprived a person of his personal liberty without giving the person the opportunity to defend himself against a charge in court. Should we continue to grant such powers to the Minister in modern day Singapore?

Sir, let me just say that I am unequivocally in support of the Bill. I recall many years ago when I was a young lawyer, I was asked to interview a gangster in prison. He was charged for murder and was a member of a secret society. He was part of a whole lot of gangsters who were chasing a victim. Eventually, he managed to use a metal pipe to clobber the victim to death. I was then barely in a year in legal practice assisting my senior partner to defend him of the capital charge. I think I was asked because I could speak Hokkien and my partner thought that I could speak his lingo. Even though I was supposed to be his lawyer and defending him, it was very difficult to obtain any information from him about the case. It did not matter that this gangster was facing the death penalty. He would not be willing to blame his friends or say anything to try to mitigate his culpability even though his silence may result in him being hanged. At the end of the interview, I could only conclude that members of the secret society live in quite a different world with very different values from all of us.

Sir, in the course of my practice as a lawyer, I have also come across cases where young juveniles are persuaded to join secret societies so that they can be part of a gang. The gang would also afford these youngsters protection if they get into trouble. These youngsters are then persuaded to try glue-sniffing and other drugs. Most importantly, they are

Column: 3286

recruited to commit offences for the secret society leaders. Thus, the reality is that secret societies are still thriving in Singapore and they are targeting younger members to join them.

Sir, I had also previously complained to the Ministry of Home Affairs about loanshark harassment. Speak to any victim of loanshark and you will feel the intense frustration of the victim. They do not know who the loansharks are, when they will be attacked or when their homes will be splattered with paint. The culprits who are caught are usually insignificant runners and the main ring leader hides behind several layers of such runners. Even if the main ring leader is caught, I understand from friends who are in the Police that the borrowers from this illegal loansharks do not dare to testify because of fear of reprisals. It is clear to me that there is still a need for the law to deal with members of secret societies and illegal loansharks. It will also help preserve public safety and allow many Singaporeans to sleep peacefully at night.

Singapore is known to be a safe country and many of us have gone out late at night without worrying about our safety and whether we would be accosted by gangsters or other criminals. Without such a law, we are basically sending a message to the world that we are more relaxed now. I fear that this will result in more drug traffickers or other syndicated criminals considering Singapore as a base to work from.

Last month, I read of an incident in Denmark where a Singaporean man was shot in his restaurant in Copenhagen. It was alleged that the victim had connections with the underworld. I could not help but wonder whether this kind of shooting incident could have happened in Singapore if we do not have such strict laws allowing the Police to detain without trial, criminals who are suspected of having connections with the underworld.

Column: 3287

I am also sure that many of us have read of arm robberies taking place in our neighbouring countries. Just two days ago, there was an attempted armed robbery of a SBS bus driver in Johor Baru. Again, if we do not have such strict laws to detain ruthless and hardcore criminals quickly, would we have the same kind of crime situation in Singapore?

Hence, on balance, I prefer to empower the Minister to detain suspected criminals without trial rather than allow the country to go soft on crime. As the Police has often reminded us – "low crime does not mean no crime". I would not wish to see Singapore's crime rate go up because we allow this law to lapse and are perceived to have gone soft on crimes. The message to any crime or drug syndicate thinking of establishing a foothold in Singapore must surely be a big, bold and emphatic "no entry".

Sir, I note that the hon. Senior Minister of State, Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee, has assured us of the many built-in safeguards to ensure that the powers under this law are not abused. One important safeguard is that the Minister must have the consent of the Public Prosecutor before making a detention or supervision order, and we all know that the Public Prosecutor is the Attorney-General who enjoys security of tenure under the Constitution. Hence, any detention or supervision order would be considered very seriously.

I notice that section 31 of the Act provides for the setting up of an Advisory Committee. However, Sir, no where in the Act do I see the provision for the establishment of a Review Committee or Review Board. May I ask the Minister if this is an administrative procedure instituted by the Ministry of Home Affairs? Would it not be better for the establishment of the Review Committee

Column: 3288

and the Review Board to be provided for under this Act?

