Sylvia Lim
Singapore
“Thank you, Speaker. I have a supplementary question for Senior Minister of State on PF. It was pointed out in the FATF report that representatives of foreign flag states have a very low understanding of their PF obligations.”
“Thank you Speaker. I have noted what the Minister is proposing that the House do. I am not standing up to object to it. But I think it is important for me to also state that my response on some of the issues that she mentioned, I have made them on 14 January during the debate on the Motion of the Leader of the Opposition, and I do not thi…”
“Thank you, Speaker. A clarification for the Minister. I think it is quite clear that we are not denying that services were provided and residents had benefited from the services. I also would say that we do appreciate that MND did this internal review to undercover this problem, if I can say that.”
“Thank you, Speaker. I have one clarification for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary, and that is on the necessity for the retrospective legislation.”
“Sir, regardless of which country may have primary jurisdiction over a particular case, both governments may feel pressured to retain cases involving their own nationals. This could be for various reasons, such as the differences in law and punishments or to give their nationals better access to justice in their home countries.”
“One clarification for the Minister. This is in relation to when Singapore may have to give up its primary jurisdiction to Malaysia to investigate incidents and particularly on clause 39(2).”
The complete record
Every one of 1,794 lines we hold for Sylvia Lim, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 25 of 36.
“Madam, one clarification on the topic of Government communications. I understand that within the Ministry, there is this post called the Chief of Government Communications. The current holder of that post is also concurrently the Director of the Institute of Policy Studies (IPS) which is supposed to be a think-tank doing research to promote good governance. So, while I am not making any accusations against the current holder, I would like to ask the Minister perhaps whether he agrees with me that this dual holding of the post of Chief of Government Communications, as well as heading the think-tank, is not quite a desirable state of affairs because it might raise some questions about the role of the IPS and its purpose. Assoc Prof Dr Yaacob Ibrahim: The short answer is no because we have considered this seriously and that is why we hired that particular person. It is very clear that what IPS does is very different to what the Chief of Government Communications (CGC) is supposed to do. And the particular person has done his job well in the last two years or so, and we do not see any conflict in this matter.”
“Madam, at last year's COS for MCI, I spoke on how Government could bolster the sustainability of our songwriters' careers. One suggestion I made was that the Government could create more airtime to play Singapore compositions in Government buildings, so that our Singapore songwriters can earn royalties through the Composers and Authors Society of Singapore (COMPASS). The Minister said then that Government would look into this suggestion. Since then, I understand that there has been some follow-up on this. For example, some Government-related bodies have approached COMPASS for licences to broadcast music at transport hubs and at the airport with a certain percentage dedicated to airing local works. On our part, the Aljunied/Hougang/Punggol East Town Council also obtained some licences to showcase Singapore's compositions at our Hougang Central Hub. It would be good to know what further steps the Government has taken to support Singaporeans songwriters in having sustainable careers. A Strong Singapore Music Industry”
“What safeguards do Traffic Police adopt to ensure they make proper assessments of injury cases? Road Safety”
“And four, have Police sought feedback from social workers and women groups on gaps in Page: 61 Police's service and tried to address them? Road Traffic Investigations Next, road traffic investigations. At last year's MHA COS, Minister Iswaran talked about the initiative called "Safer Roads Singapore". He mentioned that Traffic Police would be employing Auxiliary Police to complement its presence on the roads for enforcement duties. I would like to obtain some clarity as to the exact role of the Auxiliary Police and the approach of Traffic Police in accidents resulting in injuries. Recently, I came across two incidents of injured motorcyclists along the Pan-Island Expressway. In the first case, the injured motorcyclist was possibly the victim of a hit-and-run. Several motorists, including myself, stopped to render assistance and call for help. A while later, a SCDF ambulance arrived followed by one Auxiliary Police Officer. Some of us potential witnesses gave our contact details to both the paramedic and the Auxiliary Police Officers who recorded them on pieces of paper. The victim was conveyed to the hospital. The Auxiliary Police Officers told us that the Traffic Police might contact us, but I receive no follow-up communication from Traffic Police at all. I am not sure whether this was because the information was not conveyed to Traffic Police, or because Traffic Police does not investigate every injury case. In the second incident, I observed an Auxiliary Police Officer attending to several injured motorcyclists after a collision. He appeared to be finding out what had happened, and what needed to be done, but the extent of his role was not clear. Do the Auxiliary Police Officers have a role in traffic investigations now?”
“First, sexual crime investigation. According to the 2013 report on the International Violence against Women survey on Singapore, only 17% of women who experienced sexual violence reported the matter to the Police. Victims were found more likely to report if they had been injured, felt that their life was in danger, if they perceived the incident was serious, or if they regarded it as a crime. It does appear that women who do go to the Police, go with some expectations – for protection or seeking justice. Yet, the Police data raises questions about whether these victims' concerns are met. According to the answer to my Parliamentary Question on 17 February this year, there are about 180 reported cases of serious sexual crimes handled by the Criminal Investigation Department each year for the last three years. Of these, only close to 30 cases are charged in Court each year, or about 17% of the reported cases. This means that about 83% of reported cases are not charged in Court. These cases were instead dealt with by a warning or no further action taken against the accused. Besides the low prosecution rate, the investigation procedures also seem long and cumbersome. The same answer revealed that, on average, it took 12 months to conclude investigations. Since this was an average, some cases would have taken much longer. Beside having to undergo medical examinations and polygraph tests during investigations, victims are left wondering about their status of their cases for months. Given the above, I seek the following answers from the Ministry. First, why is the prosecution rate only at 17%? Two, what are the main reasons for issuing a warning in lieu of prosecution? Three, where lies the bottleneck for investigation to take an average of 12 months?”
“Second, best-sourcing is about choosing a provider, be it a public agency or a private sector provider, who could deliver the services most efficiently and effectively. Here we have a paradox. To maintain standards, private operators have to comply with equivalent deliverables and ensure their staff are just as competent in those functions. If the public officers also have to conduct constant auditing and supervision to ensure the outsourced entity is up to mark, as in the case of emergency ambulances, would it not be more cost-effective to increase the regular services? Third, best-sourcing is targeted at non-strategic functions of public agencies, so as not to compromise public health and safety. But what are considered non-strategic security functions to be outsourced to auxiliary officers? As the recent breach at Woodlands Checkpoint suggests, the secondary security check by the Auxiliary Police Officer is very important and has implications on public safety. With 300,000 people and 130,000 vehicles passing Woodlands checkpoint each day, co-ordination between ICA, SPF and Auxiliary Police Officers is a huge challenge. Likewise, prison inmate escort within the prisons is not merely a security function but requires proper training to ensure the prisoner's rehabilitation is not compromised. Furthermore, injuries or death of an inmate resulting from improper handling can be disastrous for the services. In today's complex policing environment, every Police Officer requires strong situational awareness and adaptive leadership skills, and foresight in exercising discretion. Outsourcing clearly has its limits. Should the focus instead be on Home Team manpower recruitment and retention, and ensuring they have the best resources on hand to protect our Home?”
