CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Sir, this Act came into effect on 21st October 1955, and its duration has been extended by Parliament on seven different occasions. The current life of this legislation will expire on 20th October this year, and the purpose of this Bill is to extend the Act for another five years.

The Act provides for the maintenance of public safety, peace and good order and, in particular, for the detention and supervision of persons associated with secret society and criminal activities.

Over the years, it has proved to be an effective weapon for the suppression of secret society activities, drug trafficking activities and other serious crimes in Singapore. Why do we need these preventive detention provisions? The reason is that some secret society elements and drug traffickers cannot be prosecuted in the courts in the normal way because potential witnesses fear reprisals and are unwilling to testify. Secret society members also refuse to give evidence in court against their fellow members.

The number of secret society incidents fell from 416 in 1959 to 10 in 1988. Detention Orders issued against secret society elements fell from 158 in 1984 to 31 in 1987 and 73 in 1988. The Act is a strong deterrent to would-be secret society members and has brought secret society activities under control. The figures I have just given bear out this fact. But we must not let such favourable statistics lull us into any complacency. The trend can very easily reverse itself and gangsters and other criminal elements will resurface and mount their activities if they detect even a slight wavering of the Government's will. They can very quickly revert to their old and lawless ways to terrorize and victimize innocent people.

Sir, in the initial years, most of those who were detained under this Act were secret society and other vicious criminal elements. But, as I have said, the number of detention orders in this category has come down. Instead, in recent years, the number of Detention Orders for drug traffickers has increased. In fact, from 1987 onwards drug traffickers constitute the majority of all criminal law detainees - 54% in 1987, 58% in 1988 and 59% as at March this year.

But I make no apologies for this development. In my view, drug traffickers can be considered to be the most despicable of criminals, in a sense they are even worse than a murderer who kills a single person, because the drug trafficker, for monetary returns, undermines both body and soul of our young and really erodes the fabric of society. That is why many countries now consider drug trafficking as a threat to national security. It renders our young useless to themselves, to their families and to the country. True, we have very strict laws, including mandatory death penalty. But what should be done if we cannot prosecute them just because they succeed in intimidating witnesses? Are we to let them loose on the streets? And indeed that is the course of action which several other countries,especially in the West, are forced to do. But we in Singapore have decided that the interests of the majority of our people who are law-abiding must come first and the majority of the people must be protected and they, their families and their children must feel safe and secure, whether at home or in the streets or in workplaces and also visitors coming to Singapore should be free of harm and of criminal activities.

Detention under this Act has therefore crippled big time drug traffickers and their syndicates and distributors. Criminal law detentions together with the death penalty are therefore indispensable weapons in our fight against drug traffickers.

The Act also has provisions on the prevention of strikes and lockouts in essential services and it stipulates that no workman in the water, gas and electricity services can go on strike. Employees in other essential services must give ample notice before they can go on strike. These provisions continue to be necessary.

There are adequate built-in safeguards in the Act to prevent it from being abused. There are also additional procedures which we on our own have introduced as safeguards to ensure that enforcement agencies do not resort to using the Act without the strongest justification. Any proposal by the Police or the Central Narcotics Bureau to detain under criminal law detention or to place him under compulsory police supervision must first be submitted to my Ministry where my senior officers as well as legal officers scrutinize the case which has been put before it is personally approved by the Permanent Secretary. Thereafter, it must be submitted to the Attorney-General who personally has to satisfy himself that this is indeed a proper course of action and that normal prosecution is not possible. Only when he gives his consent will the detention order or the police supervision order be issued by the Minister. Then all such cases are reviewed by Advisory Committees which comprise Justices of the Peace, senior lawyers and community leaders. All reports of the Advisory Committees must be submitted to Cabinet which will advise the President whether or not to confirm the orders. Cases where detention orders are confirmed are reviewed annually by a Review Committee.

