DETENTION OF DAVID TAN LENG HUAT

5.24 pm

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, only a little while ago I was accused of casting a smear on our Police Force. I am not casting any smear. I have quite a high respect for our Singapore Police Force but I want to draw attention to the need for our Police Force, every member of it, to uphold the law themselves, and that it goes without saying, is a sine qua non of an ordered democratic society.

I wish to raise on this Adjournment Motion the detention of one David Tan Leng Huat. Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not acting for this boy and I am raising it because the father has come to see me in my capacity as a Member of Parliament. In fact, he first saw me in 1985.

On 21st November 1984, Mr Speaker, Sir, this boy - he was then about 17 years of age or below 17 - was at the Kim Seng shopping centre at the Golden Star Nite Club having a drink with some of his friends. He said that whilst he was there, detectives from the Secret Societies Branch of the CID rushed in and they were ordered out. Whilst they were outside, he asked to be excused because he wished to relieve himself. He was escorted then to the toilet rooms of this building by two policemen or detectives and he said that whilst he was there he was brutally assaulted for wanting to be cheeky with the Police.

He was then taken to the Secret Societies Branch of the CID and he was released after a statement was taken without any charge preferred against him. He was lucky that he was not kept for 15 hours as the other man was who I mentioned a little while ago. He proceeded to the Accidents & Emergency Department of the General Hospital on the morning of the 22nd to complain of injuries he had sustained in the assault. He was seen there and the injuries were confirmed by the doctor who saw him. He found clinical evidence of injuries consistent with assault. He lodged a police report at Tanglin Police Station the same afternoon at about 2.24 pm, and then I suspect he was told by the Police at Tanglin Police Station that "This is a matter on which we cannot take action. It is section 323. You had better go and complain before the Magistrate." I assume he was told that, because on 28th November he lodged a complaint before a Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code. The Magistrate referred the complaint to the Police for investigations and ultimately sometime in May a notice was directed from the court to be served on the detective against whom he had made the allegation.

On 16th May, 1985, he went to serve this notice on the detective against whom he had lodged this complaint. He said that he was told by another detective that he was asking for trouble by serving the notice on the detective. Nevertheless, it would seem that the notice was served and process was issued. Then we come to 17th June, 1985. He was in court with his solicitors to take a date, I understand, for the hearing of the case against the detective. As they were leaving the court, he was arrested by an inspector from the Secret Societies Branch and was taken to the CID. The father was told that his son was being detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, and the father then began his quest to get justice for his son.

The order was eventually made, I assume by the Minister, to detain this boy under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and he is still under detention. The father saw the MP of his constituency, Henderson. I do not know what became of that visit to the MP, and he even wrote to the Prime Minister. Then the father was informed by a letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs on 21st October 1985 that his son was detained on three counts which were set out in this letter of the Ministry of Home Affairs. They are:

'He was the headman of the Sio An Koon Secret Society of the 24 group operating at Block 129 Bukit Merah View. Recruitment of 12 members into the gang and involvement in two counts of rioting, five cases of settlement talks, a case of extortion, a case of unlawful assembly, a case of assault and a case of attempted assault.'

The Ministry of Home Affairs went on to assure the father that the detention was in no way connected with his complaint against one of the detectives. Incidentally, the detective is one Mr Tan Peng Koon. The father was not satisfied and he wrote again, this time to the Minister for Home Affairs, by his letter of 16th November 1985 setting out what I have said, that the son's detention would appear to have come about because he had taken action against the police detective who had arrested him.

The Ministry of Home Affairs, somebody signing for the Permanent Secretary, wrote by letter of 16th January 1986, again repeating what they said in the letter of 21st October 1985. The father was not satisfied and he wrote again on 14th February 1986, again to the Minister, referring the Minister to a letter which had been written by the mother of another boy and this letter dated 19th November 1985 said that her son had been forced by the police officers to fabricate evidence against this boy David Tan Leng Huat. At the time the father saw me, I was not told whether any reply had been received to his letter of 14th February 1986 to the Minister. Perhaps the Minister could tell us whether he did reply. I would also like to ask the Minister whether he has personally studied this case because there are a number of disquieting features about this case.

I am a bit upset by the fact that the letter from the Ministry of Home Affairs, replied by the Permanent Secretary, gives no indication whether the Minister had seen the letters from the father to the Minister. I have had occasion to refer to this previously. I would like to know from the Minister whether he had personally looked into this case, or whether he had left it to Police officers to advise him on what the reply should be. I have a copy of the letter from the mother of this other boy, who wrote to the Minister on 19th November 1985, saying that her son was forced to make accusations against David, that is, David Tan Leng Huat. She said that her son was told that if he did not make these fabrications and submit to their demands, those officers would assault him again. These are very serious allegations against the Police Force. But they must be met and answered. How has the Ministry answered these allegations of the father? The reply, as I read it, was that, "Your case has been referred to the Criminal Law Advisory Committee and you can make your representations there."

