K Shanmugam
Singapore
“Bank accounts are frozen when there is reason to suspect that the bank accounts are involved in illicit activities, including money laundering activities.”
“The Singapore Police Force does not track the requested data. Distinguishing artificial intelligence (AI)-generated content typically requires more detailed forensic examination which may not be necessary in every investigation and may also not be conclusive as to whether AI-generative tools were used.”
“The Building and Construction Authority’s Code on Accessibility provides baseline requirements for accessible and inclusive buildings. It stipulates a minimum width of 1.5 metres or 1.8 metres for primary accessible routes, depending on the building type.”
“The Road Traffic (Motor Vehicles, Driving Licence) Rules under the Road Traffic Act set out the scope of the medical assessment required for motorists aged 65 and above who wish to retain their driving licences.”
“When a Police report has been made, the Police will investigate to determine if a criminal offence has been committed. If there is reasonable suspicion that a case is scam-related, the Police can direct online service providers to restrict Singapore users' access to the relevant online activity under the Online Criminal Harms Act.”
“Through intelligence sharing and coordinated enforcement actions, the cross-border operation disrupted a transnational drug trafficking syndicate and downstream drug trafficking activities, with the UK arresting seven persons so far and further investigations underway.”
The complete record
Every one of 4,552 lines we hold for K Shanmugam, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 60 of 92.
“The Singapore Civil Defence Force's (SCDF's) investigation into the fire at the Toa Payoh Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat is ongoing. SCDF was alerted to the fire at 9.40 am that day and it was put out by SCDF at about 10.00 am. There were no casualties. Preliminary findings are that the fire was likely of an electrical origin. The fire was contained in the unit where it started and did not spread to other units. This is because, under our Fire Code, all residential units are designed as fire compartments, typically using fire-resistant walls and floors, and fire-rated main entrance doors, to mitigate fire spread. The Fire Code also requires residential buildings to have an adequate number of exit staircases. There are also requirements relating to fire engine access and water rising mains, to facilitate firefighting operations. The effectiveness of these elements of the Fire Code was seen in this fire. SCDF regularly reviews the Fire Code, together with stakeholders from other Government agencies, the industry and academia. In this regard, SCDF will be introducing the eighth edition of the Fire Code later this year. As previously announced, this edition will include a new requirement for all new residential units, and residential units undergoing works which impact fire safety, to install Home Fire Alarm Devices (HFADs). HFADs sound an alarm when smoke is detected. It provides early warning to the occupants of the affected unit, so that they can take immediate steps to evacuate or extinguish the fire. SCDF and HDB will also be providing HFADs for existing rental units under HDB's Public Rental Scheme, at no cost to the tenants.”
“The Singapore passport complies with the International Civil Aviation Organisation's (ICAO's) standards for machine-readable travel documents. In fact, the Singapore passport contains security features which are over and above ICAO's mandated standards. The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) regularly reviews and upgrades the security features of the Singapore passport. In October 2017, ICA introduced a new design for the Singapore passport with additional security features to make the passport even harder to forge or tamper with. There are few cases of forged Singapore passports. Between 2015 and 2017, ICA investigated and prosecuted six cases of forged Singapore passports. ICA does not have records of the number of forged Singapore passports detected overseas, as foreign authorities do not usually notify others when they detect forged passports. As for forged foreign passports, between 2015 and 2017, an average of about 80 annually are detected by ICA at our checkpoints.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I think I have gone into some length.”
“It is this. Even in 1989 and 1994, I did not conflate the two because, conceptually, they are very different. Which is why in answer to the Member's points earlier, I said what he is suggesting is quite radical – radical in the sense that, "Look, it is either an Executive process or a judicial process." So, we have to apply our minds. Is it something where you want the Minister to decide? Or is it something that you want the Courts to decide? If it goes to the Courts, you know the process – it has got to be through evidence; it has got to be through witnesses. When the Court sits in review, in open, then the other side will have the right to look at all of the testimony. You have got to give it to them. That undercuts the entire basis of the CLTPA because many of the witnesses do not want their evidence to come out. So, one has to be conceptually clear which route do we want. By 1994, I came to the conclusion that if you agree to the CLTPA, then you would have to agree to a process where the information and the witnesses are protected. That is fundamental. Which is why then you have this Advisory Committee. They can receive evidence; they can choose to share some of it with the defence counsel; they may choose not to share some of it with the defence counsel; they have to look carefully to see what evidence they want; and they have got to be very careful that they do not expose some of the witnesses and their families to potential harm. You cannot do any of that in a normal Court process which is why I said that the Member's suggestion really means we do away with the CLTPA. You cannot have the cake and eat it. It is either one or the other, and you are to decide which one.”
“Sorry, is the Member asking me why I changed my mind between 1989 and 1994?”
“So, that was the significant part of the change even though it has not been discussed today. But by moving it into the Schedule, it allows us to look at every individual. Today, when detainees come in, we actually do a risk analysis. Are you likely to be high-risk, medium-risk or low-risk? And if you are low-risk, can we do all these things to make sure that you do not become a permanent feature of the system? So, likewise, we want to do that with the PSO supervisees. We want to structure it such that we have the power to impose those sorts of tailored conditions. And in my mind, the sooner the better we move in line with everything else. So, we are making some other amendments and we put it all together. And because we are coming to Parliament for the amendments, we said, "Okay, let us ask for another five years at the same time."”
“And the Courts, as I have said, I do not believe they felt constrained, but they can ask both sides – counsel and the AGC. Now, why not make it later? I cannot give Members a different answer from what I have already said to Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Sylvia Lim. We have been thinking about this for a while. Some of these, for example, the changes to the supervising order, are really something that is quite close to my thinking. I have directed Prisons and CNB Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) to go much further on the rehabilitation line. Even though we take a very tough line on drugs, my thinking is, in terms of the first-timers, the second-timers, is there a way of looking at them not just as criminals, but in way that they are impacted by this and to rehabilitate them? How can we get them back in the society? So, we are putting in a lot of resources into the front-end in terms of preventing them from getting into the system, and then rehabilitating them, working with them, spending a lot of money on that in terms of trying to rehabilitate them when they are in prison, and then handholding them when they are out. This is the general penal system. So, likewise, for the supervisees. If you do not give them close attention – now, today, you make them report on a regular basis, that alone is not going to prevent them from getting back into bad company, going back into gangsterism. You need to do something more. So, my directions to the Ministry have been: can we do something more? Can we tailor the changes such that the Police can impose certain conditions? I can imagine you have to spend some time doing this; you have to come for counselling; you have to do these things; basically, it is to try and get you to break the habit.”