Sir, to briefly summarize the rationale for this Act, its provisions are only resorted to when the securing of a court conviction is well-nigh impossible because of the unwillingness on the part of the complainants and key witnesses to testify in court for fear of reprisals. The Act has substantially contributed to the maintenance of law and order in Singapore. It is still required as a weapon to suppress secret society and drug trafficking activities as there is no indication at the present stage that these criminal activities can be completely eliminated in the very near future. It is therefore necessary, Sir, to extend the Act for a further period of five years.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Ho Tat Kin (Toa Payoh GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill which seeks Parliament's approval for an extension of the Act for another five years is concerned with crime in Singapore and how our law enforcement authority can take adequate measures to deal with crime. As a result of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act which has been in operation since October 1955, secret society and gangster organizations have been suppressed, and Singapore's crime rate today is one of the lowest in the world. While secret society and gangster organizations are under control, we still need strong measures to ensure that they do not return to the scene.

Sir, I agree with the Minister that drug traffickers are the worst type of criminals. Very stringent measures are therefore required to control or curb drug trafficking. At present even with the mandatory death penalty and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, drug trafficking still constitutes the majority of all criminal law detainees. One can imagine what will happen to the Singapore drug scene if Parliament does not extend the Act for a further period of five years. I therefore support this Bill, Sir.

The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act has been brought before Parliament for extension every five years since 1955. Much has been debated on the pros and cons of this Act and I do not intend to repeat that again. I just want to seek some clarification. The Act itself includes built-in safeguards to prevent its abuse. I would like to find out from the Minister if the built-in safeguards are adequate in today's context. Are the built-in safeguards reviewed regularly to ensure they are effective?

Dr Lee Siew-Choh (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, I cannot support this Bill because there are several aspects of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act which are very unsatisfactory. The criminal detention law, as its very name implies and makes clear, was supposed to have been a temporary law, operational for only a limited period, and to have been revoked the moment it was deemed unnecessary. But except for a part of the law concerning the control of supplies to the then Federation of Malaya, the law has not been revoked. Instead, more provisions like the special identity cards for criminal supervisees have been added.

Government has always found excuses to say that the Act is needed. Their pet excuse, as the Minister has aptly put it, is for the maintenance of public safety, peace and good order, and because it happens to be an effective weapon. Is the Government saying that, without the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, there will be no public safety, peace and good order? If that is so, then all the funds spent on modernizing the Police Force and the Singapore Armed Forces would have been totally wasted. How real is this need to keep extending the life of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act? Are conditions in the late 1980's today the same conditions that existed in the 1950's? What is our crime situation today? The Minister has already said that the crime rate has gone down. The Straits Times echoes that.

Sir, it is true that all types of crimes still abound. They are part and parcel of the free market, free enterprise system that we have in Singapore. But these crimes are mostly crimes committed by individuals. They are certainly not committed in most cases by organized or major gangs and secret societies. Gang fights are very infrequent. There are comparatively few cases of gang lawlessness and of secret society thugs brazenly terrorizing law-abiding people going about their normal business. Where then is the need for the laws of criminal detention without trial?

I object to criminal detention without trial. In 1958 when the British colonialists introduced detention without trial, they said that it was "only the exceptional gravity of the present state of gang lawlessness which compels the Government to seek these exceptional powers for immediate use". That is, the crime situation then was of exceptional gravity. In 1959, the then PAP Government said in a similar vein, that "the situation is extraordinary and, therefore, it is necessary that the Government seeks extraordinary powers to deal with this very abnormal criminal situation". That is, it was only because of the crime situation in the 1950's being of exceptional gravity, extraordinary and very abnormal, that the Government sought exceptional, extraordinary powers of detention without trial. Such extraordinary, very abnormal crime situations no longer exist in Singapore today. Moreover, we have a much more professional and efficient Police Force, armed with the most modern up-to-date equipment aided by the Neighbourhood Watch Groups and crime prevention committees. And the press has also highlighted the effective policing and its close cooperation with the public. The YearBook does not fail to praise the Police.

