Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) (Amendment) Bill

Mdm Speaker, this is one of those Bills one will face criticism from some quarters for supporting it. Detention without trial does not sit comfortably with commonly accepted notions of justice. Everyone naturally and understandably insists on more openness and transparency, particularly if a person's liberty is at stake.

In an ideal world, if a person is accused of a crime, he should be entitled to confront his accusers, challenge the evidence and defend himself in a public forum before an independent judge. But we do not live in an ideal world.

In 2011, the Malaysian government limited the scope for preventive detention by repealing the Internal Security Act and Emergency Ordinance. In recent months, Malaysia has been hit by a wave of violent crimes. It was reported that 74 people in Malaysia were shot and killed by criminals between January and September this year.

The Malaysian police blamed the surge on an increase in gang activity following the release of detainees under the now-repealed Emergency Ordinance. In response, the Malaysian government has performed a U-turn. It is now seeking to reinstate a wider scope for preventive detention and detention without trial by amending the Security Offences (Special Measures) Act and Prevention of Crime Act.

We have long been criticised by Western governments for having detention without trial which is something we inherited from the British. Then on 11 September 2001, things became less black and white. The US established Guantanamo Bay Detention Camp in Cuba, which sanctions, among other things, preventive detention and what has been called "enhanced interrogation techniques" – what most people would understand as "torture". You would think that many people would be against this, but according to a Washington Post poll released in February this year, 70% of respondents either "strongly" or "somewhat" approved of keeping the prison facility open. Why? Because when the rubber hits the road, and where public safety and human lives are at stake, certain realities sink in.

This part of the world is no more ideal. The fact of the matter is that there are criminal syndicates operating here and in the region which are a direct threat to our safety and security. They know what the rules are and how to get round them with impunity. You cannot bring a case to Court in Singapore if there is no evidence, and one way to keep the evidence out is to make sure that you keep your operations overseas or you intimidate people from testifying

Page: 54

against you. As Al Capone said in the movie "The Untouchables", "Somebody messes with me, I mess with them." I cannot do the voice! And if they know that the Police are powerless to prosecute, there is nothing to stop them from committing or continuing their activities. In other words, there is no deterrence and that is the reality.

So, we can shrug our shoulders and say that is the price we have to pay or we can arm our agencies with some teeth to better protect Singaporeans. We can acknowledge and accept that special circumstances call for a different solution. I, therefore, support extending the life of the CLTPA which has served Singapore and Singaporeans so well.

But giving such wide powers always carries the concern of abuse or misuse. Will the CLTPA be used in cases for which it was not intended? Will the Police use it as a convenient tool where it is too costly, or time consuming or otherwise difficult to prove the crime? We must continue to ensure a rigorous review of the use of the CLTPA in every case.

In this regard, the CLTPA does provide that an independent Advisory Committee will review all Detention Orders and Police Supervision Orders. The Committee will then submit a report on their recommendations to the President, who will confirm, cancel or vary the Orders on advice of the Cabinet. The Committee comprises prominent individuals, including former judges and experienced lawyers in private practice. There are, therefore, significant checks and balance in the process.

However, there are two points that I would like to raise. The first concerns the scope of the CLTPA. Recently, it was reported that Detention Orders under the CLTPA were issued to four Singaporeans involved in a global match-fixing syndicate. The explanation given for the use of the CLTPA was that the criminal syndicate was a complex and multi-layered one, witnesses able to provide testimony were unwilling to do so, and that the cross-border nature of the criminal activities gave rise to evidential difficulties.

I understand the difficulties in prosecuting the crime. But it has always been the Government's position that the CLTPA will only be used as a last resort where a serious crime is involved. So, the question is: is match-fixing, regardless of how wide-spread it is, a sufficiently serious offence to invoke the CLTPA?

Page: 55

It is of a different order from crimes involving secret societies, drug trafficking or loansharking. Match-fixing is essentially cheating and it is really driven by the gaming industry. In other words, many who lose money as a result of match-fixing, were gambling in the first place, and some illegally. There is no apparent threat to life or limb, or to security. It is unclear whether match-fixing warrants invoking the CLTPA, just because it is done in a manner where elements of an organised crime are present. We have to be careful because an inappropriate use of the CLTPA will only strengthen the arguments of those who oppose it.