“In similar vein, Madam, I am concerned about many Home Team uniformed services turning to outsourcing as a response to increasing demand for services and manpower shortages. For example, in October 2013, the SCDF added only four more emergency ambulances to increase its fleet to 50 vehicles, but doubled the number of private ambulances to 20. Today, the number of Auxiliary Police Officers stands at 6,000 officers, compared with over 8,000 regular officers in the Singapore Police Force. At the Woodlands checkpoint, Auxiliary Police Officers make up 20% of officers. Recently, the Prisons Act was amended to expand the role of Auxiliary Police Officers to allow them to conduct inmate escort and patrols within prison premises. Will the trend of outsourcing of Police, security and emergency functions to private operators increase further? If so, where is the line to be drawn before we see the quality of functions compromised and cost-effectiveness eroded? Should the issues be dealt with not by outsourcing, but instead by allocating more resources and support for recruitment and retention to the Home Team? And instead of outsourcing with its limits, should we not focus on "best-sourcing" instead? I would like to point out three problems. First, Auxiliary Police Officers do not have the same level of training as regular officers. Regular officers go through a six-month basic training course at the Home Team Academy, while auxiliary officers attend a much shorter in-house training course offered by Aetos or Certis-Cisco. Police Officers also attend continuous training to keep their skill up to date with societal and criminological developments. The esprit de corps of belonging to Page: 51 the Home Team also instils a greater sense of purpose, pride and discipline.”
“Madam, I have one clarification for the Second Minister concerning the outsourcing of functions that he responded to earlier. He mentioned that each contractor is given a performance indicator to meet. I note that in the Auditor-General's Report for FY2012, they did note, under MINDEF, one case of lapse when it came to managing this logistics contractor. They stated that the basis for measuring the contractor's performance was not actually agreed while the contract was in force. In other words, there was some disagreement between MINDEF and the contractor about what needed to be done and how it was to be measured. I would like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry has actually done any review on whether there are any other such cases and whether they are tightening up on this aspect.”
“It has been several years since MINDEF started the practice of outsourcing certain functions to the private sector or third parties. These include catering, cleaning contracts in army camps, operation of rifle ranges, repairs and maintenance, various types of training, running of IPPT and remedial training courses and so on. I would like to ask the Minister what is the extent of the outsourcing practice and what other programmes, functions and services are outsourced to the private sector or to third parties. The reasons for outsourcing would presumably include declining number of enlistees and cost-effectiveness. While these reasons are quite Page: 159 understandable, I would like to know what measures are taken to ensure security is safeguarded. Also, on the performance of the service providers themselves, how does MINDEF track the effects of outsourcing, and what Key Performance Indicators does MINDEF apply to ensure that the service providers meet the security and performance standards expected of them? Engagement of NSmen”
“Clarification for the Senior Minister of State regarding my cut. I am glad that she acknowledged that the Ministry could do more to look into the area of "justice for crime" victims. She mentioned in her answer that victims could use the existing section 359 of the CPC to apply for compensation. But from previous parliamentary answer and also my understanding, the prosecutor is usually the one that applies to court on behalf of the victims. So, I would like to ask a clarification on whether, really, it is the prosecutor that is the gatekeeper of that application for compensation. Is there any way to empower the victim to have a direct route to apply to the court? That is why I brought up the joining procedure. The second clarification is, based on earlier statistics, section 359 does not seem to be invoked very frequently. I wonder if the situation has improved or whether the Senior Minister of State can shed any light on the frequency of usage of that section.”
“However, I believe we can consider some changes to increase the likelihood of compensation in straightforward cases, especially for victims who cannot afford to sue separately. One option is to have a simple joining procedure as has been done in the Netherlands, allowing victims themselves to attach a civil claim to a criminal case so that the criminal court can decide on it at the sentencing stage. It could Page: 101 also require police investigators to routinely record a simple victim impact statement with details of losses and damage sustained so as to facilitate the court in making a compensation order under the CPC later one. As the Ministry is looking into the judicial practice in this area, I hope the Ministry will work with the Police and the courts to assess these and other ways to enhance justice for crime victims.”
“Madam, traditional criminal proceedings are aimed at punishing the offender. The crime victim, however, incurs expense and inconvenience and even embarrassment to help the state investigate and prosecute the offence but usually receives no compensation for injuries or losses from the criminal process. At the Criminal Procedure Code review in 2010, the Government acknowledged this gap by rephrasing the section on victim's compensation. The current section 359 now makes it mandatory for the criminal court, convicting an offender, to consider whether to order him to compensate the victim. During that debate, I supported the amendment. I raised the concern about whether the new provision will be actively used. I noted then that if the Police did not routinely record the losses or damage suffered by the victim in their investigations, the court might not have the necessary information to make the compensation order at the sentencing stage. How has the new regime fared? In the 2012 answer to my Parliamentary Question, the Ministry revealed that there had been 82 compensation orders made for the whole of 2011. While 82 was certainly improved from the 31 orders made in 2010, it is very small compared to the number of criminal cases where losses and damage is suffered. It was stated that the prosecutors applied for and obtained the orders in appropriate cases. Does this mean the court relied solely or mainly on the prosecutors in deciding this? I acknowledge that not all criminal cases are automatically suitable for compensation. For example, where civil claims are complicated or disputable, they will need to be separately proved.”
