CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 3.50 pm

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, formerly known as the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Ordinance, was brought into operation on 21st October 1955. Since then it has been extended every five years. The Act will lapse on 20th October 1984, and the Bill is to extend the Act for another five years.

The Act provides for the maintenance of public safety, peace and good order, the prevention of strikes and lock-outs in essential services, and detention and supervision of persons associated with serious criminal activities. Without invoking the powers of this Act it would not have been possible for us to suppress secret society and drug trafficking activities in Singapore. It is not possible to successfully prosecute secret society elements in open court because potential witnesses are intimidated and therefore are unwilling to testify for fear of reprisal. It is the same with drug traffickers as addicts are invariably threatened with dire consequences by the traffickers if their identities were disclosed. This makes the application of ordinary legal procedures to prosecute such offenders ineffective. The effec- tiveness of the Act in curbing secret societies, is shown by the significant decrease in the number of secret society incidents such as rioting, unlawful assembly, settlement talk and murder. From a peak of 416 such incidents in 1959, the number of incidents dropped to 12 in 1983.ln respect of drug trafficking, the use of the Act has resulted in smashing the organized syndicates smuggling large quantities of heroin, cannabis and opium into Singapore, and the break-up of their distribution network. Last year, only six large scale traffickers were arrested compared with 46 in 1977. Of the six arrested, three were smuggling drugs through Singapore to other countries, and the other three were trafficking only cannabis and morphine.

The Act also provides for the prevention of strikes and lock-outs in the essential services, especially in the water, gas and electricity services. These provisions are still necessary.

There are adequate built-in safeguards in the Act to prevent its abuses. After thorough investigations by enforcement authorities, cases are put up to the Home Affairs Ministry for consideration. After being satisfied with the investigation, the Ministry must seek the concurrence of the Public Prosecutor. It is only then that a Police Supervision or a Detention Order is issued. The Order must further be confirmed or otherwise by the President upon recommendation of an Advisory Committee charged with scrutinizing the investigation and examining all documentary evidence and witnesses. At this hearing by the Committee, detainees or supervisees have the privilege of being represented by counsel.

The Act has contributed considerably to the maintenance of public order. It is still needed to further suppress secret society activities, drug trafficking and other serious crimes. It is therefore necessary to extend the Act for a further period of five years.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, before I speak on this Bill may I again say that I have appeared for persons detained under this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act before the Advisory Committee.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, like the other two Bills that the House has just considered and passed, is concerned with crime, the prevalence of crime in Singapore, the need to combat it and to take adequate measures to deal with it. As I said before, and I say it now, I have no quarrel over that and I certainly welcome the taking of adequate steps to rid Singapore of unnecessary crimes. But this Act, Sir, has in it provisions which depart from the rule of law. The rule of law is that no person may be deprived of his liberty, be incarcerated in prison unless he has been tried before a competent court or a tribunal and has been proved guilty on competent evidence adduced before the court or tribunal and the tribunal has found him guilty thereof. That is the rule of law and that is the rule that is observed in all civilized countries which seek to observe the rule of law. The provisions in this Act, there is a part devoted to them, depart from the rule of law and are a negation of the rule of law.

It may be necessary at times of emergency or in times of lawlessness to depart from the rule of law. But this departure from the rule of law should not become a permanent feature of any society. To do so would be to undermine the rule of law itself because it proclaims our lack of confidence in the rule of law and in the courts which are here or in any country to maintain the rule of law. So this is important. That if you wish to depart from the rule of law, it should be for good valid reasons and it should be for a temporary period of time.

We know of countries which have departed from the rule of law. For example, in the last war, in Great Britain they had the emergency regulations which departed from the rule of law, which provided for special powers to be exercised by Ministers and the Government. But that was confined to the emergency that the country was facing and once that emergency was over, those powers were no longer invoked. They were, in fact, repealed. So I am not saying that you should not resort to powers that depart from the rule of law but I say it is at best a necessary evil which must be carefully guarded and must not be allowed to become a rule of law.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister quite rightly pointed out that this Bill had its First Reading in 1955 before this present Government took office. At that time when it was introduced in 1955, there was no provision for detention without trial. But as I was looking through the proceedings in the then Legislative Assembly, it was clear it was designed to deal with what they thought was the lawlessness at that time and statements were made that it was intended to last only for a short period of time and it was hoped that the Bill would not have a longer life than three years. That was the time limit that was given to this Bill when it was first introduced.

