EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)

Column: 395

EXEMPTED BUSINESS:

(Motion): Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today beexempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Column: 395

CRIMINAL LAW (TEMPORARY PROVISIONS) (AMENDMENT) BILL: Debate resumed.

5.10 pm

Mr R Ravindran (Marine Parade): Sir, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act has been in our legislative books for a long time. But over the years, as a child, NSman and lawyer, I have come into contact with many people who have been detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. I remember, as a child, in the neighbourhood where I lived, there were many gangs and gang members who used to thrive. Slowly, word got around about the famous section 55 of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act and, surely and certainly, over a period of time, we slowly saw them disappear. We also saw peace and security returning to our neighbourhoods. In the course of my National Service as a Police National Serviceman, I also came across many of these secret society personnel who used to intimidate businesses, individuals and many others whom they can intimidate in order to control territory or to raise money for themselves or for their group. As a

Column: 396

lawyer, I also came across instances where individuals have been detained and when I think that they have been rightfully detained under the Act for some of the acts that they had carried out in the course of their gang or other related activities.

Sir, while I am assured by the Minister's information to this House that the number of persons who have been detained under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act has come down - I think that is a very welcome sign - I, for one, will certainly support the continuation of this Act for the simple reason, not so much for the number of people we have detained over the years, but the many more whom we have deterred from entering into these triad gangs, drug trafficking or any other form of major criminal activities where they think they can bluff our legal system.

Sir, there are many types of international syndicates, eg, the mafias, the yakuzas and the triad gangs referred to by the Minister as the EA gangs. I, for one, in the course of my conversation with many people, have heard that many of them have come to scout around in Singapore to look at criminal opportunities in Singapore. But when they realise that we have a law which allows them to be detained if they indulge in these activities because we are unable to get witnesses, I think it has deterred many more. And that is the major benefit of this Act and, because of that, I would support the continuation and the extension of this Act.

What I am equally impressed is that the detainees are given a fair hearing and are fairly treated. I have met members who have served on the Committee, and I can inform the House that many of them are people who would like to see that these people who are detained have a fair hearing. They look through the investi-

Column: 397

gation papers,call upon the investigation officers to satisfy themselves that these detainees are indeed detained under the proper conditions laid down in the Act.

But, more importantly, Sir, what I would like to see is how can we reintegrate these detainees into society much better when they have servedtheir detention period. Are we doing enough to allow them to reintegrate into society by getting jobs faster or help them in any way to upgrade their skills or education so that they are able to integrate into society?

The other provision that is important here is the taking of the DNA samples under the new proposed amendments. What I would like to ask the Minister is: in cases where DNA samples are taken from those who are detained and who are subsequently released because of a lack of evidence or for some other reason, how can we conduct the process in a very transparent manner whereby the person who was wrongfully detained feels that his records or DNA samples are not kept in any way in any record in any form?

On that note, Sir,I support the Bill.

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act was passed in October 1955. It is an Act to make temporary provisions for the maintenance of public order, the control of supplies by sea to Singapore and the preventionof strikes and lockouts in essential services which include banking, broadcasting, electricity, gas, immigration, newspapers, port, dockand harbour, postal and telecommunications, prison, public transport and air transport, securities and futures contracts, water, Singapore Armed Forces, Monetary Authority of Singapore and customs services -just to name afew.

Column: 398

In fact, surprisingly, all these are found in this particular Act. This original intention has been expanded to detain subversive elements involved in criminal activities like secret society and drug trafficking activities. This Bill proposes to extend the period of validity of this Act for another five years, from 21st October 2004.

Parliament has been doing this every five years as my colleagues in Parliament have stated, for some time now. It has extended this Act, like the Senior Minister of State said,10 times for 50 years. Perhaps it is time to consider whether to make it a permanent law, or to repeal it, and have this statute in a form similar to other statutes. The name "temporary provisions" is unsuitable and is a misnomer.This statute has been in existence almost permanently for the last 50 years. Why not just call it Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Act or, as Prof. Chin suggested, Criminal Law (Preventive Detention) Act, without a need for extending the validity period?