“Well, our sense is this: the Advisory Committee reports, in a way, to the President and you can say the Executive branch, but you know the President, of course, stands a little apart from the Executive branch. Of course, the Minister also gets to see it. We felt that the discussions, the thinking of the Advisory Committee should be full and frank, and they should proceed as they wish. If people believe that these things can later on be put up in Court and challenged, I think that affects the quality of the discussions and it affects the way in which people might write out the report as well. It is best that we keep the Advisory Committee as a process, put in good people, now put in Judges to chair them, let them look at it. The whole process is one where they can call for investigation officers (IOs) and if the IOs believe that this might ultimately end up in Court, whatever they say to the Advisory Committee, even with the best will in the world, everyone's behaviour might change. So, you have that process. At the same time, in Court, I have said what the tests are. The Courts finally have the power to subpoena documents, to ask for documents. They use it judiciously. For example, if they believe that a certain document was necessary, it is within their power to tell the AGC to produce it. And to think that further, if we believe that the Courts are doing things in such a way that affects the fundamental structure of the CLTPA, then the government of the day will have to decide: is this acceptable, can we live with it, or do we have to come to Parliament and say we have to change that? But those are different discussions. Whatever is necessary for the judicial review is put before the Courts.”
“On the first point, is the Member asking whether we will hand over everything that was discussed over to the Courts? Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan: To clarify, I am asking whether the written statement that is required under section 31 and given to the Advisory Committee – so, whether that written statement, as well as the Advisory Committee's report, will be given to them?”
“I told Members now we are picking up two persons under CLTPA per year, compared with 20 or so before 2011. The current structure is also a tradeoff in that society then accepts that there are some risks in vesting this power in the Executive, which is what we try to reduce, restrain by the safeguards. I have, for some time now, come to accept that the path we have taken is probably better for Singapore. But at the same time, I did feel that the Advisory Committees could be strengthened and they could be strengthened in the way I suggested in 1994, not in 1989, but 1994. That is why I spoke with the Chief Justice, whether he would be happy to agree to have three of his sitting Judges sit on the Advisory Committee, chair the Advisory Committees, and he agreed. We both felt it would be good for the process. So, from March this year, that will happen.”
“I suspect that for a lot of people who approached these pieces of legislation, the assumption is that we see Singapore as it is today, this is how it will be even if you make all these changes. Supposing we remove the CLTPA, nothing will happen. I am not saying that is your position, Mr Dennis Tan, but I am saying that, often, some of the people who approach these pieces of legislation approach it that way. I do not think you do and I do not think your fellow Members do because you have, in the past, supported the CLTPA. But I am explaining my position, the question of tradeoffs. The assumption is that nothing will change in the real world and you can change around with the CLTPA. But in the real world, you have gangsters. I have read out to Members what happened in Sydney. I am sure that is not isolated. I am sure that is the lived reality on a very much regular basis for a lot of people around cities around the world. They threaten witnesses. The kingpins are quite untouchable by the normal process. So, question – and I make it plain in my first speech – you cannot say one route is right, one route wrong, but you can say there are these tradeoffs, are you willing to accept the tradeoffs? The current situation of law and order that we have is based on the current legal framework and judicial and criminal legal system that we have. And if you remove the CLTPA or you tinker with it very substantially, you will get, I think, some tradeoffs. In terms of increased levels of criminal activity, whether they have increased, whether they will increase and how much they will increase by, that is something that one will only find out when you remove the legislation. But UML is a good example – you use it effectively, you use other legislation.”
“I was coming to deal with one set of issues and suddenly a different set of questions were raised. Now, Mr Dennis Tan, I think we were speaking at cross purposes. In 1994, if I am not wrong, I suggested that the Advisory Committees have Judges but that is different from having a quasi-appeal process to the Judiciary which is in 1989. So, you were referring to what I said in 1989. I thought you were referring to what I said in 1994. What we are doing now, in terms of having Judges sit in the Advisory Committee, is similar to what I suggested in 1994. So, I misunderstood you because I thought you were referring to my suggestion today. Now, I think the Member asked the broader question. The basic question is that I have said all these in 1989 when I was 30 years old. Why are we not going down that path today? One can give a short answer, which is, I am 30 years older today. I believe in the essence of what I said then – in criminal cases, the usual process is to be tried in Court and that the ISA and the CLTPA formed exceptions for the usual process and, really, it is best if we do not have such exceptions or restrict those exceptions. That is my view. Over the years, I also realised another point that was not very central to my thinking, either in 1989 or 1994, but a bit of time spent in practice and on the ground brought home the reality of tradeoffs. If you are not dealing with people on the ground, dealing with day-to-day issues, one can get somewhat theoretical about these things. The law has got to work in a way where it delivers not just grand pronouncements, but actual results. The question of tradeoffs was not something I factored very strongly in my thinking in 1989 and 1994.”
“I was wondering which MP would refer to me and my speeches in 1989 and 1994. Thank you for that. But before we proceed, can I read this paragraph from the judgment of the Court of Appeal? Paragraph 99: "Where the Executive is acting within the ambit of the powers that have been vested in it by Parliament, then the Court's concern is not with whether it agrees with the way in which the powers have been exercised. To suggest otherwise is to displace the choice that has been made by Parliament as to which branch of the Government is to be entrusted with the powers in question. The Court's role in judicial review which engages the manner in which the power is exercised will then be limited to such things as illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety. This perspective is premised on a proper understanding of the role of the respective branches of Government, especially in this context of the Executive and the Judiciary in a democracy where the Constitution reigns supreme." There are many other points but I think that encapsulates what I have been trying to say. I do not see how that is different from everything I have said. They have the power of judicial review on those grounds. But where it is within the province of the Executive, they will not intervene. And, as you see from other passages, they point out the decision on the facts it is for the Minister to make. That is why clause 3 is worded the way it is, and which is why I was somewhat confused with the arguments on judicial review from both sides – some of the PAP Members as well. But I think it is good that we spoke about this because it helped me understand what the concerns were and helped me deal with it. To me, it was very clear.”
“No, no, no, what I said is, I think I made the suggestion in 1994, but I heard you saying I said it in 1989. I do not recall saying it in 1989, I thought I said it in 1994, but I will stand corrected.”
“As I said, I have not read them recently. I said I stand corrected.”
“I think the question to ask is, are we comfortable with the current position, there is a right balance between Parliament and the Courts? The Minister makes a decision, there is a series of processes, Advisory Committee, the Supreme Court has the powers of judicial review over the Minister's decision. The framework of that, the appropriate balance, is today set out partly in the legislation, partly by decision of the Court of Appeal and previous decisions. Are we comfortable with that? We are. That is why we are putting it in law. If we are not comfortable with that, I will be standing here, looking you in the eye, and saying we need to change it, as this Parliament did for the Internal Security Act.”