“Page: 53 Mdm Speaker, my colleagues will be speaking on other aspects of the Budget but, for now, let me conclude. As we approach our nation's 50th anniversary of Independence, it is a useful time to reflect on how we are bound by ties through the Pioneer Generation. Their high sense of commitment to Singapore lifted us through hazy beginnings and daunting odds. They had little time to complain, but just got on with what needed to be done. Their fighting spirit inspires us, their children, to defend what they have built and to bring our country to greater heights. 1.59 pm”
“As for those who are disabled and unable to perform at least three of the six activities of daily living, they are probably saddled with very high healthcare bills; the annual cash assistance of $1,200 or $100 a month is a small token of support. Another component of the Pioneer Generation Package is the MediShield Life subsidy. All pioneers are promised subsidies to pay their MediShield Life premiums, ranging from 40% to 60%, increasing with age. I would like to seek some clarification on this. The Government has announced its intention to bring all pioneers into MediShield Life. However, some pioneers who are not currently on MediShield had bought their own Medisave-approved private healthcare insurance. Will the pioneers with private healthcare insurance be given the choice to use the premium subsidies for MediShield Life for their private insurance premiums, instead of being compulsorily brought onto MediShield Life? Finally, one significant cost item for pioneers is medication. For patients who see specialists at public hospitals for chronic conditions, the consultation fees are usually much smaller, compared with the cost of medication, which patients need to take daily for the rest of their lives. The majority of our pioneers have one or more chronic conditions requiring daily medication. The Budget mentions that the Government intends to enhance subsidies for medication, with a higher subsidy for the Pioneer Generation. To be of optimum benefit to the pioneers, I hope the review will identify the drugs which are usually needed by this group and focus the higher subsidies on those drugs. We await the details of the medication subsidies in due course.”
“In 2006, when I was first sworn in as a Non-Constituency Member of Parliament, I had a brief conversation at the ceremony reception with the then Foreign Minister George Yeo. Mr Yeo told me that he had been taught Military Law by my father in the army, and that he believed the Prime Minister had been, too. It is, indeed, quite mind-boggling to think of how many Singaporeans are inter-connected through their links with pioneers. Turning now to the Pioneer Generation Package itself, I agree that it should not be means-tested, unlike most other Government schemes. This universality of entitlement is a very important recognition of all our pioneers, regardless of where they live now or how much they have earned over the years. Page: 52 The focus of the Pioneer Generation Package is on healthcare financing needs. Some have reportedly lamented the lack of benefits while one is healthy. However, the pioneers I know, by and large, will welcome the additional financial support for illness. Sometime last year, I bumped into an elderly gentleman at Ghim Moh Hawker Centre who said he knew my father as a former colleague in the army. When I told him that my father had not been well after suffering two strokes, the gentleman replied wryly, "We are all not well". To this end, enhancing subsidies for outpatient care at specialist clinics and polyclinics is appropriate. Including all pioneers in the Community Health Assist Scheme (CHAS) will also benefit those living in private property who consult outpatient general practitioners near their homes.”
“Some of us are old enough to recall the early days of nation building, and how our parents muddled through uncertain and even stormy weather to forge a future for a small country. For instance, in 1967, when the British announced that it would be withdrawing its troops from Singapore, we were left with a huge defence lacuna, and had to dig deep to find manpower and expertise to build our own army. The search for instant officers and instructors led us to draw personnel from other services, including the Police Force. I had the privilege of witnessing some of these events personally, through the lens of my father, who was seconded from the Police to the army to become the first batch of SAF officers in the 1960s. He and his colleagues from the Ministry of Interior and Defence had to quickly build our Armed Forces. They put their noses to the grind and learned from Israeli consultants, here and in Jerusalem. The early officers set up units and drew up Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs). They also had to manage the huge undertaking of compulsory National Service for all Singaporean males. The early political leaders, too, were very hands-on and kept abreast of many details. I have seen old black-and-white photographs of my father giving briefings to then Prime Minister, Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who used to visit army camps with his family dressed in shorts; these photographs told perhaps of a different working culture then, with little time for pomp and ceremony. The contributions of the Pioneer Generation went beyond themselves and extended to those they coached, trained and influenced. Besides being our parents, we also encountered them in hospitals, schools, workplaces and in National Service.”
“Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party supports Budget 2014. While my colleagues and I have comments and suggestions regarding certain aspects of it, we agree with the Budget's unique emphasis on the Pioneer Generation, helping businesses restructure and the direction towards strengthening social safety nets, particularly in healthcare. The specific recognition of Persons with Disabilities is inclusive. While the details of some schemes are not available yet and should be scrutinised later, we welcome these general thrusts. We also note the relative absence of new taxes on the revenue front. This is thanks to the expected healthy continuing contributions of Singaporeans and others in existing taxes and charges, such as income and corporate taxes, GST, COE premiums and others. However, a significant additional burden is placed on those who are involved in tobacco, alcohol and gambling activities. This is expected to bring in additional revenue of nearly half a billion dollars. Though some may argue that indulging in some level of such activities is essential to de-stress in Singapore, one cannot really quarrel with the rationale of preventing excessive indulgence in them. This year's focus on supporting the Pioneer Generation for the rest of their lives is a refreshing departure from public conversations of the past. Instead of just urging respect for our elders as a virtue, some public monies are being set aside to support this special group. Instead of attributing Singapore's progress Page: 51 mainly to visionary leaders, we are recognising the contributions of everyone else on equal footing, from followers to mothers and labourers. Many of us who grew up in Singapore are children of the Pioneer Generation.”
“As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are aware of the plight of the long-suffering residents in the area, who have put up with social disamenities for decades. The incident of 8 December suggests that the authorities will need to make some changes. However, the current holding measures should suffice until the COI findings are out. For these and other reasons my colleagues will elaborate on, the Workers' Party opposes the Bill. 4.46 pm”
“Secondly, a resource question. The provisions of the Bill are onerous to implement. Vast policing resources appear to be required to question persons entering into or remaining within the special zone to search for and destroy alcohol containers, to search vehicles whether inside or outside the special zone, to issue banning orders to suspects and so on. During the Ministerial Statement on the Little India riot on 20 January, the Government already expressed concerns as to whether the additional deployment rates at Little India were sustainable. How much more resources would be needed to do what is envisaged under the Bill, every day of the week? Related to this, the role of auxiliary police is going to be enhanced. My colleague Pritam Singh will speak on this point. Are they suitable for the tasks under the Bill? Finally, displacement effects. Designating the special zone may lead to displacement effects for the duration of the Bill. Persons who would otherwise frequent Little India may go to the neighbouring areas outside the zone, for example, across Jalan Besar. While the Minister can expand the special zone to cover adjacent areas under clause 3, how this will change the landscape and living environment of adjacent areas for the next 12 months remains to be seen. I have spoken of my concerns about the hasty manner in which this Bill is presented and the wisdom of jumping the gun when the COI is to complete its work by June. I have also elaborated on why I believe the existing legal and administrative framework can be used in the interim to manage the situation Page: 72 until the COI findings can be dealt with. My colleagues will further elaborate on the reasons why the Workers' Party has grave reservations about the need and the wisdom of this Bill.”