Then in 1958, again before this present Government took office, there was the provision for detention introduced into the Act. It was introduced for the first time in 1958 providing for detention. But that provided for detention of persons for a period of six months at a time. It, nevertheless, contained a provision for any Order made for the detention of any person for six months to be extended for further periods of six months at a time. But there was a very important qualification. There was a proviso to that Bill in 1958 which said that no person may be detained under any Order for more than two years from the first making of the Order. In other words, you could only extend the order for a further three times, six months at a time, and two years was the maximum.

Now, this limit on the detention of persons for a maximum of only two years under the Act without any trial was taken away in 1960. By then the present Government had taken office. The position now is that there are persons, who have been detained under the provisions contained in this Act, who have been in prison for much longer than two years. There has been a deprivation of their liberty, of their freedom, in circumstances which have completely negatived the rule of law. The Constitution provides and the constitution, as I have said, in all civilized countries provide, that no person shall be deprived of his liberty unless he has been found guilty by a competent court of law.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I wish the Minister had given us some numbers of the persons who are at the moment in prison detained under this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. I think the term "Temporary Provisions" is a misnomer. It should be perhaps "Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act". It is a wrong use of the word "temporary" for a legislation which has been with us since 1955. But, as I said earlier, the intention then was that these provisions should only be for a temporary period of time. But, of course, the Government that succeeded that has found it very useful to retain these provisions.

When I asked this question about persons under detention - I think it was in 1982 - I was told that there were, I stand corrected, at least more than 1,000 persons who were detained under this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, without any trial, without any Court having found them guilty in the first instance. I would like to know what the numbers are now, whether they have increased. What I would particularly like to know is how many of them have been in prison for more than five years. I know of cases where they have been in prison for more than five years. I would like the Minister, if he can, to give us the figures of persons who are detained under this Act, particularly of persons who have been detained for more than five years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if I may draw the attention of the House to the speech that was made in 1959 after this Government took office, when there was an amendment to this Bill. The amendment was to increase the period of detention from six months to one year besides making other provisions in the Bill. The then Minister for Home Affairs said this [2nd September 1959]:

'I would like to stress that it is because of the present date of gang lawlessness that the Government is seeking these additional and exceptional powers contained in the Bill.'

It goes on to say, noble sentiments:

'This Government, like any democratic government, does not wish to lightly deprive the individual of his liberty by executive action nor for that matter for a longer time than is absolutely necessary. But when we are dealing with unruly and unprincipled thugs and gangsters and because of the terrorism they have spread, the ordinary process of law is inadequate to deal with the crimes and misdeeds committed by them.'

As I said, there may be times when drastic powers are necessary. And I see this Government recognized, in 1959 it would appear, that these powers should only be of a temporary nature.

At that Reading, I see that the then Member for Farrer Park, who is now on the High Court Bench, raised a caution about the powers under the Bill, under the Ordinance then, and he was concerned about the persons who might be wrongly detained under these powers. He said, there were perhaps not very many, "There may be just one in a hundred", he said. But he thought that even in that exceptional case, that person should be given the opportunity of presenting his case with a view to determining whether or not the detention had been right.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whilst, as I said, I can see the need for this sometimes, I would like to know from the Minister, when he comes to reply, whether he thinks the need which brought on the introduction of these powers in 1958 for the first time and which were enhanced in 1959, still applies, the need still exists. As I said, the Minister then was referring to lawless gangsterism, fights between secret society gangs. Is that situation still prevailing in Singapore, or does the Government find this a very convenient handle to detain persons who are not guilty of secret society crimes but of other minor crimes?