The second point is I would be grateful if the Minister could set out a road map for the future of the CLTPA. Using the CLTPA for match-fixing suggests that our current laws may be inadequate. I understand that the Ministry is working on Organised Crimes legislation. That will presumably deal with secret societies, gambling and vice syndicates and other elements the CLTPA was directed at. Will the proposed legislation provide for preventive detention as well? And will there still be a need for the CLTPA if that legislation is enacted? With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

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:

*"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."*

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.

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. 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.

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? 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?

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. 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. 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. 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.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Comprising just two clauses, the brevity of this amendment Bill belies its fundamental importance on two counts.

First, the Bill speaks of the Government's determination to have the full range of legal powers to keep hardcore crime at bay. It cannot be denied that the CLTPA was crucial in the fight against violent crime since its promulgation in 1955. Our no-nonsense approach towards crime has made security and order defining features of our society.

Second, because of the draconian powers afforded by CLTPA, it legitimately raises key concerns about whether the law is necessary today and, if so, whether there are adequate safeguards against its misuse.

This is notwithstanding the Government's consistent position that the CLTPA is used only as a last resort when an alleged serious crime has been committed, and a successful Court prosecution not possible because witnesses are not willing or afraid to testify in Court.

Madam, most CLTPA cases, as the Minister has just elaborated, relate to secret society activities, drug trafficking, and unlicensed moneylending. It came under the spotlight in November 2012 when the CLTPA was used against several SMRT bus drivers who staged a strike. Just last month, it was used against several persons alleged to be involved in a major international soccer match-fixing syndicate.

Page: 63

This House will approve the Bill. The relative easy passage through the legislative process, however, should only remind us of the key importance of maintaining public support and continued buy-in for this legislation.

In his speech earlier, the Minister had explained why the CLTPA is required today, and of the safeguards incorporated into the Act, as well as other administrative procedures to ensure that the Act is not abused and that the powers granted are used with only the strongest justification.

I would appreciate it if the Minister could respond to the following questions which can throw further light on the operation of the CLTPA:

(a) In the last five years, how many proposals by the Police and CNB under the CLTPA to either detain a person or to place him under Police supervision were rejected by the Home Affairs Ministry, or the Attorney-General, or the CLTPA Advisory Committee, and the Elected President respectively?

(b) Since 1955, how many persons have been detained beyond five years? How many were detained for 10 years and beyond? What is the average length of detention under the CLTPA? What was the longest period of detention?

(c) Between 21 October 2009 and today, how many persons were placed under supervision orders, and how many of these orders were extended beyond three years? What was the longest period of supervision?

(d) Has the CLTPA been used against persons in crime syndicates connected with the casino industry here?

(e) How successful has the Day Release Scheme been, and what is the recidivism rate of CLTPA detainees and supervisees like compared with the general penal population?

(f) Were there persons detained under the CLTPA after prosecution attempts had failed?

Madam, even if the answers to the questions just posed are reassuring, each time the CLTPA comes up for legislative renewal, it should prick at our conscience. We ought to be worried if it were otherwise.

Page: 64

Younger Singaporeans who have grown up in a relatively safe environment here may find it hard to comprehend why such a tough law is needed. This is particularly so when there are other countries that have managed to keep serious crime at bay without the CLTPA equivalent in their statute books.

In this regard, Singapore's exceptionalism should not be used as a justification for the CLTPA's longevity. The exceptionalism is probably becoming harder to justify in a very different crime situation today when compared with the 1950s or the 1960s.

A robust explanation is needed each time the Government seeks to extend the life-span of the CLTPA. Madam, we are all in full agreement with the desire for a safe and secure environment, something which Singaporeans enjoy today and may perhaps even take for granted.

The question of how we get there – the means to achieve the end of a low crime-rate – is of utmost importance. Put simply, the approach cannot be one of the ends justifying the means.