Section 27A gives police officers or officers of the Central Narcotics Bureau much wider powers against arrested person, including the power to take or cause to be takenphotographs and finger impressions, make records of the registrable particulars and any other particulars of such person and cause body samples of such person to be taken, send any photograph,finger impression, record of particulars or body sample so taken or madeto the Commissioner of Police for identification and report. Section 27A also gives these officers powers to do the above, even though the person has not really been convicted but only arrested or detained. There may not be a trial in the court of law under this Act. I would therefore caution that stringent measures be taken and that checks and balances be put in place so that there is no injustice done to arrest the person. A person arrested or detained has little choice

Column: 399

because, under section 27A(3), if he fails without reasonable excuse to comply with the submission to the taking of his photographs and finger impressions or provide such registrable particulars or submit to the taking of his body samples by an authorised person, then that person shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable, on conviction, to a fine not exceeding $1,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one month or to both. So, he has got no choice. And a police officer or an officer of the CNB may use such force as is reasonably necessary to take or cause to be taken the photographs,finger impressions and body samples of that person.

Section 27B talks abouta police officer who hasreceived training for the above purpose. It is important therefore that proper training is conducted by competent persons and experts in this field as all these affect the liberty and privacy of our citizens. There must be a fair balance of individual rights as compared to public interest and to comply with the fundamental liberties provided for under the Constitution of Singapore.

Section 27C(3), Sir, is fair and balanced and is most welcome. It deals with any photograph, finger impression, record of particulars or body sample that has been taken under section 27A from an arrested person and that person is subsequently released, without being convicted of any offence under this Act, or placed on detention or supervision under this Act. Then the Commissioner of Police shall remove these items from the register and DNA database maintained under this section. As my colleague, Mr Ravindran has mentioned, the public must be confident thatthese records are removed and there are no traces left with the authorities.

Section 27C(4) creates a greater burden on accused persons. Information

Column: 400

in the register and DNA database and any certificate or report made from that informationare admissible in evidence in court if produced from proper custody and authenticated by the signature of the Commissioner and is prima facie proof of the matters contained therein or appearing thereof. This is a liberal approach, Sir, in favour of the prosecution, as compared to the normal burden and standard approved required under our Evidence Act. So this is something to be looked into too.

Sir, there must be transparency, checks and balances and also proper supervision and control. It is important to have prevention of misuse by persons in authority and respect for confidentiality and secrecy. Therefore, in passing this Bill, I hope that the enforcement agencies will take note of the points that have been raised here. I would also like to add that I am involved in this Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. I have served in the Committee for more than 15 years and on that, I can safely say that there are good and very effective safeguards. But having said that, I think it is also important to review this particular statute to see if a better form could be made out.

Ms Braema Mathiaparanam: Mr Speaker, Sir, thank you for allowing me to speak on this subject.

I appreciate what the Senior Minister of State has explained, in terms of the rationale for introducing such a Bill, and how it is coming up again for review after five years. While I support the Bill, I have a few questions pertaining particularly to the DNA aspect of it. I bring this upin particular reference to the younger people whom he hasidentified earlier on as runners.

Firstly, we do know that police investigations involve a certain degree of coercion and persuasion. In this particular aspect, I wonder how the younger runners - they are not yet offenders - or their

Column: 401

parents are persuaded to give consent for a DNA sampling. I ask this because some of them could have made a mistake earlier and the DNA profiling continues for the rest of their lives. They may have even turned over a new leaf in due course. How would this DNA profiling follow them through?With that, I would like to tie up what Prof. Chin Tet Yung brought up earlier. Wouldit not be better to have a two-tier scheme of offences? Because the DNA profiling is very potent and when it comes to the younger persons, there must be a second chance given to them especially when certain offences are committed when they are young.

