CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 4.45 pm

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

The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act was first brought into operation on 21st October 1955. Since then, it has been extended by this House on eight occasions. The Act will expire on 20th October 1994, 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, drug trafficking and other criminal activities.

Sir, the Act has proved to be a potent weapon in our fight against secret societies and drug traffickers over the years. Without invoking the powers of this Act, it would not have been possible for us to suppress secret societies and drug trafficking activities in Singapore. Why is this so? Because it is not always possible to prosecute secret society members successfully in open court as potential witnesses are unwilling to testify for fear of reprisals. Secret society members themselves also refuse to give evidence in court against their fellow members. It is the same with drug traffickers and their accomplices.

Sir, we take no pleasure in putting a person under Criminal Law detention instead of prosecuting him in court. We will prefer to prosecute him in court whenever possible but where there are no witnesses or witnesses are unwilling to testify and the crime is serious, we have to think of the wider interests of society. To give you an example, there was a very vicious gang clash involving about 40 persons from two rival secret societies at Boon Lay Hawker Centre in February 1988. One gang member was killed and three innocent bystanders were injured. The Police arrested two gang members at the scene and, subsequently, another 13 members who had gone on the run. Although there were eye-witnesses to the gang clash, none of them was willing to come forward to testify in court against the offenders. Eventually, we had to detain all 15 persons under this Act rather than to let them go scot free.

In 1989, the MP for Toa Payoh GRC, Mr Davinder Singh, in supporting the extension of this Act, said, and I quote, "in the next five years, we are going to see thousands of foreigners coming into Singapore" and consequently, "there is a greater risk ... of proliferation of [criminal] activities in Singapore." He went on to say that if this Act would serve the purpose of deterring these foreign criminals, then he would support it for the next five years at least. Mr Davinder Singh has been proven right.

Hon. Members will remember that during the latter half of 1993, between September 1993 and January 1994, two innocent security guards - one was 61 years old who wanted to remain active - and five construction workers were killed in six construction work sites where surveying equipment (called Theodolites) were stolen. All the victims were cold-bloodedly bludgeoned to death by the murderers using hammers, wooden poles or iron pipes found at the work sites. Police suspected that some foreign criminal elements were involved. Subsequently, 28 male Thais were arrested and eight of them were found to be connected with the murders of the security guards and the construction workers, and the thefts of the Theodolites. The eight Thais admitted verbally to the thefts and murders. We had sufficient evidence to charge three of them in court for murder. But we could not prosecute the remaining five Thais in court because their accomplices are not willing to testify against them in open court for fear of reprisals against their own families back home in Thailand. But we cannot let these five go scot-free because they are dangerous criminals who will not hesitate to kill people who stand in their way. They are now detained under this Act. And this put an immediate stop to such incidents at work sites.

Sir, the effectiveness of the Act in curbing secret society activities can be seen from the significant drop in the number of secret society gang clashes in Singapore from 416 in 1959 to only three last year. Detention Orders issued against secret society members fell from 165 in 1984 to 27 in 1993. For the first half of 1994, 14 Detention Orders were issued against secret society members.

In respect of drug trafficking, the use of this Act has also enabled us to cripple many drug syndicates and to break up their distribution networks in Singapore. Detention Orders issued against drug traffickers fell from 128 in 1984 to 19 in 1993. For the first half of 1994, the number of Detention Orders issued against drug traffickers has increased to 44 as a result of increased enforcement against drug traffickers and pushers.

The Act has also been used effectively to deal with criminals who had committed serious crimes, such as, murder, gang rape and robbery with firearms, where witnesses were not prepared to testify in court. Detention Orders issued under this category fell from 20 in 1984 to zero in 1993, but we have five this year.

As these statistics have shown, the Act is effective in suppressing secret societies and other organised crime gangs. But we should not be complacent. There is no indication that secret societies or triads have been completely eliminated. In fact, triads have been a feature of Chinese society for a long time. In Singapore, triads have existed ever since colonial times when large numbers of Chinese immigrants first arrived from China. Even the British had problems trying to control the triads, and they had to resort to enacting this Act in 1955 to deal with the triads. Similarly, we still need this Act to keep these secret societies under firm control.