Sir, in short, everything tells us that the crime situation in Singapore is well under control. Even foreign visitors, as the Minister has said, have said that only very minor crimes are seen in our city. Why then the need to extend the life of criminal detention law for another five years? What good reason is there? The short answer, Sir, is that there are no good reasons, no really valid reasons. Powers of detention without trial are exceptional, extraordinary powers and there is no exceptional, extraordinary crime situation in Singapore today to justify the continued extension of such powers. But the PAP Government, nevertheless, wants to extend the life of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. What then is the real reason? The only reason, I believe, is that the PAP Government does not want to give up any of the powers it now holds and it, in fact, wants to arm itself with even more and more dictatorial powers over the people.

The PAP has ruled Singapore for 30 years. How has this been done? Mainly, I suggest, by striking fear in the hearts of would-be opponents. Section 30, (previously to be section 55) of this criminal law is intended to, and indeed does, terrorize many people with fear of prolonged detention without trial. Think of the recent amendments, Sir, to the Constitution, the Internal Security Act, the Legal Profession Act, and the Judicial Committee Act. All of them are intended to strike fear in the hearts of political opponents in various ways. Now, add to these amendments, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Powers in the hands of Government are now total and complete, and armed with powers from these laws Government may arbitrarily arrest and detain without trial for prolonged periods any person, political opponent, critic, or anyone called a "criminal". This is how the PAP has ruled Singapore for 30 years and hopes to maintain its rule for years to come.

The First Deputy Prime Minister said that the PAP cannot rule Singapore without the ISA. It would appear, Sir, to be more correct for him to say that the PAP cannot rule Singapore without the ISA and the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.

The law is entitled "Temporary". It is a misnomer. Criminal detention without trial has become a permanent feature of PAP rule and Government should therefore give the Act its proper title. Since it is a law of detention of criminals without trial, why not simply call it "Criminal Law Detention Without Trial Act", rather than say "Temporary Provisions"? Government should call a spade a spade, and it could at least honestly say that it does not camouflage the title in order to mislead the people.

A frequently used excuse for the need of the criminal detention law is that it is difficult to get witnesses to give evidence in court because of the fear of reprisals from accomplices of the convicted gangster. In certain cases, Sir, if there is such a fear, then it is the duty of the police to provide all the protection that is necessary. Also, the judge could decide whether or not it is appropriate for the person to give evidence in open court in the concrete circumstances.

It is difficult to imagine that with all the modern equipment and cooperation from the public today, the Police should still find it almost impossible to collect sufficient evidence to convict a criminal if he is really guilty, even if he should be a drug trafficker. The Workers' Party feels that if the Police has enough evidence to detain a person, then that evidence should be placed before an open court, and the person concerned should be given an opportunity to present his case so that an impartial judge may determine whether or not a mistake has been made by the Police. The law gives very wide powers to the Police and there is always a possibility of abuse. If the Police has insufficent evidence, then the criminal detention law should not be made as a short cut to laborious and painstaking investigations.

The law provides certain safeguards as the Minister has tried to tell us. But much hinges on the police report. And the Advisory Committee is after all only advisory. It does not have executive powers and cannot order the release of any person already detained by the Police. Ultimately, all decisions rest in the hands of the Minister. Section 30 tells us that all that is required is that the Minister is "satisfied" with the material provided in the police report and the person can well lose his liberty and be detained for many years. "Satisfied". How can we be sure that this satisfaction is not whimsical? Detention without trial may accord with legislation passed in Parliament by the PAP government, but that is not in accordance with the concept of the rule of law, as I have been told, that is accepted by all civilized countries. It is, in fact, the very negation of the rule of law, also guaranteed by Article 9 of the Constitution. Therefore, Government should not continue to ignore the concept of law that is practised by all civilized countries.