“Again, assuming you accept my point that judicial review, as set out in Dan Tan's case, is not impacted by the finality clause, I have tried to explain my logic a number of times. The finality clause deals with something else, which is, the grounds on which the Minister makes the order, the facts and evidentiary bases which the Court of Appeal has said it would not scrutinise. What it does is, the legislation makes clear that the Minister's decision on the facts should not be appealed from. That is what it does. So, it makes it clear that you cannot go, for example, to the Courts and say, "I disagree with the Minister's decision on the facts for these reasons and I am effectively appealing and I am asking you to substitute your views for that of the Minister". As to whether our Courts would go down the route eventually of saying, we will substitute our views for any views the Executive may have and we will disregard all existing law as to whether they could go down that route, I would be very surprised if they go down that route. And if they did, I think the government of the day will have a duty to come back to Parliament and talk to Members and say, is this a way we want the structure between the Courts, Parliament and the Executive? These are things for discussions for another day. But so far, as you will read in the judgments, due respect is given by the Courts for the Executive and Parliament, and Parliament gives due respect for the Courts.”
“Judicial review is on illegality, irrationality, procedural irregularity. It does not save me from those. So, to say that "I am worried that these consequences might develop and, therefore, please do not amend", it does not seem to me a very logical argument. Second, the Schedule. I think I spent a fair bit of time explaining. At present, there is one requirement. We require what is set out in section 30. We got to satisfy the conditions. Now, there are two requirements. We got to satisfy the conditions of section 30 and its conjunctive. You got to show that it is also listed in the Fourth Schedule. I think whether you are a lawyer or not a lawyer, Members can understand that does not dilute the current position. It does not reduce. And I have explained why I am doing it. I feel it is good to set it out clearly. So, to come back and say why do you want to amend, why not leave the current situation? We think that this will improve the position, amongst others, of the detainees. Everyone is clear these are the offences, but you still got to satisfy section 30. So, come back to this example of OCA. Yes, OCA has many provisions. Some of them are external focus. But the Minister has to be satisfied. If he wants to charge somebody or he wants to proceed to investigate and the Police wants to proceed to investigate, and then the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) wants to charge, they have got to satisfy the elements set out in the OCA. Supposing we want to use the CLTPA, then you do not have to go and look at the elements of the OCA as such, but you got to show that section 30 is satisfied, that, in some way, it impacts on the good order, safety, public security in Singapore. That is clear. That is commonsense actually.”
“The first point is that I kept insisting that there is no intent to "oust". I made two points: first, as a matter of law, this clause cannot oust judicial review and I buttress it by saying that, go ask any lawyer. Second, and because I have been advised so, and I know so, and I want to be very open about it, I am prepared to stand up here and say so, as the Law Minister and Home Affairs Minister, that there is no intention to "oust", and this clause does not oust judicial review. There are tonnes of cases that will say that. It is not binary, therefore, why amend? Why not just stay on with the current situation? But I am making an amendment on something else. On the Minister's decision being final, that relates to non-appealability and not getting the Courts or anyone else to substitute their views for the Minister's views. Is that the current position? Yes, it is. There is a difference between judicial review and a normal trial process or an appeal from the Minister. The two are very different. So, to say, "I am worried that this is going to oust judicial review, so why are we making that amendment, I am worried that that amendment will oust judicial review." There has got to be a connection between the two. What is the connection? I am dealing with the Minister's decision on the facts. Let me give an example. Go back to my example. I sign an order detaining a 12-year-old who stole a can of beer, and say I am satisfied that this is necessary for the safety and preservation of good order, public order and safety and security. You think I can face any Court in Singapore and justify that? You think I can rely on the finality clause? The finality clause deals with something else. It deals with the decision on the facts. A 12-year-old, did they do these things?”
“She made what was, in essence, a similar proposal that we have a sitting Judge review the merits of a DO in camera. She said, "If I heard him correctly, he was actually suggesting that a current sitting Judge who was from the judicial branch actually be involved in the Advisory Committee which is also, in a way, what I suggested earlier, except that it was in relation to the Judge sitting alone. Sir, I would like the Minister's comment on that, whether the Government is considering getting a sitting Judge currently in the High Court to be involved in this process, looking at the merits of the DO." I said something like this in 1994 or 1989; Ms Sylvia Lim said something like this in 2013. Mr Ang Wei Neng asked about the provision of legal counsel to detainees. While the CLTPA is not covered by the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS), detainees who cannot afford a lawyer can be referred to the Law Society and they will assist. They have pro bono services and the Ad Hoc Pro Bono Referral Scheme. So, the Law Society Pro Bono Services Office will assess the case and arrange for pro bono legal representation as appropriate. Sir, I think I have dealt with all the points that Members have brought up. Given that some of the Members appear to have proceeded on a completely erroneous set of assumptions of law, and perhaps a misreading of the Bill, I wonder if they will now change their position when it comes to voting. Because, otherwise, they will be voting on a mistaken basis as well.”
“There is a fundamental difference from the CLTPA process which is why I took some time to explain how CLTPA and ISA are processes which stand outside the usual trial process. So, if you say substitute and bring the Courts back in, effectively, you are saying remove the CLTPA, just have the trial process. You are entitled to say it. But that looks to me the suggestion which, philosophically, is very different. Ms Sylvia Lim made some other points on the finality and timing. Timing I have dealt with; finality I have dealt with. And I have said, on the Schedule, I do not see how it increases the Minister's powers. Mr Ang Wei Neng also asked about the process of hearing by the Advisory Committee. In accordance with the CLTPA provisions, all orders made by the Minister for Home Affairs must be referred to the Advisory Committee within 28 days from its issuance. The persons issued with the orders will be informed of the GD. They will then appear before the Advisory Committee and could be legally represented. The Advisory Committee will consider and submit to the President a written report on the making of the orders and the recommendations. The President will consider the report once it is received and can cancel, confirm or vary the order, but acting on the advice of Cabinet. That is a very technical, clear meaning. Family members of the accused are informed by my Ministry on the outcome of the hearing once this process is carried out. I should add this in answer to Mr Pritam Singh's question as to whether there is a conflation of the roles of the Executive and the Judiciary in introducing sitting Judges to the Advisory Committee; I think Ms Sylvia Lim said this in 2013. If I am wrong, I will be corrected.”
“And, of course, different Judges will hear that application, not the Judges who sat on the Advisory Committee. So, having Judges who are independent adds considerably to the robustness of the process. Mr Dennis Tan referred to my speeches in 1989. But I think he conflated the 1989 and 1994 speeches. I made two speeches. I have not looked them up recently, but from my recollection, what we are proposing today to have Judges chair the Advisory Committees is similar to what I have suggested in, I believe, 1994. That is 23 and some years ago. I do not think I made that suggestion in 1989; I stand corrected. At the same time, I think I suggested some additional appointees to the Advisory Committee. That we are not proceeding with. Mr Dennis Tan also said this is a step back. I would welcome him to clarify why he says that. How is any of this a step back? Again, it is an assertion which is not being substantiated. I am standing here and saying that this does not oust judicial review. I am saying any lawyer would know that. I am referring to the judgments of the Court of Appeal. I am saying that the finality clause refers to the Minister's decisions on the facts, which the Court of Appeal acknowledged, and saying it is crystallising the current position. So, why is this a step back? It sets out clearly. It is better as we go forward. Mr Dennis Tan also made this suggestion ‒ this is quite a radical suggestion ‒ remove the role of the President, give it to the Courts to review. Essentially, I think you need to be very clear about what is being suggested. Is the suggestion that then we do away with the CLTPA altogether? Because the Courts, as I told Members, is a trial process. Is that what you want?”