In many countries, their Police are losing the fight against triads precisely because of the lack of sufficiently deterrent penalties. Hong Kong, for example, has not been able to curb the growth of organised triads in the colony ever since their emergency legislation enacted in the mid-1950s to deal with triad-perpetrated civil disturbances was repealed in 1960. Unlike the emergency legislation, the existing Hong Kong Societies Ordinance which deals with secret society activities does not provide for any special powers of deportation or detention without trial of known triad members. Australia's lack of such legislation has also hampered its efforts at curbing the growth of Chinese organised gangs in the country.

Recently, it was reported in the New Paper on 20th July this year that a Singaporean secret society known as Ah Kong Gang is terrorising and dominating the underworld in Amsterdam. The same gang, first formed by Singaporeans, came to the notice of the Singapore Police way back in the 1970s when it first ousted the 14K Secret Society of Hong Kong in Amsterdam through violent gang clashes and warfare. Ah Kong Gang then took control of gambling dens in Amsterdam and started a massive drug trafficking network covering Amsterdam and Germany with drugs smuggled from the Golden Triangle. Drug couriers were recruited from Malaysia and Singapore. A front company and mess were set up in Singapore. The Ah Kong Gang was, subsequently, crushed in Singapore with the arrest of several key Ah Kong syndicate members and leaders in Singapore under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. During the arrest, a key Ah Kong syndicate leader asked the Police: "Why are you arresting me when we were actually trafficking drugs directly to Europe? We had avoided Singapore because of the tough laws. At the most, Singapore was merely a transit point for our drug couriers to Europe." The fact that this gang is now active in Amsterdam and Europe and not in Singapore because they had consciously avoided it speaks well of the deterrent effect of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.

Sir, the inability of these countries to deal effectively with triads will have grave consequences for them. In a recent Straits Times article of 7th July this year, it was reported that Asian gangs may pose the greatest organised crime threat in the future to many countries. Let me quote you some examples from the article. (1) Chinese triads, some with as many as 180,000 members worldwide, specialised in smuggling aliens and heroin into New York, Los Angeles and San Francisco. They smuggle military weapons out of China, Vietnam and the former Soviet Union, with the help of the Russian mafia. (2) The tattooed Japanese yakuza, experts at high-level fraud, have penetrated the US real estate and banking industries. (3) Increasingly violent Chinese and Vietnamese street gangs in the US specialise in home invasions, low-level drug dealing, and protection rackets.

Sir, all these examples show what can happen if we lose our grip on the activities of criminal gangs; the relatively crime-free situation in Singapore will soon disappear. We must prevent this from happening at all costs.

The same article also reported that Asian organised crime is spreading "like a giant spider web" across the world. According to our CID, many Hong Kong triads have been expanding their operations overseas, especially to countries like the United States of America, where there are large Chinese communities, in view of the imminent reversion of Hong Kong to China in 1997. But up to now, there is no sign that Hong Kong triads have attempted to move their operations to Singapore. CID attributes this to the deterrent effect of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.

In an interview reported in the New Paper on 8th July 1994, Superintendent Philip Choy of Hong Kong's Organised Crime and Triad Bureau also attributed this to Singapore's strict laws. He said at the interview, and I quote,

"We have not received information that the triads see Singapore as a possible destination for their activities. But we know that some of them are spreading their wings and going to places like the United States, Canada and Taiwan." In 1992, during the Hong Kong movie stars' protest against triads, actor-director Eric Tsang was quoted as saying:

"We want the police to look into our plight. We want the situation to be like Singapore, where police can offer protection. We have the money and we will pay for protection."

The Singapore Police is able to offer such protection because of our very tough laws.

Even so, we cannot be complacent. In 1990, the Police uncovered an attempt by a Taiwanese to set up a karaoke lounge business in Singapore. When it was found out that he had connections with a major triad society in Taiwan, his application for a public entertainment licence was rejected. This episode reminds us that we need to be constantly on our vigilance if we are to prevent foreign secret societies from gaining a foothold in Singapore. Renewal of this Act will send a strong signal to warn any foreign triads that may be targeting Singapore for their operations.