Even if I were not a constitutional law academic, the CLTPA should raise red flags. Notwithstanding the saving provision of Article 9 of our Constitution, which provides constitutional protection for laws like the CLTPA, the CLTPA does significantly impinge upon the rights of all persons in Singapore. It is a cardinal rule of law principle that no person should be imprisoned without an open trial. And we should not look at the CLTPA as something which brings alleged perpetrators to justice because they have not been properly accorded the judicial process.

Madam, the CLTPA has been on our statute books since 1955. In less than two years' time, it will be the Act's 60th anniversary. This Act has been in existence longer than most Members of this House and most of the laws in our statute books. At face value, it is anything but temporary.

The Act is temporary in that the Government has to come before this House and make a case for its renewal every five years. Parliament has extended the life-span of this Act on 12 occasions, and this is the 13th extension sought. This is a legislative ritual we have become accustomed to but for which we cannot afford to lose our sensitivity to the fact that such a law is an anomaly for any society that aspires towards the rule of law.

Page: 65

While I appreciate the public education efforts, the recognition that preventive detention without trial is not the norm and the salutary effect that comes from the Government seeking Parliament's approval every five years, I believe that the time has come to rename the Act. This call has, of course, been made before.

The CLTPA, designed as a temporary law, had enabled it to win public support. After all, who would be against a law that seeks to keep Singapore safe? But on closer examination, the fact that the CLTPA has been anything but a temporary legislation, I fear, will erode the public support for it, or at least raise concerns over its existence.

We should not continue with the mis-naming of such a law and pretend that the CLTPA is a temporary legislation. Why not rename the CLTPA as the "Criminal Law (Preventive Detention and Special Provisions) Act", or the "Serious Crimes (Preventive Detention) Act". But because the central pillar of the CLTPA is the power to detain without trial, it would be necessary and vital for any re-named Act to still impose a five-year renewable time span to the legislation.

As it stands, the seemingly innocuous sounding title of the CLTPA only invites and provokes a less than positive response, especially among younger Singaporeans. A name change and the continued provision of a sunset clause in the legislation would much more accurately reflect the legislative intent and still achieve the three policy objectives each time the Government seeks the CLTPA's renewal.

Madam, a name change is not merely cosmetic. It is unlikely that the dangers that the CLTPA seeks to address would be eliminated in the next five to 10 years. And with the likelihood of evolving threats, as the Minister has pointed out, as well as the Government's preference for a plethora of calibrated security measures, the CLTPA will be anything but temporary.

Put simply, no society can ever hope to eliminate crime, whether petty or serious. Societies can only hope to regulate the crime situation and ensure that it stays within acceptable limits. In turn, it is for each society to decide the crime level that is acceptable.

Madam, this brings me to my next point. It would be timely for the Government to re-articulate the circumstances and conditions by which the

Page: 66

CLTPA will be abolished.

It is pertinent to robustly consider if the original justification for the CLTPA is still valid. I think the answer is, probably, yes.

That then brings us to the next level of enquiry: do the threats continue at the same level of seriousness to the extent that preventive detention without trial is warranted? Here I think the answer is probably more ambivalent. For the Government, it is a "yes" but, for Singaporeans, the perspective may be quite different.

Regardless of whether the Government and Singaporeans are on the same page on the necessity of the CLTPA, the key challenge is the need to ensure that the CLTPA will not be abused. All it takes is one case and public confidence will be severely undermined to the detriment of the public good.

Madam, has the CLTPA become a legal crutch? The Government believes that allowing the CLTPA to lapse could be "misinterpreted as a softening of our tough stance and a weakening of our resolve or ability" to deal with serious crimes. Why should the doing away of the CLTPA be seen as going soft on crime? Is this the only way we can demonstrate our resolve?

The Government had always insisted that the mandatory death penalty for murder and drug trafficking had helped to keep Singapore safe. But we have moved boldly away from that with this House passing the necessary legislative amendments last year to make the incremental shift towards a discretionary death penalty regime in specified circumstances. This shift was made notwithstanding the Government's assessment of a worsening regional drug situation and the large number of repeat drug abusers likely to be released in the next few years.