Section 30 of the Act also deals with the period of detention and supervision. In 1958, the period of detention was only for 6 months, with a maximum of 2 years in all if the detention order was extended from time to time. In 1959, after the PAP took office, the Government quickly extended the period of detention from 6 months to 1 year. And following that, the next year, the maximum period of detention of 2 years was lifted and the detention order can now be extended again and again ad infinitum. The result is that a criminal law detainee could be detained for 10 or 20 years. Of course, the longer a person can be detained, the longer he will be subject to fear, and that is what the PAP is trying to do. Sir, everybody knows that South Africa is a fascist state. Yet, a detention order in South Africa does not exceed 3 years. A life sentence is after all only 20 years, and with remissions, the prison term may be reduced to only 13 years. Does the Government also intend to detain criminal law detainees for 23 years or more as it has detained Chia Thye Poh? Is such a detention fair and just?

According to press reports, there were 1,500 criminal law detainees at the beginning of this year. I have been told that some criminal law detainees have been detained for more than 10 years. How many have been detained for 10 years? The Minister has not told us. How many have been detained for 5 years? Neither has this been revealed. How many have been put under supervision, and how many have been issued with special identity cards? From the figures that the Minister has revealed, how many are real drug traffickers and drug abusers? We would like the Minister to give us the true facts and figures.

Sir, we give our fullest support to the fight against crime, especially drug traffickers. We also give our fullest support to the fight against gangsterism and secret society lawlessness. But the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, like the Internal Security Act which provides for detention without trial, is an anomaly in our modern society today. No country that claims to be a democracy, parliamentary or otherwise, should have such detention laws except in a real emergency, in which case Parliament should meet to decide on the powers necessary to deal with the situation. But we have no emergency in Singapore today. All is peace and quiet. There is hardly any strike, no riots, nor are there large scale organized crimes. If there are illegal strikes in essential services, Government could easily deal with them through other existing laws, for example, the Industrial Relations Act. If there are drug traffickers, there is the Misuse of Drugs Act. If there are other serious crimes, then there is the Penal Code. So what is there that makes it so necessary to continue with this law of detention without trial? There is no good reason and the Government extends the life of this law with but one full intention, namely to strike fear in the hearts of the people. I suggest, Sir, it is time that the law be scrapped.

Mr K. Shanmugam (Sembawang GRC): Sir, it cannot be denied that this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA) nags our conscience. We call it a temporary provision because we hope that someday we will do away with it. The question that has to be answered is: under what circumstances we will do away with it? That must be explained carefully and clearly and we have to set out what are the parameters, what are the social conditions under which this Act will cease to be necessary. This is because the original justification for the CLTPA and, in particular, the powers of administrative detention, was that Singapore was a struggling country, gangsters and secret societies were a serious threat, and our Asian psyche was such that people would not willingly testify in court. The only way then to tackle the problem was to lock up gangsters, people involved in secret societies, without trial. That was effective. I think very few people will question the effectiveness of the CLTPA in those days and the role it has played in our nation building. However, with the appearance of prosperity and stability and perhaps not a fully mature democractic society, certainly on the road to that, it will be increasingly questioned as to whether we continue to need it.

The Internal Security Act can be justified under our circumstances. For the CLTPA, there may be more questions And it has to be accepted that we cannot ever eliminate crime. We can only control it within acceptable tolerable limits. So the Minister has to focus on that and tell the House whether at the present stage the situation is such that secret societies, gangsters, the original justification continues to exist at the same level of seriousness which justifies powers of administrative detention. If he does so, then I would still ask that he considers one structural change to the existing provisions. This is to ensure that the CLTPA is not abused.

At present, the CLTPA is such that the Minister decides on the detention. The Advisory Committee advises the President and the President has ultimate powers. I would suggest that the Minister still decides on the detention but perhaps powers of review be given to the courts. The reason I say that is, if the Minister takes a reasonable view on the facts that a certain person poses a danger, then presumably the Act can be worded such that the courts can look at the facts, the reasons for the Minister's decision and then come down on the side of the Minister. If the courts disagree, if the judges disagree, then again the Minister's decision will be overturned. So remove it from the Presi- dent to the Executive and give the power to the courts.

This is not to suggest that it has been abused, but only to prevent the CLTPA from being a convenient route where the Police do not have sufficient evidence against common criminals to prosecute them in court and therefore use the CLTPA. The Minister is a busy man. He has to rely on the reports that are put up to him by his Police Force. And the Police do not have a monopoly of virtue or morality more than any of us. So that is an important point and that particular provision worries me.