“Mr Speaker, as regards the points made by Mr Pritam Singh, so the question is, since I have explained what finality means, we cannot appeal against the Minister's decision on the facts, which is the current position, really, then, Mr Pritam Singh, as well as the other Members from the Workers' Party, and all Members, must ask themselves some questions. First, what is the current position? Do Members agree that in the current position, there cannot be an appeal against the Minister's decision on the facts? These are fairly basic questions of law. Do you agree or do you disagree? The Court of Appeal has said you cannot appeal against the Minister's decision. The Minister's decision is not to be substituted. It is fairly clear. If that is so, then why do you disagree with the clause which sets that out? So, again, there has got to be some connection between rhetoric and reality. Mr Pritam Singh also asked whether having Judges sit on Advisory Committees conflates the roles of the Judges and that of the Executive. No. Not at all. The Judges sit as part of the Advisory Committee, they give their views, look at the evidence. If they feel that some things need to be checked further, they can do so. They can call up the investigation officers, they can call for the files, they review these. I think we should welcome what the Government is doing. But if Mr Pritam Singh or anybody else feels that we should not do so, I would like to hear that. Please stand up clearly and say, "No, we do not want Judges in there". Say so and put it on record, if you mean what you say. Separately, if the detainee feels that the grounds are not adequate and he wants to go for a judicial review, it is open for him to go for judicial review.”
“But there have been a small number of cases where the Government disagrees. Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked about the Constitution and the task of the Independent Advisory Committee (IAC), and do they change by reason of these amendments. No, they do not. And they do not change by reason of the appointment of judges. In the past, our approach had been to appoint a very senior lawyer or retired judges. But I felt it would be good to appoint serving judges, but it does not change the nature of the Advisory Committee.”
“The general approach, I have said, where we can, we want to move towards trials. So, these and other suggestions have been considered and are not workable, we have found, because the nature of the trial process is such that it is difficult to have a secret testimony from one witness who cannot be cross-examined and whom the judge can talk to but no one else can talk. It is not the normal trial process. We pretty much have something similar now through the Advisory Committees. But we will review them. Mr Ang Wei Neng also spoke about persons under 21 who were detained and said each child was precious. I wish to assure the Member that we only act when the risk of reprisals is there. Then, we act against these persons. And the persons detained are not quite innocent children. They used deadly weapons, they recruit other members, they attack people and, in a way, you need to remove them from society so that other people of similar age are not influenced by them. That is how you keep the problem under control. But, where possible, charge them in Court. If not possible, then use the criminal law, if it is necessary to do so. Mr Gan Thiam Poh wanted to know if there had been cases where those involved in criminal activities had contributed to the numbers of secret societies and whether they committed offences repeatedly. Of those currently under detention, about 17% have been placed under detention previously. Mr Louis Ng asked about the number of cases over the last five years in which the Advisory Committees made a recommendation to detain but this was not accepted. I can say this: Advisory Committees do, have done so, do recommend against DOs and, in the vast significant majority of these cases, the Government then accepts that advice and instead imposes PSOs.”
“The obligations, as I explained, you will want to look each supervisee and you will want to tailor the conditions according to the supervisee. Some people may need counselling, just as an example, some people may need rehabilitation. These are not detainees. There are conditions imposed on them to come back for urine tests and to be under general supervision. If it is in the main legislation, we will need to amend the Act each time we want to add conditions in, based on evolving needs. These are all largely operational in nature and it makes sense to put them in the Schedule. Mr Louis Ng asked about the extension of Police powers to CNB officers. Currently, both the Police and CNB supervise the supervisees but, as I explained earlier, only the Police have the power to investigate breaches of PSO obligations. The amendments will streamline the process, so that we would not need both the Police and CNB officers to be deployed to investigate breach of PSOs involving persons detained by CNB for drug trafficking. Mr Ang Wei Neng also asked if the Government will publish the names of the Advisory Committee members. I think the members can choose to identify themselves if they wish, and some have done so. But the Government respects some of the members' wishes not to have their identities published. Sometimes, they are also concerned about the people they have to deal with and what might happen to their families. Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Kok Heng Leun asked about the President's role. Matters relating to the CLTPA do not fall within the President's discretionary powers. The President acts on the advice of the Cabinet. Mr Louis Ng and Mr Kok Heng Leun also asked whether other legislation could be amended to address the difficulty in securing witness testimony in open Court.”
“That does not depend on the person's nationality. So, action can be taken against foreigners, if the conditions are met. Ms Sylvia Lim says, again, in another rhetorical flourish, I will become a global policeman with the Bill. It makes a good sound bite. But it is useful for Members to read the Bill before they make speeches because we are dealing with serious matters involving the safety and security of Singaporeans. I will repeat again. Not only must criminal activities fall within the list, a DO cannot be issued just because an offence under the OCA is disclosed. It must be brought back into Singapore in the sense that the Minister must find it necessary that the person is detained in the interest of public safety, peace and good order within Singapore. Within Singapore. I do not know where this global policeman comes, except perhaps it makes for good reading on a website where one can put out these things, sound bites, without reference to the legislation, the Bill or the clarifications. If, and only if, the criminal activities, wherever conducted, impact within Singapore in the way set out in section 30, we should ask. Mr Pritam Singh asked what is the threshold of evidence for OCA crimes to fall under the CLTPA. The OCA does not provide for detention without trial. It requires witnesses to give evidence in Court. Where witnesses are not willing to do so for fear of reprisals, the CLTPA can be used as a last resort tool, provided section 30 is satisfied. That is the position today. Mr Mahdev Mohan, Mr Louis Ng and Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the PSO obligations and why we are moving the list of obligations to a subsidiary legislation.”
“Previously, when there was no list, some Members rose up – at least one rose up – to say, "Why don't we have a list?" Now that we have a list, people say, "Why are we having a list?" Mr Ang Wei Neng asked how the list is drawn up. Mr Louis Ng asked for the rationale behind the organised crime offences. The activities in the list include criminal activities that have previously been dealt with under the Act, as I have said, or which had been mentioned in Parliament as being within the scope of the Act. Let us do a bit of thinking. Supposing the Minister lists shoplifting as an offence, and then, based on that, he goes and detains a 12-year-old on the basis that this is contrary to the safety and preservation of public order in Singapore. Do you think that will pass muster on any judicial review? So, one has got to be sensible about these things. It would not pass muster an hour before the legislation is amended, and it would not pass muster after tomorrow. We included organised crime but it does not mean everything in the organised crime comes within the CLTPA. It cannot do so. But we wanted to pre-emptively, decisively prevent organised criminal groups from establishing a foothold in Singapore. Mr Christopher de Souza is correct to say that this recognises the problems associated with transnational criminal syndicates. Let me deal with some of the other clarifications that have been raised. Mr Pritam Singh asked whether the Act will be used against foreigners who dabble in organised criminal activities that have an effect in Singapore. The CLTPA can be used to detain a person if he is associated with criminal activities, as stated in the Fourth Schedule, if detention is necessary in the interest of public safety, peace and good order in Singapore.”
