ARRESTED PERSONS (Procedure on Contact with family and counsel)

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs whether his Ministry will issue a directive to all police stations that anyone arrested and brought to a police station should be given immediately an opportunity to contact his home or his relatives and even an Advocate and Solicitor of his choice.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no need for such a directive. Existing police procedures are adequate. They allow an arrested person to contact his family and counsel of his choice.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, is the Minister saying that this existing police procedure, which he says exists, is complied with by all police stations, by police officers there? Is he aware that persons had been detained for up to 48 hours, which is the time under the Constitution for a person to be detained before he can be brought to Court, without facilities given to the accused persons to contact their homes or their relatives? If he is not aware, I will give him a number of instances.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have pointed out that police procedures allow an arrested person to contact his family and counsel of his choice. The precise moment as to when he is allowed to do so must, of course, depend on the circumstances of each case, the interests of the arrested person as well as public interest and the duty of the police to effectively investigate the case.

The Member for Anson referred to the Constitution. The Constitution says:

'Where a person is arrested he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.' The law is complied with in all cases, and in the overwhelming majority of cases there is no problem whatsoever as the police have allowed arrested persons to contact their family or friends immediately.

There may be some instances where it may not be possible and it may not be advisable to allow an arrested person to contact his family immediately. These would be cases where police investigations are not yet completed, or where contact with family and friends immediately would result in tampering or destruction of evidence, or where they involve conspirators or accomplices such that contacting family or counsel immediately upon arrrest would lead to the flight and disappearance of accomplices or friends. So, Mr Speaker, Sir, a balance must be struck between the interest of the arrested person and the interest of the public. We cannot go the way some Western countries have gone, where the rights of the criminal havebeen placed on a higher pedestal than the rights of victims and the rights of society at large to live in a crime-free environment-

Mr Jeyaretnam: What crime-free environment?

Prof. Jayakumar: - and in a state of law, order and security.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Does the Minister realize that most of his answer really is specious? Will the Minister say whether he is aware or not? If he is not and he wants details, I will give it to him - cases where persons have been detained for more than 24 hours without any opportunity to contact their homes. And it is not in serious crimes. It is even in arrests for the slightest reasons.

Is the Minister not assuming in his answer that every person arrested by the police is a criminal? Is he saying that every person who is arrested is charged immediately in court? Does he not know of persons who have been detained for 36 hours and then released without any charge being brought against them? What is the objection in these cases to their being allowed to phone home or to their friends or relatives? May we have sensible answers from the Minister?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have already said that in the overwhelming majority of cases arrested persons are allowed to contact their friends and relatives immediately. It is in the category of cases where accomplices and conspirators would flee, evidence and weapons would be secreted away or destroyed, where the exercise of the right to consult counsel or to inform relatives is conditioned by the necessity to complete Police investigations. If the Member for Anson has information of cases which he considers that the law has been transgressed or the right has been delayed without justification, he should let us have the particulars and, of course, I will investigate it.

But the point I want to stress is that the Government must ensure that the interest of the public and of maintaining law, order and security must have priority when we seek to strike a balance between the rights of arrested persons and the rights of the public at large.

If I may quote, Sir, from a former President of the Federal Court of Malaysia and a leading constitutional authority on Malaysian/Singapore Constitutional law. This is what he has to say:

'The phrase "shall be allowed" clearly indicates that the right of the community for peace and tranquility is a greater right and therefore must be given priority to the right of individual persons. It is obvious that what is "reasonable time" and what are "reasonable restrictions" are incapable of ascertainment in advance. These criteria could only be decided with reference to each particular case, the facts of which may vary from case to case.'

If I may quote from another leading authority, a leading case on this question. This is what the Courts had to say. The Court said:

'The right of an arrested person to consult his lawyer begins from the moment of arrest but I am of the opinion that the right cannot be exercised immediately after the arrest. A balance has to be struck between the right of the arrested person to consult his lawyer on the one hand and on the other the duty of the Police to protect the public from wrongdoers by apprehending them and collecting whatever evidence exists against them. ... The interest of justice is as important as the interest of arrested persons and it is well-known that criminal elements are deterred most of all by the certainty of detection, arrest and punishment.'

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has asked for examples. Does he not know that someone was arrested on the 1st of March in the early hours of the morning, and because he did not happen to have his identity card on him he was hauled off to the police station, and he was locked up until 3.00 pm that afternoon? What was the reason for that, and what was the reason for preventing him from getting in touch with his family?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I think Members and viewers who are watching these proceedings must realize that it is manifestly unreasonable to ask the Minister to discuss details of a case of which he has not been given notice by the Member for Anson. If the Member for Anson feels strongly that this is a case which is typical in point, then he should let us have the particulars, send it to my Ministry, and I will cause an investigation to see whether this is a case where there has been an unjustifiable delay. But his question was phrased in general terms and I have given what I believe is a proper answer.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister say that was a reasonable detention of this man on the facts that I have given him - non-possession of an identity card -

An hon. Member: Sit down!

Mr Jeyaretnam: And the man was not charged when he was released at 3.00 pm that afternoon. On those facts, will the Minister say whether that detention was lawful and justified?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I would have thought that any legally trained person -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Answer the question. Is that reasonable?

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Member for Anson wants an answer he should avoid interjecting rudely and in such an undignified manner. He has said that he knows of a case on which he has supplied me with very sparse particulars. If I am to give a sensible and considered reply, I would want to know all the facts -

Mr Jeyaretnam: Non-possession of identity card.

Prof. Jayakumar: - pertaining to that case and not just the meagre facts supplied by the Member for Anson.