COMMISSION OF INQUIRY

Mr Speaker: This motion is subject to signification of support by at least one Member. Does the motion have the support of any other hon. Member?

Mr Low Thia Khiang: I support.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

That this House resolves that a Commission of Inquiry be appointed with the following terms of reference: (i) to inquire into the current methods of investigation of crimes by law enforcement agencies particularly in the recording of statements from persons arrested on suspicion of having committed crimes; (ii) to inquire whether the law, as contained in the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act governing criminal trials, adequately safeguard persons from being convicted of crimes of which they may be innocent; and (iii) if the Commission finds that the methods of investigation and the provisions of the law do not sufficiently protect innocent persons, what changes should be made in the law to ensure that only the guilty are punished and the innocent are not put to risk of being punished for crimes they have not committed.

Sir, before I start speaking on this motion, may I say that, in the course of my speech, I shall of course be drawing on my practice at the criminal bar and in the cases that I have done. But may I assure the House that I have no pecuniary interest in this motion. The cases have all been dealt with and my interest is purely one of seeing that justice is meted out, as it should be, to our citizens, particularly in the field of criminal justice. Sir, if you feel that I should not vote on this at the end of the motion, perhaps you would let me know, but I have no pecuniary interest.

Sir, I make no apology for troubling this House with this motion in the midst of the economic woes that Members are perhaps more concerned with. But as has been pointed out, part of the economic woes stems from the lack of accountability, lack of justice in the system, lack of transparency. Therefore, justice is important. In fact, I would say that the first duty of any government is to provide justice to all its citizens. And it is not just criminal justice, of course, economic justice, social justice, but criminal justice forms an important part of it. Because in the way criminal justice is administered will largely depend on the stability of the society. If the society begins to have doubts and to lose confidence in the way criminal justice is administered, then society will suffer and it may lead to instability in the society. So I make no apology, Mr Speaker, Sir.

May I say that the aim of criminal justice is two-fold. One is to see that the guilty in the society, the wrongdoers, are brought to justice and punished. That is an important duty. But equally important, and some may rate it even more important, the duty of society must be to see that those who are innocent, those who are not guilty of any misdoing, of any crime, do not suffer punishment unfairly or unnecessarily. That is important. And the importance of this has been stressed time and time again, and I do not wish to remind Members of the pronouncements from the courts, not only in this country but in the other countries, of the need to protect the innocent. And criminal justice, Mr Speaker, Sir, is not to be confined to just how the courts deal with the offenders, persons who are brought before it. The greater part of criminal justice is concerned with the investigation, the inquiries, that are conducted by the police and the enforcement agencies before the persons are brought to court to be charged with offences. And this was stressed in a report in the United Kingdom in 1993 when the government appointed a Royal Commission on Criminal Justice, following an outcry that several persons had been convicted and sentenced to serve terms in prison when they were later found to be totally innocent. May I quote from this report? It is Command 2263 submitted in 1993. I quote:

`The protection of suspects from unfair or unreasonable pressure is as important to the criminal justice system as the thoroughness with which the police carry out their investigations.' So the Commissioners were stressing the importance of protecting the suspects and those who are innocent from unfair or unreasonable pressure in any investigation into crimes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, in any society where the rule of law obtains, no innocent person should fear that he or she may find himself or herself convicted of some offence or crime. That is important, that every person should live with that conviction and to that extent, legislatures have enacted laws to protect subjects to ensure that only the guilty are punished and the innocent are not punished. The tragedy is that it is always the weak who suffer if these laws do not protect them. It is the weak, the uneducated, the illiterate, who stand in greater danger of being convicted even though they may be innocent.

Sir, I propose, very briefly, to examine what the law in Singapore is, to provide this protection to our people. First of all, the police powers of arrest. Under the law, the police may arrest anyone without a warrant when they have committed an offence or there is credible information or reasonable suspicion of them having committed an offence of which report has been made. But the police do not always act strictly under this section. We heard earlier in the debate about drug addicts and the incidence of crime among drug addicts. So they are a likely source for the police, and this was, of course, highlighted by a Queen's Counsel in England who wrote on the targetting of criminals. The police pick up who they think are persons likely to have committed the offence without bothering too much about whether the information or the complaint is reasonable for them to act upon.

Then there is the question of police custody. Once a person is picked up and is taken into police custody, there is, under the Constitution, a maximum limit of 48 hours that the police may hold anyone in custody before they produce them in the courts. But, unfortunately, this protection of not being kept in police custody too long is eroded by the readiness of the courts to grant such custody almost as soon as it is asked. So we have cases where the police put a holding charge, as they call it, produce the man in court and say, "We want more time to investigate. May we have a week's custody?" The courts, as I say, grant this custody without inquiring too much into whether that custody is necessary or not. This length of police custody can continue sometimes with weekly remands for six weeks or more, and I shall illustrate from a case to which I shall refer at some length. During this police custody, the police deny, until they say they have finished their investigations, any visits from any family members to see the person who has been arrested, ie, to see the suspect and to see whether he needs to be helped in any way. This denial can again stretch to three weeks in some cases, and has stretched to three weeks, despite the Article in the Constitution which says that any person who is arrested shall be informed of his charge against him and shall be allowed to consult a lawyer of his choice as soon as possible. The courts, way back in 1983, I think, held that that meant that the police could withhold visit from counsel or consultation until they have closed their investigations. As I said, investigations can stretch for up to six weeks. During all that time, the man is denied any right of consultation with his lawyer and is denied any family visit. He is totally at the mercy of the police.

Then there is the questioning of suspects in police custody. There were at one time certain rules about police questioning of persons. They were taken from the Judges Rules in Britain and made a part of the Criminal Procedure Code, but that has all been swept away. So there are no guidelines and no restrictions on the length of questioning of suspects by the police and to the conditions under which the questioning may be carried out.

Then the law about the recording of statements from accused persons. The law at one time was that no confession made by anyone in police custody was admissible in any court of law unless that confession was made before a magistrate. That was swept away. The position now is that statements made to any officer of the police of the rank of Sergeant and above is admissible provided the court thinks that no pressure or inducement has been applied. I will illustrate this when I come to the case that I have in mind.