Sir, although we have succeeded in preventing triads from Hong Kong or Taiwan from setting up operations here, the close proximity of West Malaysia poses another problem for us. Traditionally, secret society elements from Singapore have been known to take part in secret society activities in Malaysia and vice versa. As recently as May 1992, members of the "3821" Triad Society operated in Johore organised a Triad Initiation ceremony at Layang-Layang in which 11 triad members from Singapore attended. The ceremony was aborted when the Malaysian Police arrived after a tip-off. The 11 Singaporean triad members were dealt with under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act when they returned to Singapore. Of the 11 Singaporean triad members, seven were placed under detention and four under Police supervision. Malaysia too has similar preventive detention laws, such as, the Emergency (Public Order and Prevention of Crime) Ordinance 1969, the Dangerous Drugs (Special Preventive Measures) Act 1985 and the Prevention of Crimes Act, which are widely used to deal with her own secret society members, drug traffickers and other criminal elements. Should we allow our Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act to lapse, the Malaysian triad members will be likely to take advantage of the situation and transfer their operations here.

Let me now turn to the drug situation. During the last two decades, the world has witnessed the "globalisation" of the drug abuse problem and the situation has worsened drastically. The drug abuse problem used to be the concern of only a limited number of countries, but today countries which are not spared from the harmful consequences of drug abuse are the exception rather than the rule. The economic power and the political influence of drug cartels are rising rapidly. These cartels control the entire process of producing drugs, from the cultivation phase to the storage and distribution phases. Large amounts of drugs are stored at staging posts in certain countries to take advantage of weak or ineffective laws in these countries. Surely we do not want this to happen in Singapore.

There are many drug syndicate bosses who mastermind and finance the operations but do not actually handle the drugs. In December last year, Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) cracked a major local drug syndicate led by a Malay Singaporean. A total of 36 members were arrested, and 18 kg of heroin and almost $140,000 in cash were seized. Of the 36 members, seven were prosecuted in court for drug trafficking, including two who will face the death penalty, if convicted. As for the rest, 18 were admitted to the Drug Rehabilitation Centres, eight were detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, two were prosecuted in court for drug consumption, and one was repatriated to Malaysia. But we are unable to charge the syndicate leader in court because he had used his underlings to carry out all the drug transactions. No drug was found on him at all when he was arrested. His underlings also refused to testify against him for fear of reprisals not only against themselves but also against members of their families. The question is: are we to let him loose on the streets and only deal with his underlings? The answer is obvious. We eventually put him under Criminal Law detention.

Let me give you another example. Early this year, CNB crippled an international drug trafficking syndicate operating from Singapore with overseas connections. The syndicate organised the delivery of heroin worth millions of dollars from Thailand to Europe and Australia, and was also involved in laundering huge amounts of money. Through CNB's intelligence and surveillance, eight syndicate members were subsequently arrested. Three members were charged in court and will face the death penalty, if convicted. However, five syndicate members were not found to be in possession of drugs when they were arrested and their accomplices were unwilling to testify against them. It is therefore impossible to charge them in court. Here again, we had to detain the five under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.

Sir, in my view, drug traffickers are the most despicable of criminals, because they undermine both the body and soul of our young and erode the very fabric of our society. With drug addiction also come crimes. That is why many countries consider drug trafficking as a threat to their national security. True, we have very strict laws against drug trafficking, including the mandatory death penalty. But we cannot let drug traffickers off just because they succeed in intimidating witnesses or where the witnesses, being accomplices themselves, are unwilling to testify. We have to think of the interest of the rest of our society.

As with secret societies and triads, we must continue to be tough in dealing with drug trafficking syndicates. Detention or supervision under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act together with the mandatory death penalty under the Misuse of Drugs Act are both indispensable weapons in our endless struggle against drug traffickers and pushers. If we relax on our tough anti-drug trafficking policy in Singapore, it will lead to a worsening of the drug abuse situation here because of our close proximity to the Golden Triangle as well as the constant threat of drug smuggling from West Malaysia.