“As indicated in Parliament on 20 January, policing arrangements have been enhanced post-riot by way of 20 to 30 police officers as well as Special Operations Command troops, complementing the 81 existing auxiliary police and private security officers. Other measures initiated included more CCTV surveillance and building stronger community partnership programmes. Foreign worker management has also been reviewed. Employers and dormitory operators have provided alternative recreational activities, while Page: 71 the transport for workers to and from Little India has been adjusted with drop-off and pick-up arrangements improved. LTA is also involved in relooking at road access and traffic management. These positive moves have been very helpful to manage the situation in the interim. Madam, I have three other concerns about the Bill. First, stigmatisation. Is it good for the residents of Little India to be singled out as living in a special zone where a dedicated security law has to be passed by Parliament? The current arrangement of using POPA is more palatable as it is a law that can be used for any part of Singapore facing a temporary law and order situation. Passing this Bill will mean that for 12 months at least, residents can only drink alcohol outside their homes under a class permit and their friends and guests will need to be extra careful when visiting them on any day of the week. Civil defence paramedics and pharmacists in the zone who carry alcohol products for medical emergencies need to refer to clause 4(3) to confirm that they can do so. They are joined by priests serving communion for church services. Under clause 12, even driving through Serangoon Road in transit with a bottle of wine may attract searches and questions. Have we gone too far?”
“The Bill before us will make Little India a special zone every day of the week for 12 months. This is a stark indication of how the Bill is more onerous than the POPA in application. The current legal framework already provides the Government vast powers to meet law and order problems. POPA stipulates that if any one commits the offences on unlawful assembly or rioting in a proclaimed area, he will be subject to double the imprisonment. In the case of rioting, this means 14 years' jail. Besides POPA, there are also many other laws at the Government's disposal. The Penal Code criminalises acts of violence and gatherings of persons intending to use violence; conspiracy, abetment and attempts of such offences are also crimes. Under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, drunkenness in public and disorderly behaviour are specific offences. Suspects can be arrested by police without a warrant on the spot. The carrying of prohibited items such as weapons and corrosive substances are already criminalised everywhere in Singapore under the Arms and Explosives Act, the Corrosive and Explosives Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, the Dangerous Fireworks Act and others. In 2009, Parliament passed the controversial Public Order Act with provisions allowing the Police to issue "move on" orders to persons it suspects may disrupt or disturb others in a public place. Are the existing laws not enough until the COI findings are out? Besides legal measures, administrative measures are also available to manage the situation at Little India.”
“In my view, the Government has taken decisive steps to calm the situation post-riot. There is no need to rush to pass a special law when the COI findings will be out soon. The Government can continue to calibrate its actions within the existing framework of national legislation and administrative powers until the COI findings can be acted upon. Next, Madam, why the existing laws and the administrative arrangements are adequate in the interim. In the immediate aftermath of the riot, the Government used the existing Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA) to designate Little India a proclaimed area. For every weekend and public holiday since then, the Minister has issued such proclamations. This has facilitated a ban on the consumption of alcohol in public on those days. Businesses selling alcohol for off-premise consumption were also directed to do so within shorter hours. Page: 70 As Deputy Prime Minister Teo said in his Statement to Parliament on 20 January, the authorities were able to calibrate the extent to which they utilised powers under the POPA. Earlier, the Minister said that the powers under POPA were excessive and not appropriate for the situation at hand. While it is true that POPA contains wide powers and the fit is not ideal, the Government has shown that it can calibrate its approach to the application of POPA to use only the provisions which are appropriate. In any case, this is just for a few more weekends until the COI findings can be acted upon. Madam, there are actually some aspects of this Bill which are wider than how POPA has been applied. For instance, in applying the POPA, the Government has calibrated its approach to Little India, gazetting a proclamation only during public holidays and weekends.”
“The hasty introduction of this Bill in the aftermath of the 8 December riot is, to me, a knee-jerk reaction. Though the Government's desire to act is understandable, this Bill will instead stigmatise Little India as a "special zone" Page: 69 requiring special legislation from Parliament. This Bill is unnecessary at this time, especially when the Committee of Inquiry (COI) set up to investigate the causes of the riot is set to release its recommendations by June. There are already sufficient powers under our laws and administrative regimes to manage the situation until the COI findings can be acted upon. I also have some particular concerns about the Bill. Let me elaborate on these points. First, COI findings out soon. The COI was appointed on 13 December and has six months to complete its report, which will take us to a deadline of 13 June. Assuming this Bill is passed today and comes into force in March, it will be effective for 12 months, from March this year to March next year. It will be in force for about three months before the COI report is out. After the findings are out, the Bill will continue thereafter for another nine months, regardless of what the COI findings are. The Bill provides for draconian and resource intensive measures, including needing special permits to serve alcohol at hotel weddings – clause 5; Police searches for alcohol containers on persons and vehicles – clauses 9 and 12; questioning persons who wish to enter the area – clause 10; and refusing entry and banning individuals from the zone – clauses 11 and 13. What if the COI findings are such that all these measures are barking up the wrong tree? How much wastage of taxpayers' money and inconvenience to the public will be caused with continuing the measures for the remaining nine months?”
“Madam, Little India is a very special place. Many Singaporeans are proud to have such a unique quarter of vibrancy where Indian culture and custom, and the uplifting aroma of Indian spices, seem to transport India to our shores. I remember bringing a visitor there. He was a young man when he left India 30 years ago for the United States where he later became a naturalised American citizen and taught at a leading American university for more than three decades. Once he and I arrived at Little India, he was so reminded of his home country that he kept returning to the area on his own every day for the following days of his visit. Is it any wonder that our foreign workers from South Asia find comfort relaxing there on their off days? Such is the magnetic draw of Little India to both Indians and tourists alike. The authenticity of Little India has stood the test of time, unlike what has happened to many other parts of Singapore, including Chinatown. The legacy of Little India is to be preserved and defended. At the same time, the social disamenities created by overcrowded streets on weekends and holidays are not new. Residents and the Members of Parliament for the area have been giving feedback to the Government authorities for years. As far back as 20 years ago, I recall being deployed as a Police Officer on operations in Little India, to give out information to foreign workers and visitors not to obstruct road traffic, to walk on footpaths and not to use drains as urinals. Over the years, the overcrowding worsened and made it impossible to drive through roads at weekends and public holidays. I am sure that the authorities are aware of the situation, but I am not sure what the authorities have been doing to manage the situation all this while.”