There is another section of the Criminal Procedure Code which requires the police to notify a person when they have made up their mind to charge him, to read the charge to him and to ask him what he has to say in reply to the charge. The intention of the legislature was that this should be done the moment the police make up their mind to charge anyone. Of course, it must follow that if the police arrests anyone they must have made up their mind to charge that person. But the section is more honoured in the breach than in its observance. The man is not informed of his offence until maybe two or three days later when he is charged under section 122(6) which requires the police to serve the notice and record his statement. So while we have these laws, the question is how far are they observed by the police in carrying out their investigations into crimes.

Now I should turn to this case that I said that I would refer to which illustrates more than anything else what I have attempted to say.

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the morning of 2nd February 1989, a caretaker was found murdered in a coffeeshop. The police were called in when the body was discovered. Their first line of inquiry, as I have said, was about drug addicts who lived in the neighbourhood and who might have been seen near the shop before the date of the murder. So a number of suspects were questioned. May I say in passing that this is one of the things that perhaps makes drug addicts who have tried to come out of their addiction feel that society would never forgive them, would not forget them, and they are the first targets for any offence suspected by the police. So the police arrested one man about 10 days later and may I say, at the outset, that there was no question that these men, who were eventually charged, were totally innocent. They were not even anywhere near the scene of crime.

The police arrested this man and after a whole day of questioning, he decided to, in his own words, admit to what the police wanted him to admit because "he could not take it any more." I am not going to go through the treatment accorded to everyone. I will go through the treatment accorded to one of them. So towards the evening he decided he could not take it anymore and owned up to a minimal involvement of himself in the offence of murder, claiming that he was really outside whilst others went in. Of course, once he admitted to an involvement, he had to name others, and he gave the nicknames of two brothers. The two brothers were then later picked up in turn and they, after several hours of questioning under pain, again decided that they should go along with the police and admit what the police were asking.

Finally, the fourth man was arrested. On 18th February 1989, he was picked up at 6.00 am. His evidence given at the trial is a story that many may ask, "How could this happen in Singapore?" But he says it did happen to him. He was picked up before 6.00 am and taken straight to the CID without even being allowed to have a drink of water or to do his morning ablutions. Then he was taken into the Inspector's room, the officer who was in charge of investigations, and he was handcuffed to a chair and later stripped to his underpants. All along he was not given anything to eat or drink, he said. They kept telling him to admit that he had been involved in the murder of the caretaker at the coffeeshop. He kept denying, saying he did not know anything about it. Then at 2.00 o'clock, he told the court that the police officers who were questioning him decided they had to be more drastic and they made him stand on a chair stripped, as I said, to his underpants, and facing the air-conditioner and balancing two to three telephone directories on outstretched arms. May I repeat, he had not been given anything to drink or eat from the time of his arrest.

This went on, Mr Speaker, Sir, according to his evidence in court, till 6.00 am the next morning. That is almost 24 hours after he was picked up. All during the 24 hours, his evidence was that the officers were sitting there, tapping him with rulers, assaulting him and saying, "So you are going to be a hero, let's see how long you are going to last." He said that when it came to day break, he could not stand any more of this. In his own words, he told the court, "I had no food. I could feel the chill to my bones, Sir. I felt as if I was about to fall unconscious or even to die." So he decided that there was nothing he could do, except to admit to some involvement. So he was kept in custody, produced in court, and remanded further in police custody until further investigations were completed. And that, of course, meant taking more and more statements from these four persons.

He was not allowed any consultation with the lawyer until about two or three weeks later. And even then, when the lawyer was allowed to see him, the investigating officer sat by the side of the lawyer and the accused was right in front of him and, of course, the accused could not say anything. He said he was much too frightened. He was not allowed any family visits until 8th March. These men were held in police custody, for weeks remanded, every time they were produced in court until about 27th March, and during this time the Police built up their case. As the men said, they had to lie, and so they made up stories. They made up stories about having thrown the man's wallet or the screw driver which was used in the offence. But none of these was found, even when the Police went looking for these. So they found no corroborative evidence. The Police then decided that they had to get some evidence against these men and they decided to reduce the charge against one man to house-breaking and get him to give evidence against the other three.

After they were remanded at Queenstown Remand Prison on 27th March, almost six weeks after they were picked up, the lawyers for one of them wrote to the investigating officer giving information that his client had been told by a man who was serving a prison term in Changi (the name was mentioned) that somebody, other than the four, had committed the murder and who had admitted to it. This letter was sent to the investigating officer by the lawyers but the lawyers never got any reply from the investigating officer. In court, he said, yes, he did receive the letter but it was not in his file. He thought he had mislaid it. And when he was asked whether he followed up on that information, he said, "I tried to follow it up, but nothing was forthcoming. And so I left it."

The important thing, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that the Police were unable to find any evidence at all from any source outside the statements alleged to have been made by these four men. There was no corroborative evidence of one single fact. All that the Police had were these alleged statements of these four persons relating, according to the Police, their involvement. The men's explanation was they went along with the Police because the Police told them, "This is how it should have been done, you know. We know you must have got this, you must have done that." And so they said they went along with whatever the Police said.

There were fingerprints found at the scene but none of the fingerprints of any of the four matched any fingerprint found at the scene. There was blood found but again none of the blood of the four matched the blood grouping of the blood that was found at the scene. So, as I said, there was nothing against these men, except their so-called confessions. At the trial, the man who had done a deal with the Police gave evidence, saying how he was just outside while the three others went in and he saw them all come out through the open door at the front. But in cross-examination, he told the court, "I only admitted because I couldn't take it any more. I decided that I should just go along with what the Police were asking me to say." Nevertheless, his evidence was accepted and the court also admitted the statement from one accused. And this is important - the court admitted the statement as having been made voluntarily because that was what the Police evidence was. They went into the witness box - Police officer after Police officer and swore that there was nothing unusual in what they did, that the men voluntarily made the statements. And so the court left with that evidence admitted - the statement of one of these men who implicated the others and also the statement of one other accused person. At the end of the prosecution case, two of them were called to enter their defence to a charge of murder. May I repeat - to a murder that they had never committed. Because I shall show that it was proved conclusively that they could never have committed that murder.