The second point has already been mentioned byMr Ravindran and Mr Chandra Mohan. If the person is found not to be guilty, how is the DNA record expunged from his personal record? How is that scheme or method told to the individual? What is the level of reassurance that we, as citizens, can have, when we know that the DNA profile is destroyed?

These aremy two questions and I hope I can get some clarifications.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: First, let me thank all the four speakers for making the points that they have made, which gives me an opportunity to elaborate further on the Bill and, in particular, to thank Mr Ravindran and Prof. Chin who strongly support the Bill. Of course, I note that Mr Chandra Mohan and Ms Braema Mathi also see the need for the Bill and, indeed, the personal experience of Mr Mohan in sharing about how over the years he has found the safeguards of the committeeto be somethingvery real. I think that is a very good sharing at a personal level.

First, let me take the point about the offences under the Bill. I think that is an important point. As I have said in my speech, the requirement and the common

Column: 402

thread under which offences fall within theBill are situations where witnesses fear to testify because of reprisal, and that is a key point. And I havealso given the assurance that where we can prosecute, we will prosecute because the court process inopen court is the norm. And that is indeed a core principle ofour legal system. But as all the speakers have said, there are situations where, particularly,syndicates are involved. So that if you have witnesses to come and testify against that person who goes in, there are peopleoutside especially underlings, who will harasshim, his family members and people who know him. That is a real fear. We should take it from that perspective and also from the fact that we have operated this Act for,as all of you have said, almost 40 years. And each time we come to the House, every five years, we explain why the Act is necessary in the context of the situations that have arisen and, therefore, Singaporeans know that we use the CLTPA for offences such as secret societies andgangs that are involved. We have also been tackling money-lending syndicates with the CLTPA and, in particular, drug trafficking syndicates.

I would say,let us give the Minister that flexibility, but always on the core principle whereby court prosecution is the norm and the basis upon which the Act is invoked is when witnesses fear to testify. That, in fact, is a common thread becauseas Members in this House - Mr Mohan and one or two other lawyers -who sit on the Criminal Law Advisory Committee know,it is an elaborate process where, in order to justify a detention, whether it isthe CNB or police, they have to build up and establish a case, more often than not, including witnesses' statements and listing out all the activities that have taken place and then making a convincing case not just to the Minister, who ultimately decides, but also the Permanent Secretary and Attorney-General.

Column: 403

This, plus the fact that the Act is used sparingly and indeed over the years, the number of criminal law detainees has come down. Last year, it was 211. The last time when I came to this House in 1999when we renewed it - the figure given (for 1998) was 463. And before that, in 1988, it was 1,260. The fact is that the Act is not used willy-nilly, nor used as a substitute for court prosecution, but only when the grounds justify it. The fact that it is used sparingly, and the safeguards that all of us have shared in this House are effective, would keep public confidence highas to, firstly, why the Act is needed and, secondly, the correct and justified use of the Act.

I think Mr Ravindran isspot-on when he said that the Act is a strong deterrent especially against foreign triads who may be surveying the land. We know that foreign triads are very opportunistic, they are quite mobile, they are very pragmatic and they go where the money is. Here is another reason why we should not circumscribe the use of the Act but give the Minister the flexibility which this Government, current Ministers and all Ministers before - have and will not abuse.

The second point is the renaming of the Act. This is an interesting point why we have a temporary provisions Act that has lasted now 50 years, and previous officer holdershave come to this House10 times - not me,I have come twice - to argue for its renewal.I think there are basically three reasons. First is, what I have alluded to earlier,the educational effect of coming to this House -having to explain that beneath the calm of Singapore, we do have bad elements,not just normal criminals,but in particular criminals, syndicates, sometimeswith foreign links, who will want to destroy our safety and security. So when young Singaporeansread about this, they will

Column: 404

realise that, yes, Singapore's safety and security cannot be taken for granted. We have a whole plethora of weapons inour arsenal, key of which is the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act.

