J. B. Jeyaretnam
Singapore
“And even if he did not know, as the Court of Appeal said, he was wilfully blind to that fact. This cannot be a defence because you cannot prove knowledge on the part of the accused. But what the court can do is to look at all the circumstances of the case and then conclude that it is beyond reasonable doubt that he had that knowledge.”
“Sir, as I now understand it, the payment to Mr Olds was compensation or gratuity, and not salary for the year 2000. If it was gratuity or compensation, may I ask whether there was any term in the contract of employment with him for the payment of gratuity, how long was he employed for, and why did he leave?”
“Maybe there are other areas in which we can think of similar useful schemes so that those who are unable to upgrade themselves sufficiently can still have good employment. It is a complex problem. And I think all Ministries and economic agencies would have to think harder how to address this problem.”
“May I make it clear that I shall talk about the aspects of the case which should have been considered by the court. So, in that way, it might reflect on the court's decision. But I do want the Cabinet, when it comes to advising the President on the clemency petition that had been sent to him, to take these points into consideration.”
“Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, with respect, I do not quite understand your restriction because, as I understand it, all court proceedings are now over. So there are no pending proceedings in court. The court is now functus officio. Mr Deputy Speaker: You did not listen to me carefully.”
“Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan asked the Minister for Manpower, given the current economic climate, will his Ministry consider encouraging local employers to give priority to employing Singaporeans who can perform equivalent jobs, including our healthy elderly, rather than to resort to engaging foreign employees too readily.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,058 lines we hold for J. B. Jeyaretnam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 15 of 82.
“Sir, whilst I appreciate the Minister's answer that it may be wrong to burden companies with more payments at this particular time, has the Ministry considered setting up a retrenchment fund and transferring some of the huge amount of monies that the Government has collected by way of foreign worker levies, and the Ministers also giving up a part of their salaries to put into this retrenchment fund?”
“Am I to understand that the Government does not propose to do anything to help these home buyers?”
“Is the Minister aware that if perhaps the Government, at this present juncture, grants a rebate to private property owners also, that might help them in their difficulties with the banks which are asking them to top up the loans because of the high mortgage rates?”
“The Minister, if I heard him correctly, says that, even in England, it does not work in practice to the full satisfaction of the customers or something to that effect. Has he made a study of how it works in practice in England? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Member misheard me. I never said it did not work in practice in England. I have no idea whether the customers are fully satisfied or not. I imagine that there will always be some customers who are not fully satisfied. What I did say is that, in England, there are certain things which the ombudsman's office cannot deal with, and one of them is complaints about the bank's commercial judgement whether or not to provide a loan. GOODS AND SERVICES TAX (Suspension) 8. Mr Goh Choon Kang asked the Minister for Finance if he will consider suspending the collection of Goods and Services Tax in view of the worsening economic situation.”
“Does the Minister appreciate that the customers vis-a-vis the banks are in very, very unequal positions? The bank is a mighty institution and the customer may be a small account holder. What is the great objection to appointing an ombudsman who would look into the needs of the small account holder if he has a complaint? Does he realise that in England, these services are provided free to account holders? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, an ombudsman is not a solution to every problem, and England is not the model for every aspect of Singapore's society. We are ourselves, we have to find mechanisms which work and not encumber ourselves with formulas which look good on paper but may or may not work in practice. Even in England, the ombudsman does not have full powers on all matters. For example, he cannot deal with the issues which have to do with the bank's commercial judgement, whether or not to provide a loan, unless there has been maladministration or unfair treatment. I have not heard complaints that banks have treated customers unfairly in Singapore on a very large scale. If the Member is aware of such cases, perhaps he can bring it up to our attention and we will certainly look into the matter.”