It was during the conduct of the defence that the defence insisted on calling the man of whom information had been given that he had committed the murder. He was called and he, of course, denied it. But the defence also called the man serving sentence in Changi Prison and he told the court that the man against whom information had been given had admitted at a gathering that he was the man who had gone into the shop and then committed the murder. The defence then gave notice that they would recall the fingerprint examiner, to ask whether the fingerprint of the man against whom information had been given had been matched with the fingerprint found at the scene. The DPP then directed the fingerprint examiner to do a comparison. And when the fingerprint examiner gave evidence, he came with the news which confirmed what the defence had been saying, that a fingerprint found at the scene matched the fingerprint of the man against whom information had been given by the defence. And so the next day, the DPP withdrew the charges against all three men. That was an admission, Mr Speaker, Sir, that they were the wrong men. They were completely the wrong men but they had spent 39 months in prison before they could be acquitted on the murder that they had never committed. There were so many factors which militated against them having committed the offence but the Investigation Officer decided that once he had got the confessions, that was it. There was no need to look at anything more. There is one compelling factor and that was the door, the opened door, they said they had come out through. But evidence was given that the door could not be shut and secured from outside and the morning when the body was discovered, the doors were all found secured from inside. So how did that happen? The inspector would appear to have been not interested.

Following the acquittal of these men, the Police then finally charged the man against whom information was given. And he was subsequently tried in another court and he admitted in his evidence that he alone had entered the shop. There was somebody else outside but not any one of these four men who had been earlier charged. And he was found guilty of murder and convicted. So we had it proved conclusively without any shadow of doubt that these men were completely innocent of the charge of murder. And yet as I said, the Police proceeded with the prosecution simply because they had, in their own words, "got the confessions from these men", and that was it, there is nothing more to be said.

After the acquittal, the men brought an action for damages in the High Court for malicious prosecution. This was dismissed by the Judicial Commissioner who held that the Police officer had reasonable grounds at that time for believing that these men had committed the crime. He avoided answering the question whether the confessions were free and voluntarily made. He was told that there were only three explanations possible. One was that the men were extroverts who suddenly decided they wanted some publicity, to be charged with murder, and that is why they confessed. Secondly, that their minds were so deranged that they saw in their minds them committing the murder. And the third explanation, of course, was that the confessions were forced out of them. The Judicial Commissioner unfortunately failed to deal with this.

I am sorry if I have taken so long, but this case illustrates so vividly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the total lack of protection that our citizens, and I repeat again, the weak, the illiterate, uneducated citizens, have against Police action. We have to ensure that our people are protected against the Police, that they are not unnecessarily made to suffer for something which they did not do. It is not just this case of these four men, glaring as it is, but there are other instances, and one of them has been mentioned earlier. There was the educationally subnormal boy of 12 who was picked up just because the Police thought he was riding a stolen bicycle and he was questioned without any of his parents being present or called and, when he left, there were marks of violence found on him. There was yet another case of some foreign workers who were charged with robbery. Again, there was no evidence, apart from their alleged confessions, but, fortunately, the DPP could see that and he decided to withdraw the charges, but again, after the men had spent about four to six weeks in custody.

I was puzzled by a statement made by a CID official commenting on the report that a statement made to the Singapore Police by an SIA steward was held inadmissible by an American court. It refused to admit that statement, saying it had not been made under, what the Americans call, the due process of law. But what puzzled me was the statement by the CID official that was reported in the papers, and he said, "We have no vested interest in this case. This case happened in the United States. So why should we force any man to confess?" The Party queried this and asked whether it was a Freudian slip, whether the CID was saying because it was an offence committed in America, they had no vested interest, but they would have had a vested interest if the offence had been committed in Singapore.

I think it is time, Mr Speaker, Sir, I do say it quite seriously, that we should examine the whole question of criminal justice in Singapore to see whether we have now gone overboard, too far, in our eagerness to show how good the Singapore Police are in combating crime so that we have good statistical figures to publish.

There was a debate, Mr Speaker, Sir, in this House, in 1995 and, of course, I was not here then. There was this question about how the Police went about investigating crime. The Parliamentary Secretary, speaking in that debate, told the House that between the years 1993 and April 1995, 166 cases were tried in the High Court at which statements made to the Police were tendered as evidence against the accused persons, and he went on to say that only in four, the courts refused to admit the statements and that, for the rest, the statements were all admitted. As I said, at this trial that I have referred to, statements were admitted. And, yet, we know that those statements were all lies told by innocent men who were desperate, anxious to escape from the clutches of the Police. So the question we have to ask is: do our laws now protect our citizens from resorting to lies in the hands of the Police only to escape from Police custody? Do our laws ensure that the Police observe the law in carrying out the investigations?

May I again refer to this report of the United Kingdom Law Commission on Justice. Even before 1993, Mr Speaker, Sir, the practice in the United Kingdom was for all statements to be audio taped. The Police had to audio tape all statements recorded from suspects. But the Commission recommended that it was not just audio taping but they wanted a video recording of all detention centres where suspects were detained for questioning, and they also referred to the right of the suspect to consult his lawyer before he made any statement to the Police. And this is now the law in England under section 58 of the Criminal Evidence Act, 1984, which assures all arrested persons the right to legal advice, free of charge, regardless of their means. And what is more important, Mr Speaker, Sir, the section goes on to say that if the suspect does not wish to seek legal advice, the Police had to get that in writing from him so that it can be produced in court that he refused legal advice.

The present laws in Singapore relating to admissibility of statements in the Criminal Procedure Code allow the prosecution to tender statements made to any police officer above the rank of Sergeant and for it to be disallowed only if it appears to the court that the statements were obtained under inducement or threat. But as can be seen from the figures quoted by the Parliamentary Secretary then in the debate in 1995, the courts admit almost all the statements. The courts find it difficult to believe that police officers would resort to the conduct that these men say they were subjected to. And the unfortunate part of it is that the man who is in custody has no way of proving his case apart from giving evidence himself. He cannot call any witnesses. He has not got anybody who will advise him, whereas the Police of course have all the officers parading into the court and saying, "Oh, no. We never touched him. It is all voluntary. He acted of his own accord in giving the statement." I think it is time that we looked at these sections in the Criminal Procedure Code and see whether, as I said earlier, we have not gone too far in our eagerness to stamp out crime as it were.

There are, of course, other laws that perhaps we should look at. There are the sections in the Evidence Act and other sections in the CPC. There is one section in the Evidence Act, Mr Speaker, Sir, that perhaps we should look at very seriously and that is the section which allows the courts to act on the statement of a co-accused without any corroboration of his evidence. The law at one time was that that section meant that the courts may look at statements made by the co-accused. But the courts must find corroborative evidence of the statement made by the co-accused. That law was changed by a ruling of the Court of Appeal some time ago and now the courts are free to convict on statements made by the co-accused person even when there is no corroboration whatsoever of his statement made to the Police.