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have not once, but two or three times, complained about the futility of making any representations before the Criminal Law Advisory Committee because the evidence is not given to you. You are simply not given the evidence. You are just told, "You are a headman of this secret society. You did this, you did that. Now tell us that you did not do any of these things." How can anyone defend himself in those circumstances? It is, as I said before, a Kafka situation. You are charged with something of which you do not know and you are asked to defend yourself. The Minister keeps repeating the danger, if the boy is tried in court, of witnesses who would be intimidated or that the accused would intimidate the witnesses; and they would not come forward. May I tell the Minister that that would appear to be a specious reason in the case of this boy who is only 17 years of age. And should not details of these two counts of rioting, five cases of settlement talks, a case of extortion, a case of unlawful assembly, a case of assault, a case of attempted assault begiven to the father? What is the danger in giving the details to the father? Who are these persons who have given evidence to the Police of this boy's involvement? As I said, the mother of another boy has written about how her son was forced.

I think the only thing that can be done in this case is for the Minister to immediately direct an inquiry. If he does not want to direct an inquiry in public, he can direct an inquiry in camera, and it should be handed over to an independent person outside the Police Force. We have got people outside the Government who will be prepared to discharge their duties responsibly. And evidence should be called and presented before this Commissioner or tribunal so that he may come to a just and right finding. It is a complete travesty of justice, I say to the Minister, just to dismiss all these allegations that the father had written to him, with a curt reply, "We can assure you that it has got nothing to do with your report against the Police officers." It only smacks of it.

I see there was another letter written by somebody to the Minister where it talked about somebody else being released because they had entertained the Police officers concerned at a dinner. This is the letter of the 14th February from one Tan Peow Soon. I am sure the Minister must have this letter. These are very serious allegations and they must be investigated. I would like to know from the Minister what investigations did he carry out into these allegations. So I am not just trying to smear the Police Force. It is in the interest of all of us, the society as a whole, that if these acts are perpetrated by any members of the Police Force, they should be immediately rooted out and stopped. I am sure the Minister will agree with that.

Whilst I am talking about this, may I ask whether some attempt will be made or some latitude will be given by his Ministry to supply further details to persons who are detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary) Provisions Act? There is no other way of ensuring justice except by giving them details and giving them adequate opportunities to be heard, and to produce witnesses to be cross-examined by any counsel appointed by these persons. Otherwise, you will run the risk, and I say there is a grave risk, of innocent persons being detained by Police officers who sometimes may want to settle private quarrels or scores. And you, of course, open the way to corruption.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, your 20 minutes are up. Prof. Jayakumar.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Prof. S. Jayakumar): Mr Speaker, Sir, I start off first by saying that the points raised by the Member for Anson will be met fully during the 10 minutes that I have. But I would like to make the observation that although the Member for Anson says he does not have the intention of smearing the Police, in effect that is what he is doing because for the past 20 minutes he has constructed an edifice of wrongful detention based on what? Allegations, to use the word that he used, "allegations" and nothing more than allegations. I would have thought that, as a responsible Member, he would have written to me or to the Ministry of Home Affairs ---

Mr Jeyaretnam: They have written to you before.

Prof. Jayakumar: --- to find out whether we have conducted any investigations. And if he is not satisfied with the reply, he could then raise it as a matter of public importance on a Motion for Adjournment. He never wrote to the Ministry or to my officials to find out the facts.

Mr Jeyaretnam rose ---

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have 10 minutes, I would like to use all of it.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, you have no more right to speak.

Mr Jeyaretnam: But he is being specious.

Prof. Jayakumar: He has never written to us. Therefore, he has come here on nothing more than just, to use his word, "allegations". He wants to know whether I have personally studied the case, which he could have found out if he had written to us. Therefore, I think it is not only a smear on the Police, but it is really an irresponsible action. And in order for me to meet it, I would have to go to the extent of revealing what I know about the record of this particular person, and the responsibility must lie on the Member for Anson for my having to do that, however much it may embarrass the family and the subject. He is really alleging wrongful detention. Of course, Parliament is not the forum for that, although I would nevertheless proceed to answer his point. The points that he has made here have already been put by counsel to the relevant authorities and to the Advisory Committee. Perhaps he is trying to prove he is better than the other counsel.

Basically, Sir, the Member for Anson's point is that this detention really had no grounds because the allegation is that this criminal law detention was motivated by the Police and nothing more than a retaliation against the complaint of assault brought against the Police by the subject.

Secondly, he seems to say that this is borne out by the fact that he was arrested outside the courts when he went to the courts concerning his summons case, with the innuendo that probably the detention was intended to frustrate the court action.

Sir, let me first clarify the impression of the Member for Anson. The first time this subject was involved with the law was on 21st November 1984. On 3rd December 1980, when the subject, David Tan, was 12 years and nine months, a school student, he was arrested and convicted for rioting with dangerous weapons. Under Section 148, Chapter 103, he was convicted and presumably because of his age and it being his first offence, he was placed on two years' probation on 13th January 1981.