Sir, hon. Members may rightfully ask: what safeguards are there to prevent the Police and the CNB from taking the easy way out to lock up people and not to charge them in court at all? Let me assure Members that there are adequate built-in safeguards in this Act to prevent it from being abused. We have also introduced additional administrative procedures to ensure that enforcement agencies do not resort to using this Act without the strongest justifications.

First, any proposal by CID or CNB to detain a person under this Act or to place him under compulsory Police supervision will be scrutinised by my senior officials and the Attorney-General before the Detention Order or the Police Supervision Order is issued.

Second, an Advisory Committee comprising private prominent citizens, such as Justices of the Peace, senior lawyers and community leaders, will scrutinise the investigations and examine all documentary evidence and witnesses. At this hearing by the Advisory Committee, detainees or supervisees are allowed to be represented by legal counsel.

Third, the Advisory Committee will then recommend all such Orders to be confirmed or otherwise by the President after the Cabinet has endorsed it.

Fourth, cases whose Detention Orders are confirmed are subsequently reviewed annually by a separate Review Committee, also comprising private prominent citizens.

And fifth, another Review Board will consider cases of persons who have been detained for 10 years or more. All reports by the Review Committee and Board to extend the Detention Orders or otherwise must also be considered by the President.

Sir, to briefly summarise the rationale for extending this Act, its provisions are only resorted to when the securing of a court conviction is impossible because of the unwillingness on the part of 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 key weapon to suppress secret society, drug trafficking and other criminal activities, as there is no indication that these criminal activities can be completely eliminated here in the near future. If the gangsters and other criminal elements detect even a slight wavering of the Government's will to deal with them firmly, then we will see more of them reverting to their old and lawless ways to terrorise and victimise innocent people. The Chairman of a Criminal Law Advisory Committee had told me, when I met a group of them recently, that he was glad that Singapore had the foresight to implement the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. This has brought about much protection and safety to the law-abiding public. In other countries, he noted, the underworld had taken control over much of society. We need this Act to prevent this from happening.

It is therefore necessary to extend the Act for a further period of five years, and we cannot afford not to.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, whenever the issue of detention without trial arises, the question of safeguards and of relevance to society today must be addressed. The Minister has given us a review of the checks and balances that are in place. I am convinced that there are sufficient checks on the system. However, to me, the fact that this Bill must be presented to Parliament for review and extension every five years is itself a very fundamental procedure to ensure that this Bill cannot be abused or wrongly used by the Government of the day. If this Bill was meant to silence political opponents, no sane government would make itself go through the motion of seeking extension from Parliament every five years. Thus, the Bill is presented today, and I support the move to extend it for another five years.

Sir, some may question the relevance of this Bill. We have a very law-abiding population. There is no major crime problem in Singapore. Where are the secret societies of the 50s, 60s and 70s that make this Bill necessary? The major problem in this area are different and changing. However, the problem of getting witnesses to testify is still a problem because of the fear of reprisals on themselves and their families. As mentioned by the Minister, drug trafficking is a very real problem. Our proximity to the Golden Triangle and our efficiency as a travel hub make Singapore a convenient drug hub. Drug syndicates are wealthy, well organised and very powerful with extensive international links. The persons who are intercepted and arrested are the pimps in the trade. They are the small boys. It would not be possible to get witnesses to testify in these cases for obvious reasons, the threat of reprisals.

Detention without trial has been a major factor in addition to the death sentence to keep Singapore relatively drug free. Yet, we still consider drug abuse as a major problem in Singapore. The drug dealers know that, because we have tough laws, it is better for them to stay away from Singapore. Singaporeans also know this.

Let us look at some statistics regarding Singaporeans arrested overseas for drug trafficking. In 1989, 16; 1990, 15; 1991, 5; 1992, 31; 1993, 32. And up to June this year, there were 17, making a total of 116 cases. These 116 cases are cases known to the Ministry of Home Affairs and this is therefore not the complete list. Let us note the increasing trend in the last three years of Singaporeans committing drug offences overseas and being involved in drug trafficking overseas.