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has referred to in-built provisions to safeguard, I suppose what he meant, against the danger of innocent persons being put away for many years, stretching perhaps to more than five years, 10 years. I do not know. It will be interesting when we have these figures. But, as I said, the whole thing, the process, is a departure from what the Americans would call "the due process of law".

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have, as I have indicated to you, experience in dealing with these matters. If I may inform the House, a person is picked up and detained by the Police acting under section 43 of this Act, and although the power that is given to the Police is detention for a maximum period of 14 days, or is it 16 days - it does not really matter - what happens is that, the Police very often re-exercise these powers at the end of the 14 or 16 days. They bring the man out of the lock-up or cell and then say, "We are arresting you again." So a man may find himself detained by the Police for longer than 14 or 16 days provided under this Act. Then when the Police have completed their investigations, and there would appear to be no time limit on them to complete their investigations, and all this time the man is detained under these extensions, the papers are sent to the Minister with the recommendation of the Police.

Of course, the Minister is required under this Act, within 28 days, to refer the detention to a Criminal Law Advisory Committee. But there is no guarantee that it will be heard by the Criminal Law Advisory Committee within 28 days, more likely not. The man is lucky if he is heard before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee within six months of his detention.

What happens before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee? The detainees is given a very terse statement. In many cases, he is not even served with the order of detention. He is given a very terse statement that he has been involved in activities of a criminal nature. He is also, in many cases, not told the times or the occasions when he is alleged to have been involved in activities of a criminal nature. Then he is asked to go and make representations before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee as to why he should not be detained.

As I have said before, this is a Kafta situation.You do not know what you are accused of. You do not know what the evidence against you is. You do not know what it is that the Police have against you and yet you are asked to defend yourself. It is a hopeless situation. And you go before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee. Although this Act says that the Criminal Law Advisory Committee can exercise the powers of a court to summon witnesses and to examine them, no witnesses are summoned before the Committee. I cannot, Mr Speaker, Sir, see why, if proceedings are conducted in camera, where the public are not allowed, why it is not possible for the detainee to have the case against him presented before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee by the Police officers who have investigated it. It cannot be said that the Police officers would be in danger of their lives if they came and gave evidence before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee. Because that is one of the reasons that was advanced - that witnesses would be frightened to come before the court to testify in case the criminal tried to seek revenge against them for having testified or given information. But that objection cannot hold for Police officers. So I do not know why Police officers should not be called before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee to set out clearly the case against the detainee so that he is given a chance to know what the case against him is, what the evidence against him is, and then to answer that. That is an elementary requirement of natural justice. When you want to deprive a person of his liberty, the least you can do is to tell him clearly, without any equivocation, what is it that he has done which warrants his detention and then give him the evidence that is in your possession so that he can answer it.

As I said, Mr Speaker, Sir, the man appears before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee. He is not allowed to call the Police officers. He can call his own witnesses. But he cannot require the production of the Police officers who investigated the offence so as to put questions to them. As I said, he is given a terse statement. Then it is left to him and his counsel to try and find out by questions put to the Criminal Law Advisory Committee any details. In my respectful submission, Mr Speaker, Sir, it is wholly wrong that a detainee should be put to the task of having to ferret out what the charge against him is and the evidence against him. And then at the end of the proceedings before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee, he is taken away. The Criminal Law Advisory Committee reports to the President on this. But the detainee or his legal advisers never see this report or recommendation of the Criminal Law Advisory Committee. And the man may never know what the recommendation is, what the report is against him. This is a complete departure from all civilized norms of law. And the question we must ask ourselves is: is this really necessary.? As I said, I concede the need to combat crime but we must, Mr Speaker, Sir, guard jealously the liberty of the individual. And we must guard against any danger of an innocent man spending in prison, what is it, eight years, 10 years, as I say, it is indefinite now. There is no limit, the years that he can be detained in prison.