“All that is being done is that, on top of that, in addition to those grounds, the Minister has got to show that the offence or the nature of the activities are also listed in the Schedule. Previously, there was one requirement, you show that the facts or requirements of section 30 are satisfied. Now, there are two requirements, you got to show that the requirements of section 30 are satisfied and, in addition, that it has been listed in the Schedule. It is not the case that if it is listed in the Schedule, the person can automatically be detained. It has got to be shown that it was necessary to detain a person in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. Ms Sylvia Lim had some points and I tried listening very carefully. I have to say I found the points a little difficult to follow. What I got out of the points under here was that: it increases the powers of the Minister. I think these statements are difficult to deal with because they have got to be backed by some reasoning and some logic. So, I come back to this simple point: you have section 30. It says what the grounds are. That is the situation today. The Court of Appeal pointed out it is not unlimited powers for the Minister; it is not open-ended, but it gives a level of discretion. After the amendments, assuming they are made into law, what is the situation? You continue to need to satisfy the requirements in section 30. So, the detainee is no worse off, the Minister is no better off. The same requirements continue. In addition, the Minister has got to show that it is listed in the Schedule. So, how does it increase the powers? I think rhetoric has got to match reality. And it is useful to read the clauses carefully before making speeches.”
“The Courts are not to substitute their views on the facts for the Minister's views. This is the current position. Read the Court of Appeal's judgment in Dan Tan. As Mr Christopher de Souza and Ms Rahayu Mahzam have pointed out, the amendments are in line with the Court of Appeal’s decision. Mr Murali Pillai had some questions on the judicial review point. I have explained the approach, the philosophy behind the CLTPA, and that the facts are for the Minister to decide upon. On safeguards, Mr Louis Ng asked for assurance that the amendments will not dilute the requirement that the Minister has to provide the full GD. It will not. Mr Ang Wei Neng, Mr Gan Thiam Poh and Mr Mahdev Mohan have asked about abuse of powers. I have talked about the inbuilt procedural requirements, the parties involved and the processes. In the end, when you have given such a power to the Executive, there is a concern that there is some scope for abuse. You try and cut it down. Philosophically, you can say I do not want to have those powers and I am prepared to take the tradeoffs. That is for Members to decide. But you should decide by accepting that if you do not have the CLTPA, then your law and order situation will get worse. How much worse? It is not possible to say, but it will get worse; and whether you are prepared to justify that and take that kind of society. Let me move on to the Fourth Schedule. Ms Slyvia Lim asked whether having a list will reduce pressure on the Executive to explain and justify each decision. I do not see how this will be so, and again, a misunderstanding. The current requirements under the Act set out under section 30 what the GDs are. Those grounds remain. So, again, I scratch my head when people complain about the Schedule; those grounds remain.”
“Second, I have explained that a half-decent –and I do not mean it in an insulting way – my basic point is, any lawyer ought to know that, regardless of what I say, clause 3 cannot oust judicial review. That is a fairly basic, fundamental point. Any lawyer ought to know. So, I have explained it and I have given reasons. I am faced with an assertion from Mr Pritam Singh; and this is the best I can deal with it, unless there are some reasons given to me as to why he thinks, or Ms Sylvia Lim thinks or anyone else thinks that this narrows the judiciary's role. The Court of Appeal itself says – I have repeatedly made that point; I even read out to Members the various passages – they made the points quite carefully. They set out the grounds for judicial review and we accept it, and nothing here affects those grounds. The Hansard can be referred to in Courts. And I am saying that as a Law Minister. Second, I say it as a matter of law, people will know it. Third, the Court also said they will accept the Minister's decision on the facts. That is intended to be the structure of the CLTPA, and that is the right approach. That is all that clause 3 does. The Minister's decision is final. What does that mean? You cannot go and appeal to somebody else and say, "Minister made these decisions. His findings of facts are wrong". You can judicially review it on the grounds for judicial review. The Courts are not to substitute their views of the facts or engage in an exercise of scrutinising the evidential basis for detention. This is all in the Court of Appeal judgment. That is not affected. This is, and has always been, the law. Mr Pritam Singh asked whether the Courts can go behind the Minister's decision and review the background facts behind the decision for the DO.”
“And he said he is not going to release those individuals. So, that is where reality meets rhetoric. If you look at Eric Holder, the former Attorney-General of the US, he was giving evidence in Congress about one of the masterminds of 9/11. He was asked what will happen if they tried the man and he was acquitted by the courts? His answer, "We would like the courts to convict him but if for some reason he is acquitted, we will detain him." Again, the reality of the situation. Members know, for years, we have been lectured about the ISA, particularly by the Americans. But when they faced 9/11, suddenly the situation is different. Of course, CLTPA is not in the same league as ISA. It deals with different situations. It is very different from ISA. The principle behind CLTPA is that there will be some types of criminals where due process will not get them to justice, considering the nature of their duties. Is it better for society to leave them out, or have the CLTPA and use it? Our current approach has led to the current levels of safety and security. Safeguards, I have mentioned several, including the Advisory Committees, the structure of how we proceed. Now, in this context, let us turn to clause 3. Mr Pritam Singh said clause 3 operates to narrow the judiciary's role. How so? How does it narrow the judiciary's role? He asserts but does not explain. And I have said – I think by now I have said it about four, five times – there is no exclusion of judicial review. The traditional grounds of judicial review remain. So, here we are. I have explained by reference to, first, logic, in that clause 3 deals with the factual basis for the Minister's decision. Judicial review is separate.”
“I have come to accept that the path we are taking is probably better for Singapore and for society. Let me again make a larger point. It is possible to make grand statements about liberty and security if you do not have to deal with real world problems. Let me go to the US as an example. President Obama, when he was candidate Obama, he thundered "Choice between liberty and security is a false choice", meaning you can both have security and a full set of rights, including due process for all in the Courts in all cases. Sounds very good, it is very noble. And he promised to close Guantanamo, signed an Executive Order in 2009 to close Gitmo, in fact. But then the US was having trouble finding anyone else who was willing to take all these people in Gitmo. Prisoners there were indefinitely detained without charge; citizens from 49 nations. Youngest detainee was 14, oldest was 89. The President then tried to move them into centres in the United States; there was a big outcry. Senators did not want Gitmo closed and they certainly did not want these prisoners on US soil for all the rhetoric from the US. Majority of the Americans also oppose bringing the detainees to American soil. So, the President recognised the difficulty almost immediately after he took office. He is a constitutional law professor. So, he said in a 2009 speech after he became President, "There remains the question of the Gitmo detainees who cannot be prosecuted and yet who pose a clear danger to the American people. And I have to be honest here – this is the toughest single issue that we will face". And he said, even after the process is complete, there will be some who cannot be prosecuted because there will be lack of evidence but who, nevertheless, will pose a threat to the security of the US.”