Do we need detention without trial? My answer is yes, so that our whole society can be spared the agony of drug addiction. Is the problem of secret societies or triads totally eradicated? The answer must be a no. Under control? Yes. We read now of the Hong Kong triads penetrating the United States, Canada, Australia and Europe. In an article, as quoted by the Minister, senior police officers have assessed that Singapore's strict laws have been a major deterrent effect.

A look at serious criminal offences committed by Singaporeans overseas, again to the best knowledge of the Ministry of Home Affairs, is telling. In 1989-1990, none was known. In 1991, 2; 1992, 2; 1993, 2. But up to June this year, six cases have already been recorded. Small as these numbers are, they should alert us to remain ever vigilant. Compound this with the easy availability of firearms in as close a region as Thailand, as has been recognised by the Thai authorities, we can realise how quickly our problems can multiply.

My conclusion is that this Bill is still relevant today and that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that detention without trial is not abused.

Sir, I support this Bill.

Mr Davinder Singh: Sir, I support the Bill.

The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act is known primarily for granting the Government power to detain without trial. There is another vital aspect to that piece of legislation. It spans more than 40 sections, a considerable part of which deals with the creation of offences which have to be proved in a court of law. The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act makes a number of activities illegal, eg, carrying, making or distributing subversive documents, eg, documents which incite people to violence. It makes striking in the context of essential services, like the supply of gas, water, electricity, illegal; funding of those strikes illegal; locking out employees engaged in those services illegal. And if you want to throw someone into prison for engaging in those illegal activities, the Government has to prosecute and has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they are guilty and this has to be done in a court of law. I am therefore a bit surprised that we are continuing to have a sunset clause in so far as this particular aspect of the Act is concerned. It has got nothing to do with detention without trial. It creates ordinary offences as do the Penal Code and other statutes which create offences. There is no reason, I submit, for this part, at least, of the Act to be subject to a renewal every so often.

The other aspect is detention without trial. It has always been a difficult argument. Because, from the purist's standpoint, the person in detention is deprived of his right to natural justice. But really, renewing this Act every few years enables this House as well as Singapore to understand what is happening in this country and in the world around. We get the opportunity, as we did a few minutes ago, for the Minister to tell us what has been happening, both in terms of secret society activities and in terms of drug activities. It is easy for us in air-conditioned comfort to talk about the pros and cons, academic or otherwise, of this Bill. But the question of whether this Bill ought to be renewed ought to be posed to the families of the victims of secret society activities and to the families of the victims of drug activities. When their children are seduced by drugs, as a result of the activities of drug overlords, and if they see that the Government is powerless to put these people behind bars, the question is: where is the justice? Put this question to them, and I would suggest that their support for the renewal of this Act would be unanimous.

Mr K. Shanmugam (Sembawang GRC): Sir, the Minister has made a very strong case for the extension of this Act and thus, despite my inner concern about detention without trial, at least, as of now, I would not take issue with the extension.

I would, however, like to emphasise on one point relating to the composition of the Advisory Committee. As the Minister has pointed out, and as it is apparent from the Advisory Committee's rules, the Advisory Committee plays a key and very important role as a safeguard mechanism. It has reasonable powers to prevent or curb abuse. The Minister, therefore, should seriously consider strengthening the composition of that Committee. At present, as I understand it, under the rules, the Minister appoints all the persons of that Committee. I would suggest that the Minister consider amending the rules such that at least three or four appointments to the Committee could be by respected bodies outside of the Government, preferably at least one person. Perhaps the Head of that Committee should be a Judge or a Judicial Commissioner. This is not meant as a criticism of the composition of the existing Committee, but I suggest this predominantly for two reasons.