“To this end, I am glad the Government has reviewed this matter for both District Judges and Magistrates. I believe the public will also feel more confident appearing before Judicial Officers with longer working and life experience. 5.00 pm”
“Sir, I support this Bill. This Bill brings three important changes which I believe will potentially enhance public confidence in the justice meted out by the lower courts. First, a sitting member of the Supreme Court Bench will now be the Presiding Judge of the renamed State Courts. This change will potentially promote closer links to the Supreme Court and tighten its supervisory role over the lower Courts, as compared to the current system of having the Chief District Judge with no direct connection to the Supreme Court. Having a sitting member of the Supreme Court head the State Courts also enhances its standing as an institution which, after all, hears the vast majority of cases affecting Page: 79 Singaporeans. The second change is that the qualifying criteria for appointment of District Judges will be raised. A person to be appointed as a District Judge will now need to have at least seven years' post-qualification experience rather than five years. The third change is that the qualifying criteria for the appointment of Magistrates will also be raised. Instead of needing just one year's post-qualification experience, a potential Magistrate will need to have three years' experience. The raising of the qualifying experience is desirable and, indeed, necessary as the powers of District Judges and Magistrates to make orders and sentence persons have been increased significantly over the years. At the last debate on the Subordinate Courts (Amendment) Bill in 2010, I spoke in some detail about Magistrates, and the concern about giving them powers to grant injunction orders and how some of their decisions can be unappealable under the current rules. This is worrying if we only require Magistrates to have graduated just one year before.”
“Madam, I refer to clause 9 of the Bill and I have one concern about the Road Traffic Amendment. This clause will delete section 82 of the Road Traffic Act, which currently provides that when persons are to be charged with certain driving offences, the Police must warn him at the time of the incident or at least within 30 days that he may face prosecution for it. This provision is conducive to a fair trial, as it alerts the driver early, so that he can secure his evidence and witnesses promptly to answer to the charge later on. The Bill proposes to delete this requirement. The rationale for the deletion is in the Explanatory Note, which states that "the provision is no longer required as the person will already be notified of possible prosecution action for the offence when he is issued with a notice under section 81 to give information on the particulars of the driver at the time of the offence". Page: 73 However, Madam, I did not see any timeline set on the Police to send such notices for information to the owner. Madam, we do receive feedback from residents that Traffic Police notices are sometimes received months after the event. How long does the Police take to send the notices for information under section 81 after an offence is suspected? If there is a risk that the notice will go out later than 30 days after an incident, this should be tightened up as it would not be fair to the owner or driver of the vehicle.”
“Thank you, Madam. I just have one clarification for the Senior Minister of State concerning the MAS. It is stated in section 50V that MAS conditions are discretionary – that the conditions may be imposed on the released persons who qualify under the various criteria. I would like the Senior Minister of State to clarify if he anticipates that there would be qualified released persons who are not subject to any conditions under MAS or will everybody be subject to at least one of the conditions in MAS.”
“Earlier, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the section would be used for terminally ill patients as certified by prison-appointed doctors. What I am concerned about is whether, over time, some prisoners may try to "game" the system by getting their own medical experts to advise that they need to serve time outside prison for one medical condition or another, and thereby get away with serving their jail terms in more comfortable environments or even in their own homes. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to elaborate on what safeguards will be put in place to prevent such subversions. 6.08 pm”
“However, under clause 15 of this Bill, the new section 77A will allow the Superintendent the "discretion" to restore to Page: 110 the prisoner the entire period of remission which had been forfeited by such prisoner. This power under section 77A is much wider than regulation 124. It appears to allow the Superintendent to change not only his own decisions about forfeiture of remission but also the decisions of his superior, namely, the Commissioner of Prisons, and even the Visiting Justices. Can this be a correct reading of what is intended? The effect of the new section 77A needs to be clarified. Finally, Madam, External Placement Scheme. Clause 12 introduces the new Part VIA concerning an External Placement Scheme. This Scheme allows a prisoner to serve his sentence in a place other than a prison, if the Minister directs the Commissioner to make an external placement order. This order can be for periods of up to 12 months at a time. Under what circumstances will a prisoner have the privilege of serving his time outside prison? According to the new section 59B, the Minister is reminded that prisoners should ordinarily serve their time in prison and that external placement may cause a public safety risk. However, the Minister can take into account the physical and mental condition of the prisoner, and "any other relevant circumstances" in considering whether the prisoner should be externally placed. Earlier, I believe the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the Minister would be advised by a committee. Now, I assume that certain prisoners may not be physically or mentally fit for prison, perhaps due to old age or some illness. I can understand why it may make practical sense to house the prisoner instead in some specialised care facility or even a hospice.”
“Under the existing prison regulation 124, the President can take away a prisoner's right to remission if he commits a grave offence while serving sentence. Under the Bill, this power of the President is preserved under the new section 50 I (4). However, what is quite different is that under the current regulation 124, the President may also give "remission without limit for special services". This phrase is not found in section 50 I (4). Could Minister of State clarify whether we are indeed changing the authority being given to the President under the Act, to take away his right to grant remission without limit, and why this is being done? The second clarification concerns clause 15 of the Bill. This relates to the Superintendent's powers when a prisoner has forfeited some of his remission due to disciplinary offences while in prison. Under the current Prisons Regulations, a prisoner's remission could be forfeited under the orders of three authorities – the Superintendent himself, who may forfeit up to 60 days of remission, or the Director of Prisons, who may forfeit up to 90 days, or by the Visiting Justices, who can forfeit up to 180 days. I assume that even after the Bill is passed, the Superintendent, the Commissioner of Prisons and the Visiting Justices will retain some powers to order forfeiture of remission. In this regard, clause 15 appears to increase the powers of a Superintendent drastically. Under the existing Regulation 124, a Superintendent can only restore to the prisoner up to seven days of remission which was ordered by the Superintendent himself to be forfeited.”
“As regards the procedure for reviewing such cases, I note that in Hong Kong, there is a Long-Term Prison Sentences Review Board to review long-term prisoners for sentence remission. Under their procedures, there are some features of transparency worth noting. For instance, what factors are taken into account in reviewing cases is publicly gazetted, for example, the nature of the offence, criminal history, age, behaviour in prison, rehabilitation and employment prospects, and others. Another feature is that when the Board rejects remission, the affected prisoner can ask the Board for its reasons, so that he can work on those areas to increase his chances in future reviews. I hope the Government will continually look at such best practices and see how the Page: 109 process can be improved. Clause 7 of the Bill also introduces a Mandatory Aftercare Scheme for certain prisoners when released on remission. The new section 50U provides for the kinds of cases which qualify for Mandatory Aftercare. However, according to section 50V, mandatory aftercare is not an automatic condition once a prisoner qualifies but the Commissioner may make such an order. I would like to ask whether this means that mandatory aftercare will only be selectively imposed, or does the Government expect that most, if not all, qualifying cases will be subject to mandatory aftercare? Madam, in relation to remission, I also wish to seek two clarifications regarding the cancellation, forfeiture and restoration of remission. The Bill makes changes to the Prisons Regulations, and there now appear to be two anomalies which require clarification. The first concerns the powers of the President.”