“If there are gangs, and there are, we intervene very early and we break them up. We do not allow them to get to this situation. So, this is the tradeoff I talked about. There is no right and wrong approach but you have to be very clear about what the tradeoffs are. Supposing we remove the CLTPA, we are not immediately going to get to Sydney's situation straightaway; we have tough gun control laws as well, but you must expect a different law and order situation. Some Members might recall, I think it was 2010, seven years now, over a period of three weeks, a series of young boys went on a rampage, different groups. I think one was in Downtown East, a young man was knifed to death, gang attack. And then at Bukit Panjang the following week, there was another attack. Three weeks in a row and people got upset, and they said "What is happening? Do something about it". The Police took a number of steps, did something about it, but the CLTPA is an essential tool in the arsenal of doing something about these things. Otherwise, every MP will have to answer to your residents because our people value law and order and security very highly. And 93% of the people are not going to say in a survey they feel safe walking in their neighbourhoods. Our people get upset with UML cases. When paint gets splashed, MPs would have to face them. When their doors get padlocked, when their doors get set on fire, they will come to the MPs and demand that action be taken. And the Government has got to be able to respond. So, right or wrong, as I have been upfront about it, you can choose either path, as long as you are clear about the tradeoffs. Society, as a whole, must be prepared to accept the tradeoffs.”
“The detective superintendent was quoted as saying, "I would suggest it was a very planned, targeted attempt on his life", he told reporters that day at an overnight press conference. "It is a concern to us that retribution might take place, but we will do what we can to talk sense into these people.' " You can just imagine trying to talk sense into them. "He (Vincenzo) has declined to provide us any information that might assist us in identifying the offender. That is a difficulty we face in these particular cases. The people that do know the information are often reluctant to assist the investigation". So, here you have a man who is publicly known as being part of a gang, whose life has been attempted on four times. His son has been killed, he is in hospital, he is refusing to talk. The police feared that there will be retaliation. The police say, "We will try and prevent it". But we know in the real world what happens. The article goes on: "South Australian Police Minister Jennifer Rankine will be briefed on the shooting by Police Commissioner. She said police are doing their best to deal with the scourge of outlaw gangs and South Australia had very tough anti-bikie laws. Hundreds of them have been arrested and charged. Hundreds of their associates have been arrested and charged. The frustration is these people have absolutely no regard for the law or, it would appear, for their safety or the safety of the community." The reporter points out that his son also had been attacked before but had refused to cooperate with police investigating the attempted murder. So, police then were going on a door-knocking exercise to try and get evidence. We do not have these things for one simple reason. It is not that we are automatically different but we have become different.”
“The exceptions to this process – ISA, CLTPA and, of course, provisions in the Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (MRHA). It is a deliberate decision by Parliament to make those exceptions. Why? For ISA, the reasons have been explained. For the CLTPA, Ministers for Home Affairs have explained it regularly in this House and I have sought to do so earlier. The real world comprises gangsters, kingpins, UML attacks, threatening of witnesses, what I said here about the UK. Let me read this out about Sydney. This is from the Sydney Morning Herald, about an incident, it is just one indication, one incident, but it tells you what happens, and why we do not have such things in Singapore. This is 30 January 2012, six years ago, an article: "The leader of Comanchero, an outlaw bikie gang, is refusing to cooperate with police after surviving another attempt on his life, a shooting that also killed his son. Vincenzo Focarelli is in hospital with gunshot wounds, refusing to tell police who shot him and killed his son, Giovanni, 22, at Dry Creek in Adelaide Northwest last night. It was the fourth attempt on Vincenzo's life. He was shot in the leg in December, was also the target of a failed bomb attack by two men linked to the Hells Angels, who both died when the device exploded early. He reportedly taunted his rivals on Facebook a day after surviving the third attempt on his life, including boasting that he had nine lives. He can be seen dancing in a YouTube clip that appears to be promoting life in the Comanchero gang in Adelaide. Detective Superintendent Grant Moyle said, "Police will do everything they could to prevent retaliation", and this is after four times.”
“We are putting in more flexibility in terms of our PSOs, as I have explained. You want to tailor the conditions imposed on individuals for rehabilitation, for counselling and so on, it cannot be or it is difficult to have it in the main legislation. So, since we are making those amendments, we are seeking an extension by explaining it clearly in Parliament. Otherwise, we would have waited. I agree, normally it should be nearer the renewal date, not right at the door but nearer. But since we are doing these other amendments, we are coming with a request for extension as well. I will now deal with three main issues that Members have brought up. First, the finality clause; second the listing in the Schedule; and third, the safeguards in the Bill. Several Members have spoken about the finality clause in the Bill. Mr Dennis Tan asked whether the finality clause was intended to exclude judicial review. Mr Kok Heng Leun worried that the amendments removed judicial oversight over the legality of the Minister's decision. Mr Gan Thiam Poh also suggested we need independent Court oversight in the system. I think Mr Pritam Singh, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Dennis Tan also had questions. Let us take a step back. Let me explain this by reference to some broader points and then I will deal with the specific points. In a criminal justice system, you have trials, you have verdict: guilty/not guilty. For those who are guilty, the penal system provides for punishments. It generally works well in Singapore. It works well because people know that if you commit an offence, you are likely to be picked up. If you are guilty, you are likely to be found guilty in Court. And if you are found guilty, you will face penalties, and all of these will take place fairly quickly.”
“The number of incidents involving machetes has risen more than 60% in recent years. The Metropolitan Police Commissioner has said the menace of knife crime caused by London street gangs is a "significant issue". They are dealing or trying to deal with problems that we have kept at bay. And if we look at America – people compare us sometimes – though you have got to look at city for city. In the Gallup Poll in 2017, Americans with a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in the Police stands at 57%, compared with our percentages in excess of 90%. Thirty percent of Americans said they were afraid to walk alone at night in an area within a mile of where they live. These are broad trends. They are not attributable to a specific factor or specific legislation. But really, we have to think of what works for us and think carefully before we try to cut and paste systems from other countries and, frankly, not be colonised in our thinking. If something works well outside, sure, we should copy it and we do. But we do not copy it simply because it is somewhere else without giving due consideration as to whether it has worked well. And we need the self-confidence to ignore it when others shout loudly that they have the best systems in the world if the facts do not bear that out. In terms of the timing of extension, Mr Murali Pillai asked: why are we extending the Act now? We are making a number of amendments and I am taking the opportunity to also extend the life of the Act at the same time. I think Ms Sylvia Lim also asked this question. The last debate was in November 2013. That is about four years and three months since the last debate. We are putting it in a Schedule. I have explained why and I will explain why again.”