I take note of what the Minister says about drugs and the need to ensure that we remain a drug free society and that we need draconian powers to take care of the problem. But one question would be: is that better tackled by an amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act? The reason being again the Misuse of Drugs Act sets out various criteria that the Minister or the courts will have to take into account before a person is prosecuted or detained under that Act. The CLTPA is not bound by any such parameters. It is a general provision. So rather than having very wide powers under a general provision to tackle a particular problem, particularly as this is a serious Act, I would suggest that the Misuse of Drugs Act be amended to give the Minister perhaps powers of administrative detention to tackle that particular problem.

Sir, these are my only reservations. And it has to be realized that a growing number of people, not all of them totally irrational, question the necessity of the Act. That is why I said because Singapore gives an appearance of prosperity and stability, satisfactory answers must be given to them, if the Government is interested in winning not just the minds but also the hearts of these people. I trust that these questions will be answered before we vote, Sir.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, my GPC gives its full support to the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill.

Sir, having heard the last two speakers, one point stands out very clearly. Firstly, why is the Act called "temporary"? It has been in existence for more than 30 years and now the Minister comes to the House asking for a further extension. I agree with them that the term "temporary" may be a misnomer. Indeed, the GPC discussed this matter with the Minister and we tried to urge the Minister to make this a permanent Act.

Why do we say that this Act should be permanent? This Act should be permanent because essentially human beings will not change. Society can change, but the basic fears will not change. The fear of being victimized by big-time gangsters, secret societies, the fear of complainants to complain, the fear of witnesses to testify, will always be there. The Minister here is more hopeful than the GPC and he is much more optimistic. We are more pessimistic. I am sure that up till today many people do not want to tangle with the secret societies, to be complainants or witnesses. But the Police need witnesses and the courts also need witnesses for the judge to come to a logical conclusion of the case.

Based on these grounds, I feel that the CLTPA still has a role. A whole generation grew and prospered under it. Because of the CLTPA, we know little of the triads, secret societies and the like. We do not experience the terrors of organized crimes. For most, walking in the city is simply that of a mechanical movement from point A to point B, uninterrupted by the flash of a switchblade and unhindered by a dense of bullies within our city limits. We do not fear the coming of darkness daily for there is no menace in it. City life in Singapore shines only on those who would wander in legitimate business. Many a tourist and expatriate have testified to how safe they are in our country. Of course, it will be very simplistic to say that the CLTPA brought all this about and that without the CLTPA we would not have this. Credit must be given to the vigilant Police Force, an upright civil service, a Government with a political will to ensure public safety and a people willing and have made sacrifices that has led to our success and our secure society today. But the CLTPA was and is part of our internal vigilance system. It stands as a pillar against the few but powerful criminal forces that if left unchecked could intimidate a whole nation. We sleep easy because we know that the criminals in heart and mind do not under the CLTPA. I move even to say that the CLTPA is an integral part of our system of law enforcement and justice. It provides the freedom for our shopkeepers to thrive, for the hawker to sell his food, for the businessman to run his dreams, for the nation to fuel its hopes based on the rule of law and not the barrel of the gun and the two-edged sword. All these within a framework where protection is not an euphemism but a right under law which is controlled, policed and governed.

Today, in place of the triads of the past, we face the invidious influence of drugs. We fight now against drug traffickers whose network crosses national boundaries and whose tenacity knows no limits. As the Minister has earlier pointed out, the CLPTA is an indispensable tool in this fight. The CLPTA has served us well. We still need it and the feeling of our GPC is that we will continue to need it. Let us keep it for the next five years and longer, if necessary.

Mr Davinder Singh (Toa Payoh GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, what my colleague, Mr Shanmugam, has said has much force in it. I share his views and his concern in relation to the applicability of the Act to our modern day conditions in Singapore. I also share his concern in connection with whether the Act ought to continue in its present form or ought to be watered down and if structural reforms ought to be made.