I think, Mr Speaker, Sir, the Ministry should well consider whether the time has not come to provide for a more satisfactory hearing for the detainee. I would like to know what is the objection to this. If it is the fear of witnesses, I have dealt with that. You do not have to call the witnesses. You just call the Police officers. What is the danger of providing the man with something more than a mere terse statement?

I think it is important, Sir, that we should also provide him with an appeal against the detention to a proper tribunal. The then Member for Farrer Park was referring to the tribunal under the then Preservation of Public Security Ordinance and now the Internal Security Act. There the tribunal is presided over by a High Court Judge. And he was comparing the difference between the Advisory Committee and that tribunal. I am not suggesting that it should be the same tribunal. But you should provide the man with some safeguards, that the evidence against him should be looked at by an independent tribunal. And who should have the power to determine whether the detention should be continued or not?

The present provisions only provide for the Criminal Advisory Committee to make recommendations. And as I said, we do not even know what they write. I would ask the Minister to seriously consider whether the time has not come for us to try and revert, if not completely, to the rule of law but at least get nearer to it. This was intended, as I said, for secret society members and gangsters at a time when they were rife. It has now been extended and it has been used, for one, against drug traffickers, as the Minister pointed out, and also others. But the danger is this, Mr Speaker, Sir, that when you arm the Police with these powers, they will find it easier to resort to them. It is much more convenient to use these powers given to them than to have to build up a case and to present it to a court of law. And so there is the great danger of abuse. There is also the danger of private quarrels being settled through this medium of the power given to the Police.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in 1982, I spoke about the danger of the powers given under the Misuse of Drugs Act, the detention of addicts in the drug rehabilitation centres. I spoke of the danger of relying purely on the certificate of one doctor. At that time, I was told, "Oh, it is perfectly in order. We are satisfied about the adequacy and there is no need for us to provide any appeal." But I understand, Sir, and I was very glad to hear that after that debate steps were taken to see that there were at least two doctors who examined the drug addict independently of one another and certified that the man was a drug addict. As I said, I was very glad to know that after the protests that were made in the House when I raised it. So I would ask the Minister to consider whether it is not time to bring in some provisions to see that there is no danger of abuse by the Police or that it is not used as a convenient handle by the Police. And that persons who are detained are really guilty and that there is sufficient evidence against them of which they are apprised and of which they are given ample time to rebut.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson's long repetitive exposition has espoused the virtues of the rule of law. I do not disagree that, as far as the rule of law is concerned, there are virtues to have the rule of law. In Singapore we do have the rule of law. But his version of the rule of law may be quite different from my version of the rule of law.'

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is your version?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Whatever law that we promulgate goes through Parliament and Parliament approves the law and then we apply the law without fear or favour. That is the rule of law.

At the same time, the Member for Anson says that he is against lawlessness, criminals, secret societies and so on. I think he is quite hypocritical when he says these things. Because I have stated quite clearly in my address in moving the Second Reading of the Bill to extend the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act that we need these provisions. Otherwise, we will not be able to suppress secret society activities. Because of fear of reprisals by the victims, we will not be able to prosecute criminals, and drug traffickers by using the normal procedure under the Criminal Procedure Code.

Do we want a rule of law or do we want a rule of drug traffickers and rule of secret societies? He quoted the then Minister for Home Affairs in 1961 who said that he would not detain -

Mr Jeyaretnam: 1959.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Either 1959 or 1961, that he would not detain anyone longer than was necessary and that all precautions would be taken to safeguard detaining innocent persons. I will reiterate that that is the position today. We do not want to detain a person longer than is necessary. And if he says that there have been innocent persons who have been detained under this law, why does he not bring up cases of that nature instead of just making snide remarks and making statements in a left-handed way to suggest that there are such cases. If you have cases you bring them up.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, on a point of clarification. The Minister says, "Why don't you take it up?" I suppose he means, "Why don't you take it up to the courts?" But the Minister must surely be aware that there have been cases and because of the way the Act has been worded, it has been held that the courts cannot inquire into the detention. You made it so. Habeas corpus cannot run where the Executive has been given an absolute discretion and the freedom.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: But have you brought the cases to the attention of the authorities concerned. If you have, would you name it?