I think I have said enough, Mr Speaker, Sir. It is important that we should ensure in our society, if we are concerned about justice, that justice is something that matters. We should do something to see, as in other countries, that innocent persons are in no danger of being convicted wrongly. I am not asking this House to make any finding on this, but my motion is simply that we should now appoint a Commission, as they did in the United Kingdom, to look at the whole state of criminal investigation in this country. May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that my fears are not just my own. A number of lawyers who practise at the criminal bar have voiced these fears. There used to be a rule, it is still the rule, that an accused person is deemed to be innocent until he is proved guilty. But some lawyers now feel that that is being eroded. There is a view that a person, once he is charged by the Police, must be guilty, otherwise the Police would not charge him. That is a dangerous view to take and we have got to put an end to that.

Sir, I beg to move that this House seriously consider this motion and appoint a Commission of Inquiry to inquire into criminal justice in Singapore.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam, in moving this motion and in calling for a Commission of Inquiry into the investigation of crimes and the laws relating to criminal evidence and procedure, has raised very grave allegations that our laws and officers of the law have somehow not provided adequate protection for accused persons and, more seriously, that the innocent may have therefore been unjustly punished. As I do not have personal knowledge of the cases that he referred to, I shall not speak on those cases, but I should like to address the issue whether the law relating to criminal procedure and evidence do adequately protect accused persons from the risk of wrongful conviction.

This House should roundly and unequivocally reject such allegations, because if these allegations are unrebutted, they would adversely affect public opinion of our administration of criminal justice. That would be most damaging to our legal system, a legal system that has won the respect of many both inside and outside of Singapore, one that is fair, efficient and just. So such assertions cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

I believe Mr Jeyaretnam is aware that the general principles of our criminal evidence were derived from the common law that still applies to Singapore. Our system provides rules and as much as other legal systems based on the Anglo-American systems. Our Evidence Act, for example, was enacted more than a century ago in 1893. The rules were based on the English common law, codified for us for the first time in India; later, in other jurisdictions such as Sri Lanka, Pakistan, the Malayan Federation and, of course, Singapore.

There are sound fundamental principles embodied in these rules. What are they? The first is the so-called golden thread of the common law. The prosecution, in general, shoulders the burden of proof, to prove that the accused is liable for the offence with which he is charged. The standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt. This is the so-called presumption of innocence. It is alive and well in Singapore. The accused will therefore be entitled to call the prosecution to prove the case against him, and this remains the fundamental principle. Applying that principle and on matters which Mr Jeyaretnam has referred to in relation to the statements out of court, the accused person's statements are not admissible, as he had mentioned just now, if they were obtained through the use of inducements, threats or promises made by persons in authority. In other words, involuntary statements or confessions are inadmissible in evidence.

On the facts that he had described just now of a case that actually resulted in an acquittal, he would know, I think, that such statements may be challenged in court, and that the accused can give evidence in voir dire to show that such confessions are unlawfully obtained. Indeed, in our courts, they have extended the law beyond that which Mr Jeyaretnam has referred to. In other words, they have extended the law beyond involuntary statements, to include what in common law is called the doctrine of oppression. This is a doctrine which is familiar both in England, the United States, Malaysia and Singapore. The doctrine of oppression does not require any inducement, threat or promise if the accused, for any reason, gave statements obtained through the use of oppressive conduct by the persons in authority, such statements are inadmissible.

In our courts, we have had instances where statements have been rejected by reasons of either inducement, threat or promise or by reason of oppressive conduct. So the courts are aware of the possibility that statements may have been involuntarily obtained and these laws provide protection for any accused person coming before the courts.

What are the other principles that Mr Jeyaretnam perhaps has not mentioned? We can refer to the principle that the accused's own bad reputation or disposition to crime, for example, is not admissible evidence against him, unless he somehow lowers his shield, attacks the character of prosecution witnesses intending to discredit them. Under our existing law, for example, an accused charged for rape or molestation would be able to attack the character of the victim freely without fear that his own discreditable record may be introduced in evidence. These are the checks which are put into our Evidence Act and they remain laws to this day.

Finally, one overriding principle that we have in our courts today is that the judges have a discretion to exclude evidence that is unduly prejudicial to the accused. This has been a discretion that is expressly recognised by a Court of Appeal decision in Singapore and indeed in that particular decision, the Chief Justice took pains to point out that he rejected the argument by a dissenting Judge that the Evidence Act does not provide for such a discretion.

All these principles remain in operation in our laws. They are guarantees to the quality of evidence that the prosecution must provide in order to secure a conviction. In evolving these rules, it must not be forgotten that the State also has a very real interest in protecting the interest of the general public in ensuring that victims of crimes are indeed protected.

What is the purpose of having a Commission of Inquiry to look into the rules of evidence and procedure that have been debated in this House, the latest of which was in 1976, when amendments were made to the Evidence Act and to the Criminal Procedure Code following the recommendations actually of another English Evidence Committee, ie, the 11th Report of the Committee on Criminal Evidence? Singapore introduced those provisions and by introducing those provisions had actually done away with the Judge's rules which Mr Jeyaretnam is so fond of. But in having taken out the Judge's rules, they have also put in place provisions concerning the taking of statements. I believe Mr Jeyaretnam is, as he has criminal practice, familiar with the provisions of section 122(6), (7) and (8) of the Criminal Procedure Code. All these are rules of evidence and criminal procedure that are debated. There is no need to have any Commission of Inquiry to decide whether such rules take into account the interest of accused persons.

I believe, Mr Speaker, Sir, there is no reason for appointing a Commission of Inquiry, as suggested by Mr Jeyaretnam. Of course, I do not mean to say here that our laws of evidence and procedure should not be revised from time to time, to keep them relevant in the light of changing circumstances. It must be remembered that our Evidence Act, for example, is enacted in 1893. It is over a hundred years old. It is beginning to show some signs of not being able to cope with changing circumstances. But there is no reason why the normal procedures in Parliament would not be able to take care of any issues that may arise in such reform. Therefore, Sir, we should reject this motion.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam once again raises an old issue. We have debated these matters in this House many times before about alleged police assault, alleged police impropriety, especially in the last term when Mr Jeyaretnam was not in the House. And we did not debate these matters in vacuo. Many MPs, including Opposition MPs such as Mr Low Thia Khiang, Mr Cheo Chai Chen and NMPs such as Assoc. Prof. Walter Woon and Dr Kanwaljit Soin asked many searching questions, both general and on specific cases. And to all these queries, the Government gave full and detailed explanations. All these are in the Hansard.

The Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng, also gave a detailed account of how our criminal justice system operates, highlighting its safeguards, when this House, after a full debate in May 1995, passed a motion reaffirming the House's confidence in Singapore's criminal justice system, especially the integrity of our Judges in upholding the rule of law and the competence of the Police in enforcing law and order. If I am not wrong, Mr Low who was in this House at that time, voted in favour of the motion.

So why then is the Workers' Party's Secretary-General raising this motion today? Quite true to form, Mr Jeyaretnam has strayed in his speech. Let us just focus on the main points of today's motion. Mr Jeyaretnam has told a long story, but really the heart of the matter is that Mr Jeyaretnam wants a Commission of Inquiry (COI) to look into police investigation methods and he has also mentioned some legal provisions and procedures to see if they adequately protect innocent persons. But, Sir, really the first question this House must ask is: on what basis does he ask for a Commission of Inquiry? Has he or anyone else uncovered gross miscarriages of justice necessitating such an inquiry? Or indeed blatant abuse of police powers or forced confessions or other ill treatment of accused persons? Well, the answer is no. Quite predictably, he mentioned the case of Zainal Bin Kuning and others which he represented and which, in fact, in the past, he had already raised in this House in a previous debate last year, when I responded to him during the Committee of Supply debate.

Sir, I have looked at the reports and all the papers. First, of course, Mr Jeyaretnam tells his side of the story, as recounted to him no doubt by his client about police assault.

Mr Jeyaretnam: It was given in evidence in court.

Mr Speaker: Order. Mr Jeyaretnam, if you wish to interject, could you please rise and seek my permission?

Mr Jeyaretnam: I am sorry, Sir.

Mr Speaker: All right. Prof. Ho.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The point of the matter is that there was a suit taken by Mr Zainal in that case where he was represented, if I am not wrong, by the NCMP for malicious prosecution and forced imprisonment. But the High Court Judge in that case, after a full trial, said that looking at the evidence before him, he found that there was no forced confession. The confession was voluntary. He looked at other evidence. He looked at the evidence of the medical doctor who examined the accused person in accordance with the requirement of the law and also the evidence of the interpreter. Indeed, the Court of Appeal, when it went on appeal, said that it found no grounds to interfere with the findings of the High Court. There, we have it, Sir, full-fledged cases which have determined this matter.

Having said this, Mr Jeyaretnam says, "Well, the DPP, when it dropped the charges, said that the parties were innocent." What happened in that case is, quite rightly, as Mr Jeyaretnam has mentioned, fresh evidence surfaced, evidence as to fingerprints, alibi evidence, which had been disclosed before in a letter to the investigation officer. Mr Jeyaretnam is correct in that the officer had not exercised enough diligence in pursuing those leads and indeed the officer has been disciplined for that. But the point is that there was no cover-up and no intention on the part of the police to deliberately frame anybody or suppress evidence.

When the Public Prosecutor preferred the charges against the three original accused, there was evidence given by their accomplice, who had testified that they were the ones who had committed the robbery and the murder. Of course, in the face of the fresh evidence, quite rightly the police in that case said that they would go under section 193 of the CPC where it asked for the court's indulgence that it did not wish to further prosecute the accused under the charge. That section provides that the accused person shall be given a discharge not amounting to an acquittal, unless of course the presiding judge so decides. In that case, I think Mr Jeyaretnam protested and asked for an acquittal and the court granted his client that acquittal. That is the background. I think we have to see this in totality. It is not a case of police wrongdoing. There may have been some areas in its investigations which could have been more diligently pursued. But on the facts before it, the DPP had every reason to prefer the charges and to do what it did.

It is important to note that the police is open enough, the DPP is open enough, should there be evidence to suggest that there is some doubt. Do not forget that at the end of the day, the Attorney-General's Chambers has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, which is a high standard of proof. Therefore, should there be evidence, the totality of which makes it difficult to succeed in proving its case, according to this standard, it could very well be, as it happened in Zainal's case, where the DPP says, "Well, we will go under section 193."

In fact, at that time, Mr Jeyaretnam had called for a Commission of Inquiry to be formed in 1992. Now, six years later, out of the blue, he calls for a Commission of Inquiry. But he forgets that, in the meantime, in these six years - in fact, the case took place in 1989, which is almost 10 years ago - there have been many improvements to our criminal justice system. The court system, for one thing, there is no backlog. Therefore, the long remand period that the accused persons in that case were subject to was quite unfortunate, but he knows that the courts have become more efficient. We have also introduced laws to make sure that the cases go more expeditiously. I am told that for High Court criminal cases now, it would not take more than five to six months before a person is tried after being first charged in court. There have been other improvements such as pre-trial conferences, police team investigation systems, and so forth.

Mr Jeyaretnam cites the Runciman Commission of Inquiry in the UK which, of course, came in the light of public outcry over a few high profile cases, "Guildford 4", "Birmingham 6" and other like cases, where innocent parties were put into prison for many, many years, I think more than 10 years. As a result of external investigations, it was found out that police had in fact used tainted evidence and there were other improprieties. Then the Commission came about which, of course, gave rise to certain recommendations. But the question really is this: does this situation pertain in Singapore today? Mr Jeyaretnam likes to pluck examples from the UK without really examining whether they are applicable in the local context. He talks about the Runciman Commission and he talks about video taping and other examples.

Let me just say that in other countries, including the UK, there is concern that the balance is now tilted too much in favour of accused persons, resulting in miscarriages of justice where guilty parties are escaping the clutches of the law. All over the world, criminals, including those in Singapore, have become more intelligent. What we need really is not to shift the balance, as it applies today, more in their favour, as Mr Jeyaretnam suggests, because then we are doing a disservice to the preponderant majority of innocent Singaporeans who deserve our every protection. Let us not do as Mr Jeyaretnam urges.

Another point is this. When the public prosecutor drops a charge, it does not necessarily mean that the accused person is innocent. Indeed, if the court finds that the charge has not been made out, it does not necessarily mean that the accused person is innocent. What it means is that the prosecution has failed to discharge the high burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt. To put it in another way, the defence has cast a reasonable doubt on the prosecution's case. This point was in fact covered by the Minister for Law in this House in response to Prof. Walter Woon that we should not get carried away. Yes, there are cases where the public prosecutor does not succeed in proving its case and therefore convicting the accused, but it does not mean therefore that the charge should not have been preferred in the first place, because the AG's Chambers must decide in the public interest what cases to prosecute.