Sir, I would, however, take a different stand from him for one reason, and one reason only which, I suggest, is justification for the continuation at least, in the first instance, for five years of this Act, and that is, the liberalization in the policy of admitting foreigners to Singapore.

Sir, secret society activities and drug trafficking are not home-grown activities. One, generally speaking, is imported from the east, the other from the west. Singaporeans now understand that they should not mess with these activities. It does not serve us any good and so we keep away from them.

We are changing our rules though. In the next five years, we are going to see thousands of foreigners coming into Singapore from different countries, from different backgrounds, social, cultural, legal. They may not share our values in terms of how we view such activities. It would be, in my view, very silly if having done such a good job with Singaporeans we suddenly change the rules for foreigners and allow them to operate in a different environment. I would suggest that, with more foreigners coming into Singapore, there is a greater risk, a risk greater perhaps than existed in the last l0 years in Singapore, of proliferation of such activities. We have got to make the rules plain and if the CLTPA would serve that purpose, Sir, I would support the move to continue it for five years at least.

Mr Loh Meng See (Kampong Glam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the amendment Bill.

Sir, when the Government decides to make the Act a temporary one there are criticisms as to why we allow it to be temporary but the merit of it all is that we are able to review it after a period of time and I think that is the very merit of the "Temporary Provisions" given to this particular Act. And credit is to be given to the Government which is prepared to review this Act from time to time.

The crime situation in Singapore has indeed improved. But the question is: should it be the cause for us to reconsider and abolish the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act altogether or is it the effect of the success of these Temporary Provisions that reinforce our thinking that these provisions ought to continue? My assessement of the situation, Sir, is that we have been very fortunate to recover very quickly from the economic recession of 1985. There are jobs aplenty, many of our Singaporeans are gainfully employed. We need time to allow our economy to develop further and that this becomes institutionalized and that this problem of crime in Singapore will be under control. It is my submission that the present pleasant situation has to be allowed to settle and get entrenched in our society.

Singaporeans will support this Bill because we believe it is a small price that we have to pay in the interest of the large majority of Singaporeans. Singapore is a safe country. It is this particular feature that we are all proud of and I believe all of us can support this Bill because we desire the continued safety of our country.

Prof. Jayakumar: Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken and if I may respond to some of the points.

Dr Ho Tat Kin asked about the safeguards and whether we periodically review the safeguards and the answer to that is yes. We do it in two ways. Firstly, I personally meet with the Chairmen and members of the various Advisory Committees not only in criminal law but also Drug Review Committees and others who are associated with various aspects of law enforcement agency to obtain feedback and criticisms and they have given us suggestions from time to time. Secondly, we also appoint committees to look into how we can better administer the Act and, only recently in the past two to three years, we appointed a committee chaired by a former Permanent Secretary, other members being drawn from legal practitioners as well as Justices of the Peace who have also examined the workings of the criminal law system and they have interviewed many people and have given their suggestions.

I would like also to say that we take the views of the Advisory Committees very seriously and when they give their views on any particular case and if they feel that the person should be released or instead of detention they should be converted to police supervision, these are fully deliberated in Cabinet and their views and recommendations seriously considered.

The NCMP's criticism of the Bill and his call for its abolition is contradicted by his own speech. Throughout the speech he applauded the relative crime-free state in Singapore. Crime rate has gone down, secret society activities have been brought down. His conclusion is that we should therefore abolish it. My response to that is, as Mr Loh Meng See has very vividly put it, if this is the pleasant state of affairs, it is precisely because the Government had the foresight and the political will to take tough measures such as the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. If secret society activities have come down, it is because fear has been struck yes, indeed fear has been struck but not in political opponents - but fear has been struck in the hearts of criminal elements, and I make no apologies for that. That is the way to govern. Other countries take an opposite course. They cannot prosecute in a court so their option is let them loose on the streets. When you do that, this is what you have. Two days ago on BBC - I think it is worthwhile reminding ourselves what happens in other countries - this is from BBC two nights ago and I quote from News Desk:

'Murder of a woman Judge in Columbia has prompted a nation-wide strike by Judges. They want the government to take stronger steps to deal with drug-related crime and to give them more protection.