May I also ask the Minister to clarify what happens to the detainee whilst he is under detention? Are there any steps to try to rehabilitate the suspected offender whilst he is serving his detention? Finally, Sir, may I seek the Minister's assurance that there will be sufficient safeguards to ensure that the detainee would be treated reasonably in the detention centre because they are not prisoners convicted in the court of law? We should never have a similar incident as that which happened in Guantanamo Bay detention camp where some of the detainees were tortured. Are there senior officers in charge of the detention centre and supervising the entire management of the detention centre?

Sir, with this, I support the Bill.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank both Mr Siew and Mr Lim Biow Chuan for supporting the Bill.

On the point about it not being a case of an open trial, I think everybody knows, and I have shared this before that there is a detailed process in place. That is a key point. The detailed process involves elements which will enable the detainee, for example, to know the case against him, an opportunity to present his case before an independent committee and also the approval, up from the Public Prosecutor and, then, of course, the Minister and the Cabinet.

Let me now address the specific concerns that Mr Lim and Mr Siew have raised. First, on the status of the Review Committee and the Review Board, as well as the management and rehabilitation of detainees. Sir, the Review Committee and Review Board are legally sanctioned committees appointed by the Minister under section 39 of the Act. The term used in the Act is "Advisory Committee".

Column: 3289

We have in fact, appointed six advisory committees: four are hearing committees which are on rotation, examining every fresh order issued by the Minister under section 30 of the Act. The other two committees are the Review Committee and Review Board which comprise different members from the hearing committees. These committees review existing orders of detention and recommend whether to extend or revoke the order. Indeed, the powers of the committees are prescribed under the Criminal Law Advisory Committee Rules which also set out the operating parameters of the committees. So, let me assure Mr Lim that these are properly and legally constituted committees.

As I have said in my speech, these advisory committees play a key role as a safeguard mechanism, and this has also been alluded to by Mr Lim and Mr Siew, to ensure that powers under the Act are used in accordance with the Act's objectives. The hearing committees scrutinise the investigations and documentary evidence supporting every fresh order issue. They are given full access

to all evidence and may examine detainees, investigating officers and witnesses. They can also require further investigations of certain aspects of the case if they have any concerns over the cogency of the evidence.

Next, regarding Mr Lim's query on the management and rehabilitation of detainees. I would, first, like to clarify that the detainees are not kept in a special detention centre. So it cannot be a Guantanamo. Like other prisoners, they are housed in a different prison institution, together with other prisoners, according to the security risks and rehabilitation needs. The conduct and progress of the detainees are monitored closely by Prisons Officers. Detainees undergo similar rehabilitative regime as other prisoners, which include programmes such as work, education, skills training as well as

Column: 3290

religious and social counselling. So, during their time in prison, like other prisoners, there will be rehabilitative elements as well.

I assure Mr Lim that there are sufficient safeguards to prevent abuse in our prisons. As he knows, all our prisoners are subject to regular unannounced inspections by visiting Justices. During these inspections, detainees, like other prisoners, can raise any complaints that they may have to the visiting Justices. Detainees also receive regular visits by their family members who can, on behalf of the detainees, provide feedback on any issues to Prisons authorities. So, those are the points that Mr Lim has raised.

Mr Siew has asked for more regular disclosure on matters such as the numbers detained and released. Sir, MHA had provided the data in a written reply to a parliamentary question he had filed quite recently on the same subject. In that reply, we had stated that the number of persons detained over the past five years was 366, which is about 73 per year on average. Over the same period, we released 272 detainees or about 54 per year on average. Every five years when we come to this House to renew this Bill, we share essential statistics on detentions under the Act. I did this when I moved the Bill 10 years ago, in 1999. I did this again when I moved the Bill to renew it for five years in 2004, and I have just done so again.

This is indeed one of the reasons why the Bill is temporary in nature, which Mr Siew lauds. Coming to Parliament every five years to renew it is in itself a safeguard, when MHA has to explain why we still need the Act as part of our legal arsenal. So, there is transparency and disclosure of the figures.

Sir, let me conclude by agreeing with the sentiments expressed by Mr Lim Biow

Column: 3291

Chuan. This Bill is, indeed, important in today's context, for the maintenance of law and order in Singapore. Without it, we would not be able to maintain the safe and secure environment which Singaporeans enjoy today.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.