First, as I have emphasised, the Advisory Committee plays a very important role. Detention without trial itself is a very strong step and such Committee must enjoy ultimate public confidence. That is not to say that the present Committee does not enjoy public confidence, but such confidence would be immeasurably strengthened should the Minister take such a step as to, for example, let the Committee be headed by a Judge or a Judicial Commissioner, and perhaps let the Academy of Law or some other respected body appoint one or two members. I also say that if the composition is to have two or three such persons, including a Judge, that would help this Parliament as well when it comes up each time that the matter has been reviewed by, for example, a Judge and these people who are detained were, in the view of the Committee, rightly detained. I trust the Minister will consider these suggestions.

Mr Ling How Doong: Mr Speaker, Sir, while I support this Bill in respect of detention without trial for people involved in drug abuse as well as secret society members, I am not in favour of the other provisions for the simple reason that, under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, the definition of "criminal activities" is all- catching and all-embracing. In other words, you can do away with the Penal Code and all the criminal statutes. With this Act alone, you can actually arrest anybody and put him behind bars without trial. I agree with the Minister that, without this weapon, there is no way we can check drug traffickers and secret society members. My reservation is in respect of this all-embracing law. For instance, the example cited by the Minister earlier on about gang rape. If you cannot get witnesses, you have to invoke this Act. I think this is very unfair because there are provisions where we can have the due process of law. As such, no other criminal activity should be brought under this Act other than the two examples I have cited.

With that reservation, I support this Bill.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I thank the Members for supporting the renewal of this Act. I do not want to over-emphasise the point that this Bill is indeed important for the maintenance of law and order in Singapore.

As to the reservation by Mr Ling, I do not know which particular aspect of the Bill he does not support. But looking at the provisions, there is detention without trial, it is an offence also for carrying subversive documents, helping subversive groups, making strikes in essential services illegal, and so on. All these were part and parcel of the Bill that was passed way back in 1955 and they are already there and well entrenched. Of course, we can take them out and put them in some other law, but at this point in time, I do not think it is necessary to do so, so long as we still have this Act. When we decide to do away with detention without trial, then we can really look at all the other provisions of the Act.

As to criminal cases of gang rape where there are no witnesses, actually this means that no one is willing to testify in open court. But there are people who are prepared to say that they are the witnesses but they are afraid of reprisals. From the police investigations, they have built up a case against the gang rape group, and that is why they were able to put this gang rape group under Criminal Law detention. I think nobody would quarrel with that so long as the accused persons or the people who are detained were given the right to appear before the Committee and to make representations with legal advisors or lawyers.

On Mr Shanmugam's suggestion about strengthening the composition of the Advisory Committee, first of all, let me say that there is a lot of confidence in our Advisory Committee. We have seven such committees with 44 members. Most of them are all very senior members of the Bar and, if not, they are very prominent citizens, such as Justices of the Peace, retired principals and even a Brother from a religious order. I believe that they have carried out their task very well. They have applied themselves on every case. They have spent a lot of time studying the facts and also talking to and interviewing the officers who put up the cases to them.

I am always open to suggestions about additional members or people who are willing and able to find time to serve on the committee. But do we need to specify that the appointing authority should come from several sources or rather than just the Minister? I would say that we do not need several appointing authorities. Just one will do. I, as the Minister, would be prepared to consider any suitable person who is willing to spend time and apply his mind on the case.

What about Judicial Officers, be they Judges or Judicial Commissioners? Here I would say that detention without trial is an executive decision, and we have gone through this administrative procedure of detaining people. We should not mix it up with the judicial process. I think it would not be desirable to involve Judges and judicial officers in an executive decision, or an administrative process because, who knows, in some of these cases they may take the Government to court and the Judge will then be put in a situation where there is a conflict of interest. We do not want that situation to happen. But I am always open to suggestions for any suitable names that Members may have, be they from the Academy of Law, the Law Society, or any other group. I am always prepared to consider names.

On Mr Davinder Singh's point that we do not have to subject the other provisions for renewal, historically, we already have them in the Act, and until we revamp the Act, we just keep them as they are.

I think I have dealt with all the points that Members have brought up. Once again, I thank them for their support.

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 Wong Kan Seng].

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