The 24-hour strike by Columbian Judges is not the first of its kind. In the last 10 years, dozens of judges investigating narcotic cases have been murdered by drug traffickers. The Judge who was killed, Judge Maria Elena Daiz, was investigating the massacre of plantation workers by a group suspected to be the largest cocaine ring. She refused to revoke the warrant. Shortly afterwards, she and two of her police escorts were shot dead by gunmen.'

This is perhaps an extreme example. Colleagues in the House who have travelled to various countries will know that in many countries, including "civilized" countries which the NCMP mentioned, it is not safe to walk on the streets at night and in some places even during day time. Here, tourists and visitors readily applaud the fact that they feel safe and secure and our people feel safe and secure.

The best testimony and the best reasons for the continuation of the Act are indeed the reasons given by the NCMP, ie, we have achieved a relative degree of security, peace and safety and we must continue with that. If you abolish this Act, what signals are you giving? A clear signal to the drug trafficker and to the secret society elements is that now the only option is for the Government to get a court prosecution and therefore reprisals of witnesses, intimidation of witnesses, buying of witnesses, will lead to no prosecution and you will have a proliferation of both secret society and drug trafficking activities.

The NCMP said that preventive detention in this form is a negation of the rule of law, not to be found in any civilized society. Mr Speaker, Sir, I meet from time to time with visiting delegations of law enforcement officers in other parts of the world. When they hear about our preventive detention laws, they tell me privately that how much they wished they could have this law in their country but, alas, they wring their hands in despair and said that the political lobbyists and the human rights lobbyists are so powerful that they will never be able to get this legislation through. But countries in our region are also aware and, far from deploring our legislation as a despicable act of departure from the rule of law, our Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act has in fact been cited as a model and from time to time ASEAN drug enforcement experts have urged governments to adopt such preventive detention. Indeed, the ASEAN Inter- Parliamentary Organization (AIPO) of which this Parliament is a member and participates, has repeatedly adopted resolutions to this effect and if I may quote a typical AIPO resolution. This is the resolution of the ASEAN Inter Parliamentary Organization's General Assembly:

'Urges ASEAN Governments to incorporate in their legislation governing narcotic drug abuse, the following features:

(1) Preventive Detention on those suspected to be involved in drug trafficking.' Are these ASEAN Parliamentarians uncivilized? Surely they know what they are talking about.

Sir, let me now go to the points raised by Mr Shanmugam. I understand that from the purist legal approach, this surely must nag the conscience of any constitutional lawyer. So when he asked, and I think the NCMP asked, is "temporary provisions" a misnomer? In a sense yes. Maybe the Chairman of the GCP is right - change it! But would that be right? I do not think so. We need to have this law so long as the problem exists, so long as you want to be sure that it does not rear its ugly head and go back to the days of the 1950's. But why do we come to Parliament every five years? It will be far easier, is it not, since Government has the majority, to make an amendment so that we do not have to come back to Parliament every five years to justify. It will save the Minister for Home Affairs a lot of work. But I think that is wrong. This detention is a departure from the normal processes. We recognize that. And because it is, I think it is right that we come, explain to this House and get the House's approval and endorsement for its continuation for another five years.

Mr Shanmugam asked, when can we do away with it? My answer to that would be: we can do away with it when we are satisfied that both the secret society component of our objective and the drug traffic component of our objective are reduced to such small proportions that we can safely say that we do not need this to control both aspects. But, as I said, while the secret society element has come down, the drug trafficking aspect has gone up. I must correct Mr Shanmugam's impression that because we are prosperous and stable perhaps we can do away with it. True, the secret society element incidents have come down, but we will be misleading ourselves to think that we do not have these events. I think you just look at the newspapers. There is no dearth of incidents being reported where for just a simple staring incident, a whole gang descends on the suspected starer and knives, choppers, bearing scrapers, batons studded with nails are used to mercilessly attack the victim as well as others who are nearby.