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is your question?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Do you have any cases now of any innocent persons who have been detained?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, it is not my intention nor was it my intention to bring up the cases that I have been dealing with in this House. It is not my intention. But I say there is a grave danger. I have recognized that danger myself of innocent persons being detained.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Well, I cannot go further than that. I think he has answered my question that there. are no such cases.

The Member for Anson says, "Why is that?", although he understands that we cannot bring up the victims as witnesses before the Advisory Committee. He says, "Why not Police officers?" The answer is quite simple, if he is honest about it. If the police officers were to appear and be cross-examined in the proceedings of the Advisory Committee, then it will defeat the whole purpose of this Act.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Because he will have to disclose the names of the victims in the proceedings, then it defeats the whole purpose of this Bill. Let us be honest about the whole thing. The Member is a lawyer. He knows about the conditions in such cases, that if you allow such evidence, particularly the names of the victims and the names of the persons who have given evidence or statements to the Police, then it defeats the whole purpose. It is quite clear. I think a non-lawyer can also understand that. I think he is not straight when he brings up this point.

Mr Jeyaretnam: What is the danger?

Mr Chua Sian Chin: The other point I would like to make is this. Although the police officer and the other witnesses are not presented in the Advisory Committee's proceedings to be cross-examined by the counsel or by the secret society detainee, the are available for cross-examination by the members of the Advisory Committee, who can therefore be in a position to ascertain whether this man is innocent or the man is guilty as his case has been put forward before the Advisory Committee.

He also asked, "Why not have an appeal tribunal?" The answer is quite simple. The Advisory Committee itself is a tribunal. I think he should know that invariably the Chairman of the Advisory Committee that deals with these criminal law cases is a trained lawyer. Almost all of them are trained lawyers. They are assisted by two other members of the public, and there lies the safeguard of people who are innocent being detained.

Then he asked about the length of detention. There again, the cases of those detained are also being reviewed every year by another advisory committee, which is also chaired by a member of the public who is also a lawyer. As far ,as locking up some of the detainees for long periods, some are detained and released on shorter terms and others have been detained for longer periods. And why did we detain them? Is it because we want to lock them up? May I inform the House that, in fact, when they are inside every attempt is being made to rehabilitate them. In fact, may I inform the House that as a result of work therapy, ie giving them skills, the rate of recidivism among criminal law detainees is much lower than the rate of recidivism among convicted criminals.

With regard to safeguards against people being wrongly -detained, as I have said in my speech, the safeguards are quite adequate.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek your advice? The Minister asked me a question whether I knew of any persons who have been innocently detained and I said it was not my intention to bring up my cases. But as I was sitting there listening to him, there came to my mind a case and I think perhaps I should inform the Minister if he is not aware of it.

Many years ago a man was charged in the criminal court with causing hurt to one no other than - I think he was then the President of the NTUC and who is now a fugitive. He was charged with causing hun to this man. He was charged in a court of law. The court dismissed the case against him, holding that there was no evidence on which it could find him guilty of the offence charged. But that did not prevent the police from picking the man up afterwards. He spent a good many years in Changi Prison when a court of law had found him innocent and the Judge had said that there was no evidence against him.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, the reply from the Member for Anson is just begging the question. The very reason why we are here to renew this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act is that we can effectively take care of criminals -

Mr Jeyaretnam: That man was not a criminal.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: If we have to bring that person before a court of law using the Criminal Procedure Code, then we do not need this Amendment Bill.

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am talking about the man who was acquitted by a court of law.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: The man was acquitted because the ordinary rules of criminal procedure had to be applied. The rule of admissibility of evidence has to be applied to cases of drug traffickers and criminals who intimidate witnesses. And this case which the Member for Anson has applied is a case of intimidation of witnesses, then of course you cannot get a conviction, and these are the very cases where the provisions of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act are designed for.

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. - [Mr Chua Sian Chin].

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