“Mr Speaker, Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. First, let me deal with the need for the Act. Mr Gan Thiam Poh has cited several surveys which tell us that we are among near the top for the "safe cities" index in the world, and we are right at the top in terms of law and order. I have shared with Members the findings of another survey. Here, 93% of our residents say they feel safe when they walk in their neighbourhood at night; 92% say that they rate safety and security in Singapore as good or very good. The reason is not just the CLTPA. It is the entire criminal justice system. Mr Kok Heng Leun, Nominated MP, cited the Rule of Law index, pointed out and said we were ranked 13th globally. But he left out the fact that, in that ranking, we were ranked first in the world for order and security; and fifth in the world for criminal justice. He says we can borrow legislation from the UK to replace CLTPA. The UK is ranked 21st in the world for order and security, and 11th for criminal justice. But let us not get carried away with these rankings. They are not the gold standard, the Holy Grail, by which we should automatically judge ourselves. They are only indicative and, sometimes, some of the surveys, the methodologies are highly questionable. So, in the end, we really have to use our commonsense, the facts, as we can see them, what is in front of our eyes, the lived reality in the UK, Singapore and other countries. As Members, many of us, in fact, all of us, should be on the ground regularly, we know what our residents want, we know what they feel. Will we be happy to have the same situation as the UK? According to the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), a knife or blade was used in a crime every 16 minutes, on average, in the UK in 2016.”
“Again, just to be clear, section 30, clause 3, is not intended to deal with judicial review. It is to deal with the Minister's position being final, which is the position today – final in the sense that you cannot appeal on the facts for a different view of the facts to another body. That is what it is meant. And if you look at the cases, that is the legal position. It is not intended to touch on judicial review, on the classic principles that had been set out. As to why we have set out in the Schedule, it is precisely for the reason that the Member has said, to put some constraint and put it out clearly which legislation. It may act as a constraint but it is also clear and it is better.”
“I also should tell Members that, prior to me, the Minister was not a lawyer – and one of his complaints was that none of his three officeholders was a lawyer – Minister for Home Affairs. And yet, if you saw the charts on the number of detentions, a fair number of the trend took place during his tenure.”
“Thank you, Mr Speaker, Sir, for allowing me to intervene. I thought if I dealt with one or two points in Asst Prof Mohan's speech, it might help the other Members in the House in their speeches so that we do not go off tangent. I think the crux of the Member's points is that: is judicial review available, and is clause 3 seeking to curtail that? First, judicial review is available. Second, it is available on the grounds that the Dan Tan case sets out. Let us be clear about it. Third, I think Asst Prof Mohan would be aware, if you ask any half-decent constitutional lawyer, he will tell you that it is available, that such a clause does not oust judicial review. It cannot do so. I am more than happy to confirm it. So, judicial review, on the grounds they have set, they are not clerks looking at our records, they are judges, and they are entitled to judicially review our decisions, and they have set out on what grounds. And the Government accepts those grounds. Clause 3 does not oust that jurisdiction. Clause 3 simply sets out the current position which they themselves set out in Dan Tan that they will not substitute their views for the Minister's views on the facts. That is all that clause 3 does – crystalise the position as set out in Dan Tan. So, I hope Members will be aware of this as they make their speeches, otherwise, we will be dealing with an issue, of judicial review, which is not the focus of these amendments. Why is it necessary to set out that it is final? That is the current position; so, we set it out clearly. The Minister's position will not be looked at by the Courts. It is there in the Dan Tan case. It is there in the other cases. So, we set it out. And so, the passages that the Member read out from the Dan Tan case on judicial review continue to apply.”
“There have been calls in the past to make the Act permanent but we believe that the Act should be explicitly extended by Parliament every five years. Now, in addition to the legislative amendments proposed, I would like to inform the House of another development. I mentioned the Advisory Committees (ACs) earlier. From March this year, 2018, the ACs will be chaired by sitting Judges of the Supreme Court of Singapore. This does not require legislative amendment. I have spoken with the Chief Justice on this and he is agreeable to have Judges chair the ACs. Why is this being done? This is something that I have been wanting for years and we are now doing it. The Advisory Committee, as I mentioned above, is an essential safeguard for the system. The ACs being chaired by sitting Judges will make the process more robust. Sir, I beg to move. [(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]”
“Let me now just touch on the safeguards in the Bill. There are six that I will share. First, any proposal by the Police or CNB to detain a person under the Bill or to place him under Police supervision will be looked at carefully, by both senior officials in my Ministry, the Ministry of Home Affairs, as well as the Attorney-General's Chambers. The practice is that the Minister only issues a DO or a PSO after this process and upon considering the opinions of senior officials. Second, the Minister must get the consent of the Public Prosecutor before making a DO or PSO. Third, there is an independent Advisory Committee. It comprises prominent private citizens, including senior lawyers. They have to scrutinise the investigations and documentary evidence. The committee may examine detainees, supervisees, investigation officers (IOs), witnesses. They can also require further investigations of aspects of the case. Detainees and supervisees will have the opportunity to present their cases to the committee. They can be represented by legal counsel. The committee eventually makes their recommendations to the President, who may cancel or confirm the DO or SO. In exercising the powers, the President may also vary the order but the President acts on the advice of the Cabinet. Fourth, DOs are reviewed annually by a different Advisory Committee. Fifth, a different Advisory Committee yet again considers all cases of detention if they extend beyond 10 years. So, cases where persons are detained for more than 10 years are specially scrutinised to understand why such a period of detention continues to be necessary. Sixth, of course, as I mentioned earlier, the Government has to come to Parliament once every five years to renew the Act.”
“The Act was last extended in 2014. It will expire in 2019. It seeks to provide for extension for five years. Sir, I had earlier explained why we continue to need the CLTPA in Singapore. I think it is useful to consider Malaysia's experience. In 2011, Malaysia repealed its "Emergency (Public Order and Crimes Prevention) Ordinance 1969". This law allowed for preventive detention of criminals in the interest of public order, the suppression of violence and the prevention of crimes of violence. They repealed it and then they faced significant problems. The Malaysian Parliament then introduced the Prevention of Crime Act 2013, which reinstated preventive detention. One of the Malaysian newspapers reported the Home Minister, Datuk Seri Dr Ahmad Zahid Hamidi, as saying the following in the Second Reading in 2013: "After the repeal of the Emergency Ordinance and Restricted Residence Act, 9,095 detainees from Simpang Renggam detention centre were released and assimilated with the society. This year alone, there were 109 shooting cases and all of them involved the secret societies." That just illustrates that there is usually a tradeoff. We prefer not to give such powers to the Executive. Then we must be clear-eyed about the tradeoffs. I think it is difficult to say one approach or the other clearly must be followed, but we must be clear. Often, arguments proceed on the basis that we can have the current situation of law, order and security without any tradeoffs and yet we can do away with CLTPA. That is not possible. So, you must be prepared to face it after that. The tradeoff that the Government has taken, which Parliament has agreed for many years, is that we give these powers, we impose safeguards and we look at the situation every five years.”