For the benefit of Members, let me just recount what we already have in our system, where there are adequate safeguards to ensure that innocent people are not convicted. For example, the investigation process includes a comprehensive system of checks and balances through several layers of scrutiny and supervision. Every day, at every police division, a duty Senior Investigation Officer (SIO) checks the cases reported for the day to see how they are handled. Every morning, the Chief Investigation Officer (CIO) will check all police reports lodged in the previous 24 hours and the actions taken to deal with them. More difficult cases are reviewed in a Morning Panel chaired by the Commander or Head, Investigation (HI). Thereafter, the CIO and HI will continue to monitor the cases that require further investigation.

In the cases handled by the CID, which are the more serious and complex cases, this process of close supervision is further enhanced by case conferencing, focusing on individual investigations. CID has also strengthened its investigative capability by implementing team investigation. This team system has also been adopted by the Land Divisions, first by Clementi Police Division, in tandem with the introduction of the Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs). Over time, as the NPCs become a common feature in our Land Divisions, team investigation will become the norm. For the more serious cases, the AG's Chambers is consulted before a decision to prosecute is made. At the AG's Chambers itself, a special Criminal Review Committee critically reviews and evaluates the evidence and law in every pending High Court trial and appeal to determine if the charges or appeal should be proceeded with in court. These are just illustrations I am giving. But this approach permeates our system where there are counter checks and balances.

Sir, Mr Jeyaretnam talks about the recording of suspect's statements. First, let me put things in perspective. Suspect's statements are only a variety of evidence that the police will usually obtain to prove a case against the accused. Other evidence is independently obtained through the testimonies of other witnesses, identification parade, physical evidence obtained at the scene of crime, and other exhibits seized by the police which connect the arrested person to the offence. So let us not just look at confession statements and focus on that aspect of the evidence. During the process of interview, the arrestee is confronted with these pieces of evidence for an explanation which is then considered with other corroborative evidence before a decision is taken whether or not to charge and prosecute him. Sir, the interview process seeks to find out the truth, not to extract a forced confession. In any case, the arrestee has to be produced in court within 48 hours of his arrest and indeed the court has to make a ruling, and the police has to make out a case, as to whether or not the accused person should be further remanded. So let us leave it to the discretion and powers of the court.

Furthermore, in all High Court cases, an arrestee is examined by a medical officer before and after the taking of his statement. Also, anyone who is assaulted has ample opportunities to complain to a senior officer tasked to check the police lock-ups routinely to record any complaint, or indeed subsequently, to family members who may visit him. In fact, a suspect can request for a medical examination any time.

Let me say this: police has no reason to convict innocent people. Think about it. It is not in the interest of the Force to do this, as it would undermine the credibility, respect and confidence the Force enjoys in the eyes of the public. If the wrong person is charged and convicted, what it really means is that the guilty party remains free and probably will commit more crimes. Police therefore has no reason whatsoever to force confessions out of innocent people. What is more important, as I have assured this House in the past, MHA and top police management, right from the Commissioner of Police downwards, will never condone such wrongdoing. Quite the contrary, we take a tough no-nonsense stance against black sheep officers who abuse their powers or who are sloppy in their work. Thankfully, Sir, such officers are not many.

In fact, complaints against police abuse of suspects dropped from 94 in 1994 to 56 last year. These complaints were investigated by the Service Development and Inspectorate (SDI) Department of the Police Force. The 56 complaints represent only a minuscule 0.2% of the 27,073 suspects arrested in 1997. Of these, only 10 cases involving 14 officers were substantiated. Of course, the errant officers were dealt with - departmentally or prosecuted in court. This represents less than 0.12% of our police force totalling over 10,900 officers.

Another important safeguard against police abuses is our courts. The fact that there are acquittals by our courts shows that the system is working. Every investigator knows that any evidence adduced in court against the accused, and this point has been mentioned by Prof. Chin, including confession statements, can be challenged and thrown out by the court. Here again, the numbers are very small. But the fact that our courts have thrown out such statements shows that it is an effective safeguard. Indeed, the small number shows that police takes its work seriously; police knows that its work will be scrutinised by the courts, and that has resulted in the small numbers. It is not because, as Mr Jeyaretnam says, it is very difficult for the courts to discover any wrongdoing. Quite the contrary.

Also, and Prof. Chin who specialises in evidence has mentioned this already, the law ensures that only properly obtained confession evidence is admitted as evidence of guilt. Under the Criminal Procedure Code and Evidence Act, a confession which appears to have been obtained through any form of threat, inducement or promise is not admissible as evidence in court. And, of course, as I have mentioned just now, the law places on the prosecution the burden of proving beyond reasonable doubt, not just the overall case, but also that the confession was made voluntarily. Therefore, again, a high burden of proof.

As a practitioner, Mr Jeyaretnam must know that it is not uncommon for the accused person to try to weaken the prosecution's case by casting doubt on the manner in which inculpatory evidence has been obtained. And I understand that very often, this is done quite at the last minute - at the trial or nearing the trial, even though in the interim period there may have been other opportunities for the accused person to make this point. The current law and practice, through the trial-within-a-trial approach, or voir dire, seeks to balance the public interest against the rights of the accused. Over the years, the Courts have decided on what conduct is proper and what is not. The practice is now well-established and the system works. Therefore, I have no doubt that our Courts will continue to play this important safeguarding role.

Mr Jeyaretnam talks about videotaping the suspects' statements. Again, this point has been covered in this House, I think, not once but twice in the past. And here we have said that it is not a fail-safe method. Who is to say that the accused would not make an allegation that he was given an inducement or threatened before the videotaping took place?

Sir, ultimately, every jurisdiction must find its own balance. In Singapore, we see it right to balance the rights of an accused to be given a fair trial with the right of the State to devise rules to ensure that those who are guilty will not take advantage of the law and get away scot-free. Hence, under our approach, a suspect has no inherent right to have his lawyer present when the Police questions him. Similarly, under section 122(6) of the CPC, that section serves an extremely useful purpose in preventing a guilty person from inventing his defences to surprise the prosecution at the trial. And, indeed, in the UK, the 1994 Criminal Justice Act has adopted a position similar to our adverse inference' approach. So the UK also has moved away from the right of silence' approach to a position similar to ours. But Mr Jeyaretnam does not cite that. He cites the UK for other purposes which are useful to him but not those areas where the UK has strengthened and toughened the regime. And this is not the only area, there are other areas too. The 1994 Criminal Justice Act, in conjunction with the Public Orders Act, in the UK, has also toughened the law giving Police greater powers of seizure and search.