The second one is that it is a reminder to all of us when we come to this House every five years that what we are doing when we invoke the Act - I think Prof. Chin mentioned that -is not the norm. The norm is court prosecution. And it is also a reminder to our officials out there, the law enforcement agencies, that when they want to invoke the Act, they must adhere to all safeguards. They must not abuse the easewith which they think, or some may think ormay be tempted to think theysecure detention. I am not saying any of them think this way, but it is also a reminder that they must not take this avenue too easily.

The third one of course is the check. Because Parliament has to approve this Act every five years,Members would have the opportunity to say, "No, I do not want to renew it". So the Minister has to come here and explain to the House, give youthe situation, cite the figures to show that, yes, we still do need the Act. Hence, coming to the House every five years has a salutary effect. So let us keep to that.

The next point relates to integration. Mr Ravindran talks about integration of ex-detainees. This is the same issue that confronts ex-prisoners. It is a wider issue as to how Singaporeans, in particular employers, take to employing ex-detainees or ex-prisoners. But Mr Ravindran would be cheered to hear that the recidivism rate of criminal law detainees is actually lower than convicted prisoners. So we are absolutely right that in terms of the salutary effect on people who go in and come out, it does remind them that having spent time inside and having come out, they do grasp the opportunity of freedom very carefully.

Column: 405

[

MrDeputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching)in the Chair: ]

5.38 pm

The last big point is onDNA. Ms Braema Mathi, Mr Chandra Mohan and Mr Ravindranhave mentionedthis new process. First of all, let me say, Sir, that the process is not new. AsI have said, DNA testing has been used since 1991 but that was more in terms of matching what is collected at the crime scene with suspects' DNA. In 2002, we moved amendments to the Registration of Criminals Act to start collecting a database. We had studied the experiences of other countries such as theUK which was the first to start a DNA database in 1995. The officials actually went around toother countries. They visited US and Canada to learn from the experience of other countries before embarking on our own.The database became operational in February 2003. Since then, one and a half years later, we have collected 38,000 profiles in our database. So really we are just building on this experience.

Let me say that it is not to the advantage of anybody to be callous about how DNA is taken. If you look at the Bill, the amendment to theRegistration of Criminals Act taken by the Minister in2002, we elicitated all the safeguards, which include, eg, the obtaining of consent from, in this case, the detainee. If the method of taking the body sample is by blood, because it is intrusive, invasive, consent is needed. But if it is by buckle swab or by hair follicle, consent is not needed.Here again, the method of taking bloodis a simple process. It is a prick whichall of us go through duringa medical test,wherea lancetis used to take the blood. So it is not a terribly difficult or painful process. And the experience of my officers in taking

Column: 406

38,000 samples is that there has been no problem.

But in theprocess itself, care is taken to ensure that the sample taken remains pure and not contaminated. That includes, eg,wearing gloves, ensuringthe identification is properly done with unique bar code system, to ensure that having taken the blood sample on the form, it is sealed in a foil, put in a locked box and transported to HSA, and in HSAthe chain of integrity of the process is also maintained, because only certain people would have access to it. So the assurance I could give is, having worked this system, it is a system that will pass muster by public confidence. And, it must be so, because it is not to the advantage of anybody for any wrong profiling and a wrong matching to be effected, when the real criminal is still out there.

Ms Braema Mathi talks about the young detainee. We work on the principle that every detainee for whom detention is justified would have to be profiled. But age is just one factor taken into account by the officials and the committee in deciding whether it should be a Detention Order or a Police Supervision Order. So the assurance here would be that if he is a first-timer, a young person, then there is a better chance of him being put on a Police Supervision Order rather than a Detention Order.

The last point iswhether the record, when it is deleted, an assurance could be given for the deletion. The capturing of the record is by electronic means. So it is not a matter of returning anything to the detainee.The assurance I can give is that the integrity of the system is at stake. So when the law says that the records should be destroyed, there is really no need to tell the person his records would be destroyed, because if he is detained but no case has been made out against him and he is let off, the law mandates

Column: 407

that his records would be destroyed. That is the assurance that we can give, that our law enforcement officers will follow and do follow the law.

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. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

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