“Is the Minister aware that the Committee appointed to inquire into banking practices has complained about the relatively low ranking of Singapore banks in regard to openness and competitiveness as compared with foreign banks? And is the Minister aware that in many of these other countries, there is a banking ombudsman who has power to adjudicate on complaints which the bank has to accept whenever he makes a decision against the bank? BG Lee Hsien Loong: Mr Speaker, Sir, I am not sure of the relevance of the first half of the Member's statement to the second half. Some countries have banking ombudsmen. There is one in the United Kingdom. There is one in Australia which is similar. There is one in Canada which is different. The British one has powers to award compensation of up to œ100,000. The Australian one has powers to award compensation of up to $150,000 but it is binding on the bank only when the applicant accepts the decision of the ombudsman. In Canada, neither the customers nor the banks are bound by the ombudsman's recommendations. So there are various arrangements in different countries and we have to find a form which suits Singapore. We have not found an inadequacy of persuasive powers a problem.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I ask the Minister, when he says customers can complain to the ABS, is he saying that the ABS has the power to adjudicate on the complaint between the bank and the customer, and the bank has to abide by whatever decision the ABS makes? BG Lee Hsien Loong: The ABS may not have legal powers but it has considerable persuasive powers.”
“That is what I said, Sir. Is there any other Minister who can answer that because we are talking about banking, financing and credit squeeze?”
“I do not know whether this question should be asked of the Minister for Trade and Industry because it concerns the banks' tightening of credit. Has the Government any plans to help the first time home buyers who now find that they are in grave danger of losing their homes?”
“May I ask the Minister, now that Singapore is sending observers, would his Government agree to have observers in Singapore observing Singapore's elections?”
“Is it not possible for the Government to put them to some other work, as is done in other countries, where conscientious objectors are put down to do community work?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure the Minister of State is aware of the Article in the Constitution which secures for every citizen freedom of worship, and freedom of worship means freedom to profess and practise his own religion. And if his religion forbids ---”
“Similarly, the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) has issued guidelines to all financial institutions to review their computer systems and to complete their Y2K conversion by end of this year. Since the launch of the Y2K Conversion Campaign in November 1996, NCB has been working with the various Government agencies, trade associations and professional bodies to organise seminars, conferences and exhibitions. These serve to promote awareness of the Y2K problem, especially among the small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs). For example, there are bi-monthly IT Awareness Briefings for SMEs. Further awareness of the Y2K problem is also built up through press coverage on television, radio and in print, in particular, the Chinese-language media. The recent television series "Singapore at Work" contained a segment on this issue. NCB has also set up a Y2K web site to provide useful information, and to provide an avenue for the public to discuss issues, to share experiences and to seek help. Apart from increasing awareness of the Y2K problem, the Government is also providing SMEs with financial assistance to tackle the problem. SMEs can tap on the Local Enterprise Computerisation Programme (LECP) grant to help them defray up to 70% of the cost of consultancy services to tackle the Y2K problem.”
“All Government agencies have been directed to complete the conversion of their affected systems by the end of this year to allow a clear one-year lead time for further testing before the turn of the century. To-date, about 40% of the conversion work has been completed. Most Government agencies will be able to meet the end-1998 deadline. In general, our private sector is aware of the Y2K problem. However, survey results indicate that there are still many companies, and even specific sectors, which are uncertain of the impact of Y2K on their operations. The National Computer Board (NCB) conducted an IT Manpower and Skills Inventory Survey in October last year. A total of 269 companies responded. About 122 companies (45% of respondents) stated that the Y2K problem was of concern to them. Of these 122 respondents, 54% were already in the planning, budgeting and impact analysis stages of tackling the problem. In another survey conducted by the Singapore Federation of the Computer Industry (SFCI) in February 1998, 64% of the 347 respondent organisations indicated that they are affected by the Y2K problem. Another 25% indicated that they are unaffected, while the remaining 11% said that they are not sure. The survey also found that finance companies, public organisations and larger institutions are the most affected while construction companies and smaller companies appear to be the most unsure of the impact of this problem. To help push for early resolution of the problem, NCB has requested all Government agencies to closely monitor the key infrastructure companies under their supervision. For example, the Telecommunication Authority of Singapore (TAS) has to ensure that all the telecommunications operators, like SingTel, M1, are Y2K-ready.”