Sir, my point really is that sufficient safeguards exist in our laws to ensure that innocent persons are not convicted. Just to run through quickly, these safeguards are - in fact, Prof. Chin has mentioned them - requiring prosecution to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt and to provide sufficient particulars in the charge, exclusionary rules of evidence, the right to be heard in open court, the right of appeal to a higher court; also the process of criminal revision and exercise by the High Court of its supervisory revisionary jurisdiction, and so forth. Also, like I mentioned earlier, the Courts have devised processes such as pre-trial conferences which have facilitated greater disclosure between prosecution and defence counsel. So I think that has helped also to ensure a better balance.

Finally, Sir, I think the proof of the pudding is in the eating. Our criminal justice system and its component groups have received accolades from both Singaporeans and objective third parties. For example, in 1996, the Singapore Police Force received about 870 compliments, including 14 from foreigners. I should show some of these letters to Mr Jeyaretnam. Because every letter of compliment tells a heart-warming story. In a survey commissioned by the Police Force in January 1997 covering 1,300 Singaporeans, 84% of the respondents agreed or strongly agreed that the Police was effective in maintaining law and order. 98% felt that the expectations were met by the Police in general. In a more recent survey commissioned by the National Youth Council (NYC) in December last year where 600 youths were interviewed face to face, 95% said that they were proud that Singapore was a safe country. They would not have said so if the Police does not do its job properly in protecting their interests, and dealing effectively with criminals.

Sir, there have also been renown surveys overseas. The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy or PERC, for example, a Hongkong-based organisation, in its July 1997 issue, put Singapore's Judiciary and Police in the top spot in Asia. Both the World Economic Forum and International Institute for Management Development (IMD) ranked Singapore first in the area of security in 1996. Respondents in the two surveys were confident that their person and property were protected in Singapore. Indeed, in this year's survey, just released recently, IMD placed Singapore top in Asia and fourth world-wide in the justice ranking. Therefore, Sir, the bottom line is that our law enforcement agencies will never betray Singaporeans' trust and confidence in them.

Just to quote one other example, which I had quoted before in this House, but I think it bears reminding. Because fair-minded people have, on honestly examining our criminal justice system, given top marks to Singapore. This is the case of Dr Harald Schweizer, who came to Singapore, visited the Police establishments and looked at how our process works first hand. That was in 1994 in the aftermath of the Michael Fay episode. The House will remember that at that time, our system was under severe criticism by many, including the American media. Rather than rely on second-hand media accounts or public comments, Dr Schweizer, an Associate Professor of Sociology and Criminal Justice and former Police Chief of a city in Texas, visited Singapore. At the end of his one-week visit, he was unstinting in his praise for the Singapore Police Force. This is what he wrote to President Clinton, and I quote:

"After a long dose of police reality in the US, and after visiting numerous police agencies in Latin America and Europe, I would rather be investigated by the SPF than any other agency here."

Sir, Police will exercise its powers in accordance with the law as determined by the Courts, whether it is powers of arrest or powers of interview or right of counsel. Indeed, there are other examples where our criminal justice system, including Police investigation powers, have come out very well. You will remember, for example, the cases of John Martin Scripps where Police did a fine job in investigating and then securing his conviction; and Flor Contemplacion, which is an outstanding example.

Sir, let me conclude and not take any more time of this House. I think enough time has been wasted by Mr Jeyaretnam raking up this old issue. The Government's position on law and order is clear. Our fundamental concern is to safeguard public interest - to protect Singaporeans and others who live or visit Singapore so that they will have peace of mind that their persons and properties are safe and secure. We do this by putting the interest of the community first. We make no apologies about it. But does it, therefore, mean that the rights of arrested persons are ignored? The answer is a clear no. Their rights are there, they will be respected. But what these rights are, every society must determine and find its own balance. For us in Singapore, our laws and investigative methods are fair. They seek to draw out the facts and the truth so that justice will prevail. I think this is the starting point of Mr Jeyaretnam's speech today in this House - that justice must prevail. So let me assure him and others in this House that justice will prevail and that there are adequate safeguards. And, indeed, Mr Jeyaretnam also talks about accountability, transparency, openness - yes, these are tenets we will abide by.

Our criminal justice system is working well. This state of affairs has not come about by accident. It is the result of every component part of the system - from the law enforcement agencies such as the Police, to the Attorney-General's Chambers, to our Courts - playing its part efficiently, but fairly and properly. Indeed, the Chief Justice stated this in his recent Subordinate Courts Workplan Seminar Keynote Address when he said, "The risks of the innocent being convicted, and of the guilty being acquitted, must be as low as human fallibility allows." Indeed, this sentiment is shared by the other component groups of our criminal justice system. Whilst the system is not perfect, and no system is perfect, the effort to make it a better one is on-going. Definitely, there is no need for a Commission of Inquiry. Indeed, I think this is Mr Jeyaretnam's pet approach. He will call for a committee, a board, a Commission of Inquiry at every turn, for whatever manner of topics. But, Sir, this is not how the PAP Government governs. Yes, where appropriate, we do involve Singaporeans in many areas of civil society. But let us not just do it because Mr Jeyaretnam, out of the blue, six years after he had first made a call, comes to this House and say, "Let's have a Commission of Inquiry." thus wasting public funds.

Sir, the final word must be on the people operating our system. No system is perfect or foolproof. Ultimately, any system is only as good as the people operating it. The best safeguard, therefore, rests in the competence, honesty and integrity of the people administering the system, whether they are the investigators, prosecutors or judges. As in all other areas of public service in Singapore, members of the criminal justice system are geared up to meet these high public expectations. I am sure, Sir, they will not be found wanting.

Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, may I say, without any disrespect to the two speakers, that my task has been made very easy because no attempt has been made to come to grips as to how these men came to be charged with murder and came very close, two of them, to being hanged when they were totally innocent. No attempt has been made, I said, to try and explain how did this happen in Singapore. The junior Minister says Singapore Police have got great praise. But how did this happen? I shudder to think, Mr Speaker, Sir, that if the defence had not pressed for this man who the defence said had committed the murder, and he had not been called, the two men charged with murder may have been convicted and they would have been hanged. Then there is no recall of the punishment meted out to them. I think if you want to be serious about this, you have to get to grips with the specific problem that was presented.