As the numbers of people detained and supervised under the CLTPA regime decline, and they have been, we could choose to retain the CLTPA out of habit or convenience, or expedience. I hope the Government will spare no efforts to see how the CLTPA can be revamped in order to retain public confidence and legitimacy in our administration of criminal justice. As it stands, the CLTPA is too omnibus a law. The long title of the Act reads: "An Act to make temporary provisions for the maintenance of public order, the control of supplies by sea to Singapore, and the prevention of strikes and lock-outs in essential services." I note that the Minister made reference to the maintenance of public order; I am not aware of any reference to the supplies by sea to

Page: 67

Singapore as well as the prevention of strikes and lock-outs in essential services. The CLTPA deals with both criminal and non-criminal matters. The CLTPA should be stripped to its bare essentials if the Government decides to retain this law.

For example, can Part III of the CLTPA dealing with deemed illegal strikes and lock-outs in 28 broad essential services come under other legislation such as those dealing with employment or the trade unions? Given the draconian powers, the CLTPA should be as narrow as possible in its scope and application.

Madam, I now conclude. The CLTPA has been an effective legal instrument and this has to do with it being used judiciously. But there is no guarantee that this will always be the case.

Renaming the Act is necessary and urgent, in my view, and there is a need to go beyond form. The substance of the CLTPA must also be seriously evaluated. The CLTPA, as I mentioned earlier, is too broad in its scope and application. Drafted at a tumultuous time in our history, the law urgently needs refreshing. The draconian powers must be handled with utmost care. Beyond the Government's assurance, I believe that a critical revamp is needed so that when the CLTPA reaches its milestone 60th anniversary, the legislation would be in keeping with the tenor of the times. Above all, it would also strengthen our commitment to the rule of law. Madam, despite my reservations, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to participate in the debate on the CLTPA. I note that the hon Members of Parliament who spoke about the Bill before me are all legally trained. I am not a lawyer. I can only approach this Bill from the angle of a layman.

As section 6 of the Bill touches on restrictions on strikes and lock-outs involving essential services as defined in Part 1 of the First Schedule which incidentally include public transport as of one of the essential services, I have to declare my interest as I am also a Senior Vice President of SBS Transit Ltd.

A couple of weeks ago just before Deepavali, my residents in Jurong witnessed a high speed car chase. A van was speeding down from the top of a multi-storey car park towards the exit on the ground floor, damaging a few structures along the way. It was pursued by an unmarked Police car, much like

Page: 68

a movie scene you see in the cinema. Immediately, the residents associated the car chase to drug offences. Although the Police has clarified that they have arrested the driver of the van and he did not commit any drug offences, many Singaporeans still have the perception that the drug problems are far from over in Singapore.

Many of my residents with family members involved in drug offences would very much want the masterminds of drug syndicates to be arrested. In cases whereby witnesses are afraid to testify in Court and there are other evidences to pinpoint the mastermind, many Singaporeans see the value in the CLTPA. The same sentiments are shared by victims of illegal moneylending activities where the masterminds of loan shark syndicates have made their lives very miserable.

From my past experiences as a Police Officer, whether during my active service or National Service stints, I could testify that the presence of secret societies in Singapore has not been reduced to such an extent that we can do away with CLTPA.

When our neighbouring country did away with an Act similar to the CLTPA, the number of gang fights involving firearms rose to an intolerable situation within two years. It was reported in their local press that in the first 10 months of 2013, there were 109 shooting cases, including some fatal cases, and all of them were linked to secret societies. As a result, the parliament of our neighbouring country had to make a quick decision to pass the Prevention of Crime Act 2013 which is similar to the CLTPA to allow criminals to be detained without trial.

When Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee moved a Bill to renew the CLTPA in 2009, he argued that with the opening two casinos, the Home Team might have to use the CLTP Act to deal with casino-related crimes or I quote, "criminal syndicates, both local and foreign, which may be tempted by the lure of free flowing money".

Just last month, as mentioned by our colleagues here, in October 2013, the MHA found another use of the CLTPA and issued Detention Orders to detain four persons involved in a global football match-fixing syndicate.