“So, it crystallises the position as it stands now. The third objective of these amendments is to set out in subsidiary legislation the obligations on a person subject to Police supervision. This is currently in the main legislation. By clause 4, we are seeking to make amendments relating to these persons who could be subject to PSOs. We want to remove them from the main Act and set them out in rules under section 49. Why? Because these conditions need to be tailored to meet the needs of the specific individual. For example, how do you rehabilitate them? To what extent is counselling necessary? It is very difficult to have these in the main legislation. So, we put them in the conditions, to tailor it according to the needs of the individual persons. Section 33(1) and (2), which are repealed and re-enacted by clause 4, enables the Minister to impose different prescribed condition on each supervisee based on the different risks and needs of each supervisee. Clause 4 also states that a person subject to supervision – conditions are imposed on him but he cannot comply with them because he is in prison or he is under a Court order – then, obviously, he must be excused from having to comply with the conditions. Clause 5 repeals section 36 of the Act. Section 36 will no longer be required. These restrictions will be set out under the rules to be made under section 49. Next, let me move to the provision of powers to CNB. Currently, CLTPA supervisees report to both the Police and CNB. But where there are breaches of PSOs, the orders, only Police Officers have the powers to investigate. Clause 7 will now provide CNB officers with the powers to investigate breaches of PSOs. The Bill also seeks to renew the Act for a further five years with effect from 21 October 2019.”
“Judicial review is a different matter. It will be available in respect of CLTPA on the traditional, well-established grounds – illegality, irrationality and procedural irregularity. Again, these classic principles for judicial review have been set out in case law and have been applied for many years. My views on the applicability of judicial review are restricted to CLTPA. I am not proposing here to make general pronouncements on the applicability of judicial review to other legislation because different pieces of legislation have different wordings. My views and comments are directed towards the current Bill and the Act. Clause 3 does not seek to affect the right of judicial review on the three well-established grounds Even if I did not say all these, it cannot, anyway. Anybody who knows the law will know that. These principles were accepted in the Dan Tan case. So, let me summarise. The Court of Appeal accepted that under the Act, the Minister had the power and the responsibility to make decisions as to what the facts were, apply those facts to the relevant rules and considerations and exercise his discretion consequently. The Court of Appeal also said that the scheme of the Act is such that the evidentiary basis for the detention is not scrutinised by the Courts. Third, as long as the detention is within the ambit of the legislation, the Court of Appeal accepted that the power to determine the factual basis for detention, as well as whether this is warranted in the circumstances, lay with the Executive. However, the Courts retain the power to review the Minister's decisions under the Act based on the classic judicial review principles, and I have said what they are, the three grounds. That continues to be the position; it is unchanged.”
“In exercising the power, the Minister will thus have to be satisfied, which is the current position, that the facts satisfy the criteria set out in section 30. That is still necessary. In addition, it has to be criminal activities that are listed in the Schedule. Let me now deal with clause 3. Clause 3 of the Bill inserts a new section 30(2) which states that every decision of the Minister on a matter under section 30(1) is final. There seems to be some misunderstanding on the effect of this proposed clause. There have been suggestions that this legislatively overrules the grounds for judicial review stated in Dan Tan. That is not the case. Let me make that clear, let me explain. Anyone who knows the law will know that that cannot be the case. This Bill allows for a DO or PSO on the Minister's orders, and it sets out the grounds and processes for making such an order. It sets out the rights of the detainee and the supervisee, including the right to have his detention or PSO reviewed or considered by an Advisory Committee. The Minister has to be satisfied that the grounds for DO or PSO exist. The application of the facts to the relevant orders, and whether the order should be made under the CLTPA, have always been for the Minister to decide. The Court of Appeal in Dan Tan pointed that out, accepted that. It said that Parliament may decide to entrust the power and the responsibility to make a decision to a particular decision-maker and, in the case of CLTPA, that is the Minister for Home Affairs. The Courts are not to substitute their views of the facts or engage in the exercise of scrutinising the evidential basis of detention. As I have said, that has always been the position under the CLTPA and accepted to be so by our Courts. Clause 3 sets that position out.”
“The Court of Appeal accepted, in the Dan Tan case, and I quote, "section 30 of the CLTPA is similar to sections 8(1) and 10 of the Internal Security Act (ISA) in that power has been given to the Minister, to make the decision as to whether the detention would be in the interest of public safety, peace and good order." The Court of Appeal also said the phrase, I quote, "persons associated with activities of a criminal nature" is wider than persons who had committed a crime. So, the current approach gives a degree of latitude to the Minister on what activities could be the subject of a DO. I have thought further about this. Should we continue to leave it as it is? Or would it be better to list the type of criminal activities in a Schedule to the Act? I have decided that we should actually just list it. That gives more clarity to the public and everyone on which types of activities could be the subject of a DO. So, clause 3 states that the Bill applies to "activities of a criminal nature" that will be specified in a new Fourth Schedule. Clause 8 of the Bill inserts this Fourth Schedule. The activities that are currently proposed to be listed have been either activities which have been previously dealt with under the Act or previously been mentioned in Parliament as being within the scope of the Act. Activities relating to participation in or facilitation of activities for Organised Criminal Groups are also included. The new Fourth Schedule will also set out the powers of the Minister in respect of DOs and PSOs. It will list the types of criminal activity in relation to which the Minister can make DOs and PSOs under section 30 of the Bill. But, of course, section 30 sets out the fundamental requirements.”
“The whole idea is to frighten the debtor or whoever is in the house and, sometimes, it is somebody else who have moved in, and they frighten everyone around, innocent people as well. Again, the syndicate members were unwilling to testify against the leader and other more senior members. Fourth, we also use the CLTPA sometimes to detain members of syndicates. There was a case: global match-fixing syndicate. The head made it known to his members that he would kill or harm any person who betrayed him and the syndicate. One person was, in fact, attacked on his orders. The syndicate members were quite unwilling to testify in Court against him. But his criminal activities were dangerous, detrimental to our public safety, peace and good order. So, we used the CLTPA. Unlike other countries, our physical size, smallness, also makes it difficult for us to relocate witnesses in such a way as to assure them and their families of their physical safety. In bigger countries you can do that. So, given our local circumstances, our law enforcement agencies will not be able to totally satisfy witnesses that their concerns will not bear out. That is a brief summary of the types of situations where we have used the CLTPA. Let me now take the House through the proposed amendments. The Bill provides for the Minister to detain any person for a period not exceeding 12 months or place the person under a Police Supervision Order (PSO) for up to three years – we can it DOs and PSOs. This can be done if the Minister is satisfied that the person has been associated with activities of a criminal nature and it is necessary that the person be detained in the interest of public safety, peace and good order.”