The first speaker, Prof. Chin, and the Minister of State also, rely on the praise of the system. The one thing we are avid for is praise in Singapore. We seem to be very eager to be praised by people outside. But who are these people who praise Singapore? Are they people who are qualified to speak on the Police investigation methods in Singapore? Or are they talking about the efficiency? I myself have praised the way the courts have speeded up trials. But that is not what I am complaining about. I am talking about the investigation methods that the Police adopt. Is the Minister aware that the confession in many cases is the shortcut method? It spares the investigating officer from having to go and make minute, detailed investigations and to look for corroborative evidence. So he has an interest in, if it is possible, getting an accused person to admit to the offence.

Prof. Chin also talks about the doctrine of oppression. But I gave an example of a man who was subjected to continuous questioning for 24 hours. Is that not oppression? How did that come about? The Minister of State says there have been many changes made since 1989. I am glad to hear that, but he has not told us what changes have been made. Have we been told that there are now new directives to police officers that questioning of suspects must not extend more than a certain period, that they must be given rest, they must be given food and ensure that they are given food and rest? Let us know what these many improvements that have been made since 1989.

A lot of time was spent by the two speakers talking about what happens in the courts. May I repeat. My concern is what happens when particularly, as I said, the weak, the uneducated, illiterate man is held in police custody, shut off from the world, shut off from members of his family, shut off from seeking any counsel or lawyer's advice. That is what I am concerned with. I have said, in my speech, that there were these men who told the court that they only confessed because they could not take the treatment any longer. The court, of course, accepted the evidence of the police officers that they did not do anything to force the statement, the men came out voluntarily with their statements.

Now, the question about audio taping. Does the Minister of State know that the Law Society of Singapore, some years ago, made a recommendation that audio taping of statements taken from accused persons should be produced in court so that the court may listen to the audio tape and decide what exactly went on, what questions were put and what answers were given by an accused person? But that has not been accepted, let alone video taping. We have not made any recommendation for video taping. But there was this recommendation in the United Kingdom.

The Minister of State says: what basis is there for a Commission of Inquiry? May I repeat. The basis is in this one case alone. Are we not interested in finding out how did this happen? Or are we not interested? Are we going to say, "Everything is all right with us. We don't have to inquire into wild allegations." But these are not wild allegations. The Minister of State says that the Judicial Commissioner found that the confessions were made voluntarily. I do not know whether he has read the judgement of the Judicial Commissioner. As I said, the Judicial Commissioner did not go into that question. There was no specific finding on that. He simply said that the officer had reasonable grounds.

I was surprised to hear the Minister say that just because a person is acquitted, it did not mean that he was necessarily innocent. These men, as I said, were shown later to have been totally innocent. There was no question about that. So please try and answer how is it that these men were charged. And then he said the statements are only part of the evidence. The Police have other evidence. But, as I said, in this particular case, there was no other evidence. There was only the evidence of these men alleged to have been made and, as I indicated, the IO took the view that once he had the confessions, that was it. He had them in the bag. There was no need to go and look for other evidence.

I am surprised that the Minister of State says there is no inherent right in an accused person for lawyers. What about the Article in the Constitution? I know that the courts have said that that right only avails after the Police have closed their investigations and they can deny the right until then. But the Constitution does give the accused person a right. Is it not time we enforced this right in the Constitution?

The Minister says that there was a survey among Singaporeans. Has the survey been carried out among persons who had been arrested and taken into police custody and what they felt about it? Almost every accused person, and this has been reported once about a man who was in police custody who, I think at the trial, said anything could happen when one is in police custody. Those were his words, "anything can happen". He is quite helpless. Are we not interested in protecting these men whilst they are in police custody? As I said, I was hoping that we would really get to grips with this case. But we have not. And all we have are statements that everything is all right with our system. There is no need to have any Commission of Inquiry. We are all right. So let us carry on as we do.

May I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that there is a growing fear among lawyers. Has the Minister of State spoken to lawyers about their concern about innocent persons being found guilty, that the safeguards are not enough? And lawyers should know what they are talking about. But it would appear that this Government is not interested in what lawyers may think or what the public may think. The Government is sure that what it thinks is right and there is nothing wrong with our system.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Just a short reply, Sir. I think it is not fair for Mr Jeyaretnam to say that police officers try to extract confession statements as a shortcut method to look for corroborative evidence. I think this is really unfair. As I said just now, there is no incentive whatsoever to extract a confession from an innocent person because then the guilty party is still out there committing crimes and giving more work to the Police.

Secondly, Sir, I must assure this House that innocent people have nothing to fear. The purpose of Police investigations is to uncover the truth. That is the purpose of Police investigations and not to convict innocent people.

Thirdly, Sir, when I mentioned the role of the courts, as did Prof. Chin, we are not saying therefore that we are just focusing on what the courts have done. But my point is that the courts can and have effectively acted as a safeguard against any possibility of Police abuse.

Fourthly, he asked what improvements have been made since 1989. If he had listened to my speech carefully, he would have heard the many improvements that have been made - team investigation, pre-trial conferencing, the fact that Police looks very carefully at court decisions when it decides on whether or not there is Police abuse, and the list goes on.

Fifthly, I did not say that there is no inherent right to counsel. Yes, of course, the Constitution provides the right to counsel. But my point was that there is no inherent right to counsel during Police investigations. The courts have interpreted Article 9 as "as soon as may be reasonable", definitely not if it interferes with Police investigations.

The last point, Sir, is that I have already, in my speech, highlighted salient points on the case of Zainal bin Kuning and why there was no Police impropriety or wrongdoing.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask the Minister, when he said about improvements, have any directives been given to police officers about their questioning of suspects, as I said, how long they can be questioned and whether they are given sustenance, a record is kept? Has anything been done on those lines, not pre-trial conferences in court?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Jeyaretnam brings up the same point a few times. I think he has asked me this before in this House. Like I said, Police looks at court decisions. It is very important that they comply with what the court says amounts to oppression. Certainly the police does not want its statements to be thrown out.

Mr Jeyaretnam: A suspect is questioned for 28 hours. Is that not oppression?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: If indeed the police questions a suspect for 28 hours, then it knows that it is opening itself to the possibility that the court will find that there was oppression.

Question put, and negatived.

Motion accordingly negatived.