“Is the Minister of State aware that a number of countries have such bodies which deal effectively and cheaply with citizens' complaints? Is he or is he not aware? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, yes, I know the genesis of the ombudsman goes back a long way. It started in Sweden, and other Scandinavian countries and New Zealand have adopted it. But, as we have mentioned in this House before, every society must determine the way in which its laws and legal mechanisms operate. Other countries, unlike Singapore, do not have so many feedback channels such as the SIU, meet-the-people sessions, or, for that matter, NMPs and NCMPs, who can bring up their constituents' grievances in this House. MILLENNIUM COMPUTER BUG (Steps taken to overcome) 7. Dr Tan Boon Wan asked the Minister for Trade and Industry, given the potential havoc of the millennium computer bug and that the new millennium is only a year and a half away, how prepared is the country for the Year 2000 problem; what steps have been taken to overcome it; and what is its likely impact on life in Singapore. BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Year 2000 (Y2K) problem is likely to affect many areas of our lives, including the legal, financial and business areas. If left unattended to, it may lead to major disruptions. For example, non-Y2K compliant cash registers may not accept credit cards which expire in the year 2000 or after. To avoid such problems, NCB is working closely with other Government agencies, trade associations and professional bodies to highlight the Y2K problem and encounrage companies to take the necessary actions beforehand.”
“Does the Minister of State say that you can go to the Magistrate's Court for a certiorari? Do you not have to go to the High Court and if it is an Article of the Constitution, do you not have to go to the Constitutional Court? And at what cost to the poor man who is left without any rights? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think we have talked about this before in this House. If an aggrieved person who is a Singaporean feels that he has to test his constitutional rights in court, he will take out an action in the High Court invoking administrative law.”
“Will the Minister of State tell us to what court does a person who is aggrieved go to if his right is denied or violated? Does he go to the Magistrate's Court? Does he go to the District Court? Or does he have to go to the Constitutional Court? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Surely, the NCMP must know, as a lawyer of so many years' standing - I do not know whether he is in active practice now - that there is this branch of the law called "administrative law" where he can take out various administrative orders, whether it is certiorari - to quash an executive action, or mandamus - to get the executive to act in a certain way, or habeas corpus, if you want somebody to be freed. All these are in the law books. Indeed, Mr Simon Tay, quite recently in this House, did say that the courts have acted in this role to review executive actions.”
“May I again assure the Minister of State that I am only too well aware of what is in the Constitution. Does the Minister of State agree that it is one thing to have an Article in the Constitution, it is another to provide a cheap, quick remedy for those who consider their rights have been denied or violated? Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Once again, the NCMP brings up an old issue. This point has been raised in this House before by PAP MPs, Mr Davinder Singh and Mr Shanmugam, in 1990, 1992 and 1994 and we furnished a full reply. There are means, in fact, free means, by which an aggrieved person who feels that his rights have been violated, or that he has been unfairly discriminated, can seek recourse. For example, he can seek the help of his Member of Parliament at the meet-the-people session. And indeed those of us who hold meet-the-people sessions will know that aggrieved citizens do come to see us and we write in on their behalf to the relevant ministries and departments. Those of us who are on this side of the House, who handle these appeals, can tell everyone here that we take these appeals very seriously. We consider and send them to the departments to get their inputs to see whether there is a need to follow up. There is no reason for us not to take them seriously. If there is indeed some wrongdoing, or some wrong to be put right, there is every reason for us to do that.”
“If it pleases you, Sir. Question No. 6. BOARD OF EQUAL RIGHTS (Setting up) 6. Mr J B Jeyaretnam asked the Prime Minister if the Government will consider setting up a Board of Equal Rights to whom any citizen, who has been unfairly discriminated or deprived of his rights, can complain. The Minister of State for Law (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Prime Minister): Sir, there is no need to set up a Board proposed by the Member. Article 12 of the Constitution guarantees all persons equality before the law and equal protection of the law. Any person whose constitutional rights have been infringed has recourse to the Courts, either by bringing an action against the Government or by way of defence to a prosecution.”