“However, the purpose of granting remission is changed from "facilitating reformative treatment" as stated in the Prisons Regulations to the more holistic aim of "facilitating the rehabilitation of prisoners and their reintegration into society" as stated in the new section 50E. Release at the two-third mark will no longer be unconditional but be subject to a condition that while the remission order is in force, the person should not commit an offence and be sentenced to incarceration. If he breaches the condition, he may lose his remission in addition to being sentenced for the new offence. Apart from remission at the two-third mark, the Bill introduces a new provision for discretionary remission before the two-third mark for prisoners who have already served at least 20 years' imprisonment. This is a good amendment, as the new section 50J will put such long-term prisoners on par with those serving life imprisonment, who already can have their cases reviewed after serving 20 years' jail. This will give both groups the chance to re-build what remains of their lives and to reconnect with society once again. I have one clarification concerning section 50J. It is not stated how the Minister will conduct his review of the case to decide if earlier remission should be given. In life imprisonment cases, the Prisons Regulations currently provide for a Life Imprisonment Review Board to be appointed to make recommendations to the Minister on whether remission is appropriate. Will another Review Board be set up to make recommendations to the Minister regarding earlier remission for prisoners serving long sentences?”
“Mdm Speaker, I support the main aims of the Bill. However, I wish to raise concerns about three areas. First, the expanded role of the Auxiliary Police; second, the provisions relating to remission of imprisonment; and thirdly, the external placement scheme. First, expanded role of Auxiliary Police. Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill make changes to the role of the Auxiliary Police in escorting and securing prisoners. While the current Act allows the Auxiliary Police to be deployed to escort prisoners while in transit to and from Prison, for example to Court, and while they are outside Prison, the Bill effectively expands their role to include safeguarding prisoners while they are within prison premises. The handling of prisoners within prison is a delicate matter entrusted to prison officers. Could the Government explain why this task is being outsourced to the Auxiliary Police? Is this due to any shortage of prison officers? As we know, the training requirements and mindsets of prison officers and Auxiliary Police are also quite different. Prison officers are trained in Rehabilitation and are recruited to be "Captains of Lives", while Auxiliary Police are generally focused on safeguarding property and some law and order functions. Given this fundamental difference, what additional jobs are to be assigned to the Auxiliary Police to do within the prison premises? How suitably trained are they for their Page: 108 expanded roles? Next, remission. One of the key features of the Bill relates to remission of jail terms. Clause 7 introduces Part VB which will remove the remission rules from the Prisons Regulations to the parent Act. The Bill generally preserves the current default position of granting prisoners a one-third discount off imprisonment for good behaviour.”
“Mdm Speaker, I have two clarifications for Deputy Prime Minister Teo. The first relates to the COI hearings. Earlier in his statement, he mentioned that the Committee would decide which parts of the Inquiry would be held in public or otherwise. My understanding of the Inquiries Act is that the Minister can also give directions to the Committee on whether parts of the Inquiry should be held in public or not. So, I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister Teo whether he agrees that in this case it is highly desirable that the COI hearings be held as publicly as possible. In this respect, would he be directing or at least encouraging the Committee to look at this aspect. The second clarification concerns policing arrangements which I asked about in Little India. Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned that prior to 8 December, the task of dealing with anti-social behaviour as well as the Page: 75 concerns of local residents were dealt with by the Auxiliary Police. I like to clarify whether he meant that these roles have been outsourced to the Auxiliary Police or whether he could tell us more about what roles the Singapore Police Force retained in dealing with anti-social behaviour and the concerns of local residents in the area prior to the riot.”
“Mdm Speaker, a few supplementary questions for the Parliamentary Secretary. First, I do agree with her that the WEF Gender Gap Report measures gaps, that is, disparities between the status of men and women, rather than absolute levels. But does she agree that gaps are also Page: 11 important to track? Secondly, it was noted in the WEF report that Singapore did not provide the figures for enrolment of women in tertiary institutions. I would like to know why that figure was not given because it could have impacted the scores. Thirdly, in the WEF report, Singapore was ranked fairly well for economic participation. In other words, men and women participate in the economy. We were pulled up basically because of good scores in wage quality and earned income, but our labour force participation rate, I think, has room for improvement. My question is: will the Government look at a policy framework which will encourage shared parental responsibilities so that more women, especially educated women, will be encouraged to go back to work. Last of all, there was an indicator in the WEF Report on political empowerment. It was noted that while we scored fairly well – 47 out 136 countries for Members of Parliament – in terms of Cabinet, we are really far down. It is 125 out of 136 countries. I would like to know whether we will improve on this, instead of having just one lady Minister out of 18 currently, and in the last few decades. Do we expect any improvement in this area?”
“Instead, the insurer or the owner of the vehicle who caused the accident will directly pay to the claimant the compensation sum due to him and will also directly pay the legal cost to the claimant's lawyer. The Public Trustee who used to receive and make the payments will no longer be involved. This bypassing of the Public Trustee theoretically carries with it the increased risk that the payments meant for the victim and his lawyer may not be received, for example, where the vehicle owner or insurer fails to effect the payment accordingly or delays the payment. Does the Ministry intend to put in place any safeguards to minimise the risk of non-payment or delayed payment? 5.57 pm”
“Sir, I have some concerns about clause 5 of the Bill which will reduce the Public Trustee's role as the guardian of victims of motor accidents in cases where the claim is settled out of Court. Under clause 5, section 6 of the Act will be amended in two key ways. Firstly, for claimants who are represented by lawyers, settlement sums offered by the defendants or their insurers would no longer need to be approved by the Public Trustee. This means that it will be left to the claimants' lawyers to be the gatekeepers to ensure that their clients get adequate compensation for their injuries and losses. On the one hand, we would expect lawyers to obtain a fair settlement for their clients as it is their duty to do so. This is also logical as there is generally a link between the compensation obtained and the fees lawyers will be entitled to charge. On the other hand, there is the risk of lawyers who may occasionally settle matters quickly due to workload or other considerations. It should be remembered that the clients we are talking about in such accident cases include persons who may not know their rights and rely entirely on professional advice. The current situation of having the Public Trustee as the gatekeeper of compensation adequacy has Page: 102 always added a layer of comfort and protection for such accident victims. From the lawyer's standpoint, too, there is an advantage: retaining the Public Trustee's approval on settlement sums protects lawyers from unjustified complaints that their claimants were short-changed. With the amendments in this Bill, are we not compromising on these aspects? Secondly, under the amendments, the Public Trustee will longer be receiving and disbursing compensation sums and legal costs whether the claimant is represented by a lawyer.”