Hence, the emphasis of the debate today, in my view, is not whether we should renew the CLTPA for another five years. Rather, we need to review whether the existing safeguards to prevent abuses are sufficient, especially

Page: 69

when the CLTPA is used by MHA for other crimes. We need a corresponding increase in transparency on how the safeguards, as mentioned by the Minister, could function properly and appropriately. For that, I have a few suggestions.

Firstly, instead of releasing information on the number of detainees detained under the CLTPA every five years or as and when a Member of Parliament files a Parliamentary Question, may be MHA could consider issuing an annual report to inform the public on the number of detainees by nationality, the kind of criminal activities involved and duration of detention and so on.

In particular, I am keen to know how many of the current detainees are foreigners and how many are detained for casino-related crimes or other crimes that are not directly related to secret society, drugs and loanshark syndicates.

Just last Monday, one of my residents came to see me because he used to be a runner for an illegal moneylending syndicate and he was detained under section 30 of the CLTPA for four years. He claimed that he was supposed to be placed under the Police supervision for another three years after his release but he was discharged after 18 months due to good behaviour.

From my conversation with him, it did not appear that he knew why he was detained for four years and not shorter. In the eyes of the detainee, he might feel that it is not justified for him to be detained without trial. For that matter, an unremorseful criminal might not feel that justice is done even if he is convicted in an open Court.

So, it might be good for MHA to explain how the length of Detention Order is determined. Or how many times the Court Order is renewed? Does it correlate to the imprisonment terms of the offence if the detainee were to be charged in the open Court? Or does it correlate to the propensity that the detainee would commit the same offence again if he is released?

Next, on Advisory Committees, section 39 of the CLTPA allows the Minister to appoint one or more Advisory Committees each consisting of not less than two persons. From my understanding, MHA has appointed six Advisory Committees to examine every fresh order, issued by the Minister under section 30 of the Act, and also review existing Detention Orders every year.

Mdm Speaker, the number of Advisory Committees does not necessarily equate with the number of safeguards. Section 40 of the Act empowers the

Page: 70

Advisory Committee to summon and examine witnesses, to administer oaths or affirmations and to compel the production of documents. So, the question is: how often do the Advisory Committees summon and examine witnesses?

Some could allege that people can be quite capable of writing reports to support a decision that has already been made. One could argue that the Advisory Committee may be prone to accept a well argued paper if they do not independently summon and examine witnesses to verify the arguments in the paper. I am not questioning the integrity and competency of the Advisory Committees. As mentioned by the Minister, they comprise of prominent private citizens "such as Justices of the Peace, senior lawyers, High Court Judges and community leaders." What I am advocating is that MHA could provide more information on how often the Advisory Committees meet and how often they summon and examine witnesses, so as to assure the public that the safeguards are adequate.

Before I conclude, Mdm Speaker, allow me to continue my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] On 26 and 27 November last year, some SMRT drivers staged an illegal strike. This showed that CLTP can be used in another area, that is, workers who work in the essential service industries have to comply with section 6 of CLTP before they go on strike.

Under CLTP, four SMRT drivers were prosecuted, convicted and sent to jail. Singapore has reached a high level of living standard today; one important reason is our harmonious tripartite relations. MOM pays close attention to the well-being of our workers. This is something that everybody can see. If workers have any grievances, they can use the many existing channels to lodge their complaints with the Union or MOM. We cannot tolerate workers in the essential services industries to ignore the laws and do anything they wish to and damage Singapore's industrial relations. Just now, when I spoke in English, I said that we must continue implementing this Act to deal with organised criminal organisations, such as drug-trafficking syndicates, illegal moneylenders and secret societies.

The illegal strike last year showed that CLTP, which has been in effect from 1955, is still relevant and necessary today. However, we need to have safeguards and make sure that this Act is not abused, especially under section 6. Can MHA consider reviewing this clause so that we keep up with the times? In this Internet age, is 14 days' notice period too short or too long? Although we

Page: 71

have slowed down the growth of foreign workers, there are still many of them working in the essential services. I hope that MHA can work more closely together with MOM to educate them on the importance of harmonious tripartite relations, hence prevent similar incidents from happening again.

Let me now use English to do a summary.