“May we have the rough figures of manpower employed and their wages.”
“May I know from the Minister what are these overhead costs? I thought he had already detailed all the costs. Now we have got an overhead cost, and we have also got depreciation cost. Depreciation of what?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister talks of supporting services and records. Are we to understand that these supporting services are not only for the six beds in the B2 ward but are for all the patients in the hospital? This is what I would like to know from the Minister, ie, precise figures as to what is the total cost, the number of patients in the hospital on any particular day, and how is it divided.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I assure the Minister that I am well aware that the patient does not pay that amount every day. Would the Minister agree that the whole purpose of showing the full cost in the bill rendered to the patient is to show that the Government is subsidising the treatment? What I had hoped to get from the Minister was not in percentage terms but actual breakdown of how is it that it costs the Government $142 to maintain a single bed in a ward consisting, I am told, of six beds every day. How does it cost the Government $142? May we have actual figures?”
“How is it, may I ask, that we still continue to have this gap between the skills needed and the skills that our workers can provide?”
“May I ask the Minister how long has this retraining programme been in place?”
“May I ask the Minister of State a final question and that is this: Are we to understand that so long as the company has room for more foreign workers, that is, when they have not filled their quota, then the Ministry turns a blind eye to them dismissing Singapore workers and replacing them with foreign workers?”
“I do not know whether the Minister fully understood my question. I understood him to say that retrenchment will be in proportion to the quota. That is not my question. My question is simply this. Is the Ministry aware that Singapore workers are being got rid of and, in their place, foreign workers are being taken in? It is not a question that they do not need them. They need the workers, but they are replacing Singapore workers with foreign workers.”
“How do you monitor the retrenchment situation?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, may I seek an answer from the Minister of State to two questions that I have been attempting to ask and my Party has asked. Firstly, would the Minister tell us in what form the monitoring of retrenchment of workers is done or how does it take place? And secondly, will the Minister tell us whether his Ministry is aware of the practice of some companies to retrench Singapore workers and take on foreign workers at much lower wages?”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, do the Minister and the Government appreciate that with the downturn in the retail trade, it will be a good thing to put some money back into the pockets of the consumers? For that reason, has the Government considered cutting down the employee's contribution to the CPF, not the employer's contribution? We can maintain the employer's contribution but cut down the employee's contribution to CPF.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, the Minister has said that the Singapore Government will, willy-nilly, move the CIQ operations to Woodlands as from 1st August 1998. Has the Malaysian Government made any response to this decision of the Singapore Government to move notwithstanding their reluctance?”
“The Minister said that the Government will take measures to keep costs down. May we know precisely what measures have been taken up to the present moment? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: Mr Speaker, Sir, if the NCMP can be a little patient, with only 4 hours 15 minutes before the Finance Minister's statement on off-Budget measures to be taken, he will also highlight the inadequacy of some of the measures taken so far in view of the current economic slowdown. TAXES ON PETROLEUM (Reduction) 10. Mr Chuang Shaw Peng asked the Minister for Finance whether he will consider cutting taxes for petroleum as one of the off-Budget measures to reduce variable cost of transportation so as to stimulate the economy.”
“May I ask the Minister whether any of the companies, who had made their decisions to invest here last year, have reconsidered their decisions and declined to come in at the present moment? BG George Yong-Boon Yeo: There are some companies which have extended their decision-making process to take into account the current regional economic situation. But it is not clear at this point in time how much reduction in investments we will encounter this year as a result of it.”
“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. LESS ADVERSARIAL PARLIAMENTARY SYSTEM (Motion)”
“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.”
“We have not made any recommendation for video taping. But there was this recommendation in the United Kingdom.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“" 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.”
“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?”
“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.”
“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.”