“Thank you, Madam. I would like to seek two clarifications from the Minister. The first relates to the orders made against the four detainees for suspected match-fixing. I believe that they have been involved in activities that were largely committed overseas. I would like to ask the Minister whether the fact that they are being detained under the CLTPA here is because the current international process for cooperation is not efficient enough. Are there gaps which the Government is working to plug, for example, whether it is to increase the speed of information being shared across borders or to increase the number of countries with which we have extradition treaties. I think this is quite important because we want to understand whether this is just an episode that will pass because there will be greater cooperation in the future for extradition overseas or this is going to be something we are living with, which is the current inefficiencies that were reported. The second clarification relates to the safeguards. I think the Minister earlier referred to Mr Vikram Nair's suggestion and he said he was suggesting that a former High Court Judge chair an Advisory Committee. But if I heard him correctly, he was actually suggesting that a current sitting Judge, who is from the judicial branch, actually be involved in the Advisory Committee, which is also in a way what I suggested earlier, except it was in relation to the Judge sitting alone. So, 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 Detention Order.”
“Yes, Mdm Speaker, as I have said in my speech, I do not think that the current circumstances warrant a non-extension of the Bill. So, yes, I support extension of the Bill for the next five years – with a heavy heart, I add.”
“I note that in Malaysia, under the recent amendments to the Prevention of Crimes Act, the Malaysian government has decided to give the powers to detain – not to any Minister but to a board comprising five persons. Madam, the review process is a crucial safeguard. I hope the Government will not close its mind on this matter but will do a serious assessment of how it can be improved. Madam, to summarise, I am not opposing the extension of the Act for another five years as I do not think the current climate is the right time to abolish it in the interest of public safety. However, I am grappling with the rationale and justification for detaining the suspects of soccer match-fixing under the CLTPA instead of working towards trying them in Court. Some clarity on this is necessary for us to know where this is going. I am aware that the review process for the four detainees is still on-going. So if the Minister cannot say too much now, he should reveal more about the soccer match-fixing cases after the review. I also urge the Government to look at how it can make the process for review of detention more rigorous.”
“The President, who is the final gatekeeper, will read the Committee's recommendations but will still decide based on the advice of Cabinet. Therefore, for a Minister's decision to be overturned on the merits, the Cabinet must come to the conclusion that their Cabinet colleague, the Home Affairs Minister, was wrong. Could the Government tell us how many times the Advisory Committee had recommended release and what the President did in those cases? Going further upstream, it will be useful to know how often recommendations for detention put up by Police or the Central Narcotics Bureau have been turned down by the Public Prosecutor or by the Minister. Madam, past debates in this House showed that at renewals of the Act, Members had raised various concerns over the years about the review process. Has the Government considered the feasibility of enabling the merits of the Detention Order to be subject to judicial scrutiny? A scheme could be worked out where a judge scrutinises all the relevant information in camera, away from the public eye to ensure that at least an identifiable impartial person currently serving in the judicial branch of the Government has weighed the information before we lock a person up without trial, and can order his release if not satisfied. Page: 61 At least under such a regime, the decision to detain someone without trial would be subject to a check and balance system from two branches of Government rather than be a decision taken by the executive branch alone. As a second alternative, the powers to confirm or cancel the Detention Order could be given to a body other than the Minister or Cabinet.”
“However, the Court did not have the power to do its own risk threat analysis of the suspects' activities to decide if the suspect should be detained in the interest of public safety, peace and good order. Therefore, if I may simplify, the Court's Page: 60 jurisdiction is to look more at whether the Government had acted rationally and not to weigh the information to decide if detention was justified. Who then would supervise the detention on its merits to see whether it was justified? Under section 31 of the Act, the Minister's decision to detain will be sent to an Advisory Committee together with a written statement of the grounds of detention. According to the Criminal Law (Advisory Committee) Rules, the Committee will meet to consider the case with the suspect present. The Committee is to meet in private and will read reports that the Minister has authorised to be placed before the Committee. The suspect may be represented by a lawyer if leave is given by the Committee. The Advisory Committee may, in its discretion, call witnesses to adduce oral or documentary evidence. Whatever the case, the suspect and his lawyer are not privy to the reports and evidence the Advisory Committee refers to for its decision. The Advisory Committee will then send its report to the President who acts on the advice of Cabinet to cancel or confirm the Detention Order. Madam, it would be instructive to know how often an Advisory Committee has called for additional evidence before putting up its recommendations. Moreover, it can be seen in the scheme of things that the Advisory Committee is merely that – advisory. Even if the Committee were to come to the conclusion that the person should not be detained, it can only give such advice in its secret report to the President.”
“These latest detentions raise concerns about whether powers of CLTPA detention are now being extended to cover gaps in the law or law enforcement processes to tackle crimes across borders. It also makes one worried what other new offences will be covered under CLTPA detention in the future. Accordingly, it is important for the Minister to clarify three things. One, since the Act requires detentions to be in the interest of public safety, peace and good order, does the Government agree that CLTPA detentions should ordinarily be restricted to organised crimes which threaten life and limb? Two, will the Minister confirm whether the detention of soccer match fixing detainees are unprecedented in the history of the Act and explain further why the detentions furthered public safety, peace and good order? Three, are our Government and other governments working together on a better regime of international cooperation such as suspects of transnational crime can be investigated and extradited for trials in the appropriate jurisdictions? Madam, I move on to safeguards and the need for enhancement. Over the years, Members have debated on whether the safeguards against arbitrary detention are robust enough. Personally, I think they are not adequate and should be strengthened. First, let me lay out what I understand are the existing safeguards and their limitations. There is an avenue of judicial review. In the 2007 case of Wong Sin Yee, the High Court affirmed that it had jurisdiction to review the Detention Order but only on the grounds of rationality, not merits. In other words, the Court had powers to quash the Detention Order if the Minister had not made the order on the grounds of public safety, peace and good order.”