(In English): In conclusion, the usage of CLTP Act has evolved and is still relevant 59 years after it took effect in 1955. I applaud MHA's effort in taking pain to explain the relevance of the Act when it seeks Parliament's endorsement to extend its validity every five years. It is rightly so, as detention without trial is a departure from the norm in the view of a civilised society.

However, it is important for MHA to share how the CLTP Act is applied by revealing the profile of the detainees and how the cases are reviewed objectively by the Advisory Committees to alleviate the fear of abuse by the law enforcement agencies. With that, I support the Bill.

Madam, I rise to seek clarification on the use of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act with respect to the recent arrests of four local match-fixers and their detention under the Act.

It is difficult to see how match-fixing gels with the objective of the Act, namely to address crimes that are a threat to public safety, peace and good order. My concern with extending the Act to match-fixing is that it provides a too convenient means by which to get around the usual legal processes in trying accused persons. Can we not look to improve our legal framework to address such crimes in open Court as opposed to doing it through the Act?

I would also like to ask the Minister if our transnational agreements and exchanges are sufficiently robust and deep enough to specifically address match-fixing such that we can prosecute offenders in open Court.

With regard to the recent detentions, the Minister for Home Affairs stated that our security services worked closely with Interpol and other international law enforcement agencies and were able to obtain information from Interpol, Europol and European countries affected by the syndicate's match-fixing activities. It would seem that this information was insufficient to prosecute the match-fixers in open Court for some reason. Were there requests for extradition?

Page: 72

Were there specific difficulties in extraditing the match-fixers to countries where the crimes were committed for the law to take its course?

Madam, any decision about whether to add another category of crime to the Orders issued under the Act should be weighted carefully between an affront to the right of the accused to have his case heard in open Court and the need to give our law enforcement bodies adequate tools to tackle real and pressing threats to public safety, peace and good order.

While the Government may argue that the environment may not be appropriate to remove the Act, the Government can certainly do more to explain to Singaporeans at the appropriate time, if necessary, why the Act should be expanded to include more crimes, in addition to explaining what makes Singapore different from European countries which have dealt with match-fixers before an open Court.

It would be very important to do so because, in the Malaysian case, the laws governing detention without trial originally had to be removed because of a public perception that there was an abuse of power by the authorities.

As such, it would be important for the Minister to explain how match-fixing gels with the objective of the Act so that the public does not feel that the definition of a threat to public safety, peace and good order is defined too loosely.

Mdm Speaker, a cornerstone of the CLTPA is the power to impose executive detention without trial. It is a very serious incursion into a fundamental civil liberty for a person to be detained without trial, without legal proof that an offence has been committed. One of the most fundamental human rights in the criminal justice system is the right to a fair trial. In this case, in this Bill, Detention Orders can be issued without even a trial, let alone a fair one.

Page: 78

One of the safeguards built into this piece of legislation is the sunset provision. The Act has to be renewed every five years by this House, properly considering, evaluating and debating the factors to determine if this Act should merit continued approval.

In considering the renewal of this Act, in my view, this House has to be satisfied on two counts: first, that there remains a need for such executive detention powers today, almost 60 years after it was first promulgated; and second, if so, then we have to be satisfied that there are sufficient safeguards to ensure that these powers will not be abused.

Mdm Speaker, the Minister has explained that the CLTPA is intended principally to disrupt and dismantle secret society and organised gang activities. Of course, the sort of problems that Singapore faced in the 1950s and 1960s are no longer troubling society at the same level today. But we would be very naïve to think that these activities no longer pose a threat to society. The Minister has outlined the areas of organised illegal activities in three areas which the CLTPA has been principally targeted against. They are namely secret society activities, drug trafficking and loansharking.

There are three threads which are common and run across all of these three activities:

First, these activities are pervasive and they afflict a broad spectrum of society, not just the victim, not just the offender. These activities infiltrate and affect society, and cause a sphere of damage greater than just the offence alone.