Let me just take one typical example of the problem that confronts us - 23rd May 1989, a recent example. It was in Redhill Close. I am not sure whose constituency is that. A male Chinese was seen running near Redhill Lane Market pursued by six to seven male persons armed with wooden poles and knives. They caught up with him, slashed him. He died. The dead person was a fighter of a Sio Ang Koon Secret Society of the 24 group operating in Redhill Lane Market Centre. He was a former criminal law supervisee. Investigations showed that he had a misunderstanding with a member of a rival gang. As a result of the misunderstanding, the fight occurred between two rival gangs. 23rd May 1989, 2 am, the deceased was with some of his gang members drinking at a stall when his rival gang members pounced on him.

I have a whole file replete with such examples, including examples where the gang descends for a revenge, and even innocent people sitting at nearby tables are attacked, slashed, and even killed on a blunderbuss type of approach. So this is the real world in which we have to view such laws. He has suggested the point that police ought not view the Criminal Law Act as a convenient way out. I agree with him. Because if they did that, it will be a serious abuse. But it is not. As far as the police submissions for detention orders, in 1988 1,293 offenders of major crimes were prosecuted in the court. It was only 73 persons who were dealt with under detention orders. Likewise, drug cases, in 1987 there were 340 court prosecutions, and only 157 detention orders.

Sir, the position of the Ministry, the position of the Police and the position of the Central Narcotics Bureau is clear. From a point of view of public impact and deterrence, we would far prefer to have court prosecutions because there is publicity and the publicity makes an impact. Criminal law detention might deter the individual but there is very little publicity. It is only when we cannot prosecute that we will have to refer to provisions of the CLTPA.

It is not a question of the Asian psyche of being unwilling to testify in court. It is the terror which drug traffickers and secret society elements instil in the minds and hearts of potential witnesses. So, much as he appears to have merit in his argument that let the review be in the hands of the judge, we still have to tackle the question as to how to overcome this problem. Because if you have this being reviewed in a court, surely they must follow the rules of evidence, surely the detainee must confront his accusers and witnesses. Once that happens, none of them are going to come forward and give any evidence. So that will be an exercise in futility. Even if it is held in camera, it only means that there is no press, there is no audience but no secret society member and no victim is going to come and give evidence.

Sir, if I may mention from my personal experience, and this goes back some time, I used to work as a reporter in a newspaper and I was on the crime beat. We had a tip-off that there was a gangland clash. The photographer and I arrived at the scene in Chinatown. The killing was over, the dead victim was on the street, body covered, the wife and children were crying away. Police were interviewing them, reporters were trying to interview them. They would not say a word. But they said, please catch so and so. They knew where he was and gave us the details. If that situation ceases to exist in Singapore, then I can say maybe this Act will have a short life-span. But if it continues to exist, I ask Members to seriously consider whether they opt to have a situation where it is better that we have this law and we lock out 1,200 or so persons or would you, your families, sleep better if they were released on the streets tomorrow.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Clarification, Sir. The Minister says that I have contradicted myself. I do not think so. What he is trying to tell us is that because there is a good crime situation today, that is entirely because of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. What I am suggesting to him is that the situation is good and it is not necessary to have such a law because, in the first place, such laws are only used when there is a bad crime situation. Has he ever tried, for example, to see what sort of crime a situation there is if no detendtion orders are issued? Has he compared the results? If he says the ASEAN Parliamentarians have recommended detention without trial, have these countries really implemented that law? In which case, how can he bring that example to show that we need such a law?

Prof. Jayakumar: I do not want to be repetitious, Sir. He has missed my point. The point that he has to consider is, does he want 1,200 who are in detention to be released? Is he seriously suggesting that? Secondly, I have cited AIPO resolution to show that our legislation is a source of inspiration to others. As to others who have implemented, I believe India has preventive detention, I believe Malaysia has. And if he wants to ask how many other countires, he can file a question, I will give him further information.

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. - [Prof. Jayakumar].

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