“Would CLTPA be used for that too? To prosecute match fixers in Court should be the usual route. One of our leading soccer match fixers, Wilson Raj Perumal, was tried and convicted in Finland for bribing soccer players and rigging matches. In Singapore too, we have been pursuing soccer corruption cases in our Courts in the past and currently. Why could the four detainees not be prosecuted in Court, either locally or in Europe? If the four had done any preparatory acts from Singapore, it is possible to pursue their cases in a local Court. If the acts were wholly committed overseas, Singapore citizens can still be prosecuted in Singapore for their overseas acts under section 37 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Alternatively, they should be extradited to stand trial in the country where the crimes allegedly took place. What then was the difficulty? Were the European investigators slow to share with us the information they had, which was what Interpol Secretary-General told various media? Are there gaps in the cross-border process, preventing the suspects from being extradited to the appropriate jurisdiction for trial? Page: 59 Madam, the fact the soccer match-fixing syndicate was working across borders should not be a justification for detention without trial. Indeed, in his parliamentary answer to Member of Parliament Alex Yam last month, Deputy Prime Minister Teo revealed that our agencies vigorously pursued leads through Interpol, Europol and European countries to share information and otherwise collaborate on curtailing the soccer syndicate. Would it not have been possible to work towards prosecution instead?”
“In order to understand the Government's position on this, I filed a Question at last month's sitting, asking for the rationale for the detentions. In answer, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said that the detentions were made for the sake of public safety, peace and good order which is a phrase, word-for-word, from the Act. But the question remains: how exactly does soccer corruption in Europe threaten public safety, peace and good order to justify a detention here? Page: 58 At this juncture, I should state categorically, that I in no way condone soccer corruption or any corruption. However, I believe that the Government should reveal more of why the suspected activities justified detention without trial under CL. In a parliamentary answer, the Government tried to draw a parallel between match- fixing syndicates and drug trafficking and unlicensed moneylending, stating that they were all perpetuated by organised criminal syndicates with complex and layered structures motivated by financial gain. I would like some clarification on this. Does this mean that so long as there are complex and layered structures, the authorities find it more efficient to go for detention without trial instead of trying to gather solid evidence to mount a prosecution? The Ministry further mentioned in the parliamentary answer that where cross-border illegal activities are involved, the difficulties of securing evidence and witnesses willing to cooperate and testify against a syndicate in open Court are amplified. I am not sure whether the Government is saying that transnational crime is now a new category for which CLTPA detentions will be handy. What if that transnational crime was simply a revenue offence, for example, a syndicate dealing in contraband goods, with no links to violence?”
“It is a violent trade and its proceeds have also been known to feed other criminal enterprises. More recently, the Government has detained illegal moneylenders whose tactics of intimidation and harassment have undermined safety in our HDB heartlands and increased fear of crime. In the above instances, one can see the risk to public safety, peace and good order which required the Government to resort to CLTPA detention. In these instances, one could accept the need to prevent loss of lives and limb. Are there limits to the types of cases suitable for CLTPA detention? Last month, the Government used the Act to detain four suspects of a global soccer match-fixing syndicate operating in Europe and elsewhere. I believe that this is the first time the Government has used the Act for corruption offences. Many of us are understandably embarrassed about the global match-fixing syndicate. Despite our efforts to portray Singapore with zero tolerance for corruption, European police investigating massive soccer match-fixing have identified Singaporeans as the masterminds or kingpins of an organised syndicate. International media, such as the BBC, then put up critical reports about the apparent lack of powers in Singapore authorities to deal with the suspects such as Mr Dan Tan, who was apparently moving about freely in Singapore. When the detentions under CLTPA were announced last month, I could only speculate that the Government wanted to take some action and was also under some international pressure to act. However, it was not explained why soccer corruption was suitable for CLTPA detention when all along, the Act had been seen as a concession justified in the name of the public safety.”
“I look forward to the day when this Act can be thrown away. However, I am sad to note that the day has apparently not yet come. Several crime concerns loom. We have two casinos here, still in early stages of operation which can become controlled by organised criminals if not policed well. I am also not oblivious to the recent experience of our neighbours across the Causeway. There, public safety and security deteriorated this year with deadly gun violence by organised criminals which appeared to have been linked to the release of persons in preventive detention when the detention law was abolished two years ago. Last month, to restore order, the Malaysian Government has re-introduced detention of criminals without trial under amendments to its Prevention of Crimes Act. In Singapore, we should be concerned not to have spill-over events. Looking at the crime risk currently, I am unable to oppose the extension of the Act for another five years. Madam, that does not mean that all is well with the Act. I have some serious concerns about the scope of the Act and the very limited safeguards which I think need to and should be strengthened. First, the scope of the Act. What are the limits? Under section 30 of the Act, the Minister can detain a person suspected of being involved in criminal activities if his detention is in the interest of the public safety, peace and good order. Over the years, the Government has detained secret society members who were believed to have engaged in acts of violence, causing injuries and even Page: 57 death. Since 1974, suspected drug traffickers had been detained as well. Drug trafficking is a crime that feeds drug abuse, causing misery and death to many.”
“Madam, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Act is coming for extension for the thirteenth time since it was enacted in 1955. I am glad that the Government has not sought to make its provisions permanent as the historical records show that the Government is well aware of the compromise we are making in continuing to have such a law. The Act allows the Government to detain suspected criminals without trial if the Home Affairs Minister thinks that detention is "in the interest of public safety, peace and good order." Not only is this a departure from the right of fair trial, there is very limited review of the Minister's order. The serious reservations about the CLTPA were succinctly articulated by then Opposition leader Mr Lee Kuan Yew who spoke in 1955 at the Second Reading of the Bill as follows: [(proc text) "If the Government feels that it is necessary to take this step, we shall not resist it, but we ask them to remember that it is not democratic, that it is not fair to blunt the strike instrument and that all these extraordinarily stringent regulations should be set aside as Page: 56 soon as conditions permit." (proc text)] Mr Lee's reservations still ring true today. In past debates, Members had asked whether the circumstances since 1955 have changed such that the Act has lost its relevance. Madam, the long title of the Act states that these provisions are meant for the maintenance of public order. Over the years, the Government had justified the Act as necessary to suppress secret societies and drug trafficking, especially when trials in Court could not go on with witnesses too scared to justify. The justification had been that the compromise on the right to a fair trial was needed for the greater good of public safety, peace and good order.”
“Thank you, Madam. Supplementary questions for the Acting Minister. I would like the Acting Minister to refer to the question which I filed, that is, parts (a) to (d). They were filed because I thought that looking at the materials released by MOM thus far, these are still some questions that have not been answered. Earlier, the Minister‘s response also did not address these questions specifically, I thought. Could the Minister shed more light on the questions which I filed?”