Take drug trafficking, for instance, which is a serious social ill. The true victim of drug abuse is society. Drug abuse is a great tragedy which really cannot be measured only in terms of the harm caused to the individual drug abuser who suffers from the addiction. There is a much greater cost to his family, to his friends, to his colleagues and the social and economic infrastructure around him. It affects many families and destroys a person's life and it destroys the fabric of society around that person, the drug offender. There are also problems caused by drug-related crimes, commonly, stealing, housebreaking, robbery, or more serious, desperate crimes which an abuser is driven to commit, in order to fuel the addiction. All of these lend to a less safe Singapore.

It is the same for unlicensed moneylending. Many of us in this House would have received many complaints from residents on this issue and see for

Page: 79

ourselves that the intention of these loansharks is often not just to target the borrower, but also the people living around the borrower. Loansharks threaten, and many of us have seen the chilling messages designed to strike fear and create embarrassment not just in the victim, but also the people around him. And these activities often take place at or around the victim's home – our home, our neighbourhood and this is the heart of our residential neighbourhood, where one is supposed to feel and be safe.

Mdm Speaker, Singapore is not rid of these problems by any stretch. A look at some of the statistics will give us a sense. Drug arrests have gone up over the last three years. The first half of 2013 alone, we have seen a 13% increase in drug-related arrests over the same period in 2012. As Minister mentioned earlier, the street value of drugs seized have had a record high. Between 2004 and 2009, we have seen a year-on-year increase, every year increase in the number of harassment and loansharking complaints. In fact, the number of complaints in 2009, more than triple the number of complaints in 2004.

So, there is therefore a strong need to ensure that these activities are kept firmly in check – which leads to my second point, one which many Members of this House have canvassed. These activities are often syndicated and well-organised, with a complex hierarchical structure. These crimes are inherently difficult to prosecute in many instances because of the lack of direct admissible evidence and the obvious unwillingness of witnesses, whether they be members of the public or even members of the same syndicate, to testify. They are often concerned about the reprisals against themselves and, perhaps, more importantly, against their families.

Madam, I therefore believe that the Act, used judiciously, is not just a powerful tool for law enforcement. The fact that we have such tough laws would itself be a strong deterrent against anyone even contemplating such activity in Singapore. It would also be a clear message to organised gangs outside Singapore that this is not a place to even start to think about to base or to anchor such activities.

Madam, I move on to the second issue, which is – even if this Act is useful in keeping Singapore safe, how do we ensure that the power is not abused? That is a key consideration for this House in deciding to continue with the Act for the next five years. We have heard the in-built CLTPA regime and safeguards, the Detention Order has to be concurred by the Public Prosecutor, and then confirmed by the President upon the review by a separate Advisory Committee, the detainee is entitled to make representations and must be given reasons for

Page: 80

the detention to allow him to make an effective challenge.

I have myself previously served on such Advisory Committees set up under section 39 of the Act, and I can personally attest to the robustness of the Committee's work. Each committee member is given the details of the case; they have access to all documents including statements and eye-witness accounts. The detainee and witnesses are often heard, and the detainee can make full arguments against the Detention Order. The detainee can also be represented by counsel at such hearings and all of this material is then carefully scrutinised, critically, by each committee member before a conclusion is drawn.

And I can assure the hon Members for Aljunied and Ang Mo Kio that this Advisory Committee does not have any connection or speak to the Minister; we do not have any one from the MHA discuss the case with us, save for administrative details concerning the hearing.

In addition, a detainee retains the right to seek judicial review of Detention Orders in Court. There have been several challenges in the Singapore Courts for the past few years. And I think I heard the Member for Aljunied mentioned a recent case in 2007, where in that case, as the Member would know, not just that the Court found that it was capable of being judicially reviewed, in that case, I believe the detainee was also represented by a reputable Senior Counsel.

Mdm Speaker, all of these measures, including the review by this House today are safeguards against abuse of such an extensive power. I am myself satisfied that these safeguards have worked well and are sufficient. However, notwithstanding that, I would like to put forward a couple of additional measures for the Minister's consideration.

First, section 30 of the CLTPA, which is the section that confers the power of the Minister to issue detention or Police supervision orders, requires that the Minister be satisfied that the person "has been associated with activities of a criminal nature". The Minister has also to be satisfied that any Detention Order would be in the "interests of public safety, peace and good order." There is no requirement that the activities of a criminal nature be of a sufficient severity or culpability as to warrant the making of a Detention Order. In that context, would the Minister consider raising the threshold to one where the activities are of such a serious criminal nature, or at least where the activities have or are likely to cause serious and widespread harm to Singapore and Singaporeans?