Next, on 24th June 1982, he was questioned by the Secret Society Branch of the CID for secret society activities. But instead of detention, he was recommended to be placed on record with the Registrar of Societies, and he was so placed. In other words, it is not a case of a person not having had any record at all before the complaint of assault was lodged on 22nd November 1984.

Now, we come to 21st November 1984 which was his next brush with the law. He and others were arrested, not under criminal law, but under the Societies Act and were questioned for secret society involvement. They were released. Next day, 22nd November, a report was made against two detectives for assault at the Tanglin Police Station. Unlike what the Member for Anson presumes and assumes that nothing was done, the Internal Investigations Section investigated. But on 28th November, his parents decided, I guess, to lodge a complaint in the Subordinate Courts. The Police action then was in abeyance because of the court action.

In May 1985, the CID had further evidence of the subject's continued involvement in secret society activities. On 17th June 1985, he was arrested under the provisions of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. He was represented by counsel and he continues to be so represented.

On the first allegation that it was a reprisal, Sir. On 8th July, even before the father wrote to me, when I saw a copy of a letter that the father had written to the Prime Minister dated 5th July, I personally ordered an investigation. And in my instruction to the officials, I said that this was a serious allegation in that criminal law detention was alleged to be a reprisal for assault against the subject. I asked for a detailed report showing the choronology of events. The investigation was done by the Special Investigation Section, a separate Section from the Secret Society Branch, which then put up a report to me which I studied. The report established that there was no connection between the detention and the assault.

However, on 23rd August 1985, I asked personally for a second investigation. Why? To make doubly sure and to satisfy myself that the criminal law detention was not connected with the assault complaint. This second investigation at my request was done by a senior officer of the Police Staff Inspectorate, a separate unit. On the basis of both these investigations ordered by me, I was satisfied that the criminal law detention had no connection with the assault complaint and the officers involved were from two separate teams. I was also satisfied that there were ample grounds for the detention. All these allegations were also put to the Advisory Committee which, I understand, comprises three private practising lawyers.

The second allegation is that he was arrested on 17th June outside the Subordinate Courts. Is this true? It is true. Was there wrongdoing? There was no wrongdoing. Let me explain. In early 1985, the CID had information and evidence to detain him under the criminal law. Initially, they delayed putting up the case to the Ministry because of the court action on assault. Later, when the CID put the case to the Ministry, my officials in the Ministry and the Legal Officer in the Ministry, who have to screen all criminal law submissions before they are sent to the Attorney-General and myself, advised that they should hold it in abeyance because a court case of assault was going on. However, in May 1985, the CID had further evidence of continuing involvement of the subject in secret society activities.

Mr Jeyaretnam: From whom?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, the Ministry's Legal Officer and the other officials decided that in view of this persistent secret society acts, a further delay in detention just because he had a summons case which was still dragging on, was not in the interest of law and order, and we gave consent.

Why was he arrested outside the courts? The reason is that the Police ambushes at his known haunts and locations were unsuccessful, and he was arrested outside the courts.

Mr Jeyaretnam: He went to the CID on 16th May.

Mr Speaker: Can we have less interruptions, Mr Jeyaretnam?

Prof. Jayakumar: Sir, has the detention impeded the pursuit of his claim of assault? The answer is no. Because he was given permission, and he will be given permission by the process known as Removal Orders, to be in the courts on the days when his presence is necessary. The case concerning the assault is still going on.

To summarize, Sir, it will be seen in my reply that full investigations were ordered by me personally. The reports were studied. [Interruption].

Mr Speaker, Sir, can the Member for Anson prevent his rude and gutter-like interruptions?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am asking for the facts.

Mr Speaker: You are not allowed to speak again, Mr Jeyaretnam. I have told you so.

Prof. Jayakumar: He is taking up my time. There was no wrongdoing. There was ample evidence for the detention and indeed the detention was deliberately delayed both by the CID and later by the Ministry of Home Affairs to take cognizance of the court case. And it is only when it was impossible to delay further that the detention was ordered. My response also shows, Sir, how carefully and seriously we take allegations of wrongdoing or assault in criminal law detention cases.

Sir, earlier I had mentioned the rationale for criminal law detention. Let me also point out that there are many safeguards. Not only the Police are required to act under strict guidelines, the cases are scrutinized by my Ministry and the Attorney-General must consent before the papers are put up to me. When it comes to me, I do make queries. And after it has been approved by me, it goes to an Advisory Committee comprising of persons including lawyers in the private sector, and then it goes to the Cabinet. I might say that the Cabinet does not view these lightly either and the Cabinet has also asked searching and penetrating questions in certain cases. The Advisory Committee is not a farce. I know of cases where the Advisory Committee has, in fact, ordered the release of persons who have been recommended for detention.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Parliament do now adjourn.

Adjourned accordingly at Six Minutes to Six o'clock pm to Monday, 31st March, 1986.