Page: 81

Second, whilst a detainee under the current CLTPA and the rules has the right to counsel at every level, at every hearing, he cannot always afford or instruct one. Accordingly, would the Minister consider an amendment to be made where the state will assign a counsel to any detainee who requests one?

Third, a Detention Order can be made on the basis of evidence or materials which would not, otherwise, be admissible in Court. We have discussed this before, and we can see the reasons why that is so. However, our law enforcement agencies have a primary duty to prosecute all suspects in a Court of Law. They should not be able to think that they can get away with a less than thorough investigation and simply bring a Detention Order against a suspected, but not proven, criminal. This would, inevitably, lead to complacency and make for a less rigorous law enforcement agency. With that in mind, may I suggest that provisions be strengthened to add the requirement that the Minister be first reasonably satisfied that a criminal prosecution is not possible or that there is insufficient available admissible evidence before choosing to invoke CLTPA provisions.

Madam, this legislation is tough and I can see why there could be detractors. But it also signals very clearly our Government's firm interest in keeping Singapore and Singaporeans safe and free from the harmful effects of serious, vicious and pervasive crimes. If we have robust safeguards, I am sure no law-abiding citizen would disagree that there is a greater interest for our people in society to be kept safe.

We have heard the Malaysian experience quite graphically by some Members earlier. I will just add a couple of short points. The Emergency (Public Order and Crime Prevention) Ordinance that allowed the government to hold suspects for a long period without charging them, was repealed in December 2011. The recent article in September 2013, just about two months ago, the Wall Street Journal opined that the repeal put many hardened criminals onto the streets and quoted the criminologist, Mr P Sundramoorthy of the University Science Malaysia as noting that gun seizures alone more than doubled since the repeal. We have heard the number of gun cases and that is quite staggering. The same period saw many reports of serious and vicious crimes being committed in Malaysia. We do not want this in Singapore. Singapore remains particularly vulnerable because of our geographical position, our boundaries are porous.

So, the real question in this debate is – what kind of society we want to live in. The Malaysian experience tells us that we cannot afford to take our relatively low crime rates for granted. We, therefore, have to strike a balance between

Page: 82

ensuring that our society is protected against serious crimes and ensuring that judicious application of these powers is carried out with a scrupulous and thorough review of each, and every Detention or Suspension Order made. Madam, with that, I support the Bill.

Madam, I thank the two Opposition Members for their clarification that they support the Bill, notwithstanding the heavy heart, because I think this is an important Bill. Many Members have raised a range of issues and it broadly falls within three themes. First, on the need for the CLTPA in today's context; the second on the manner in which the CLTPA has been used, in the release of information pertaining to the use of the CLTPA; and, finally, on the safeguards that govern the use of the CLTPA. I will address these in turn.

Page: 83

Madam, this debate, the extension of the CLTPA for a further five years serves a very important purpose. It allows the Minister to account to Parliament of the nature and extent of use of the Act, and to provide a detailed explanation as to why the Act remains necessary in the prevailing environment.

Its temporary nature is not simply a matter of nomenclature. Rather, it compels a periodic reminder and discussion within Parliament and without on the powers under the CLTPA and the need to review its continued relevance. I, therefore, disagree with Assoc Prof Eugene Tan's characterisation of this process in this debate as a legislative ritual. Far from it, it is a robust debate as, in fact, evident from today's proceedings, that needs to take place every five years, so that Members of Parliament and, indeed, all Singaporeans, fully appreciate the nature of the criminal threats we face and the powers that are needed to maintain public safety, peace and good order that we deeply value as a society.

Let me reiterate the reasons we continue to need this Act. I am glad that Members, in general, acknowledge that we must remain vigilant even as the crime situation improves. As mentioned by Members like Mr Ang Wei Neng, the threats posed by international criminal syndicates involved in illicit activities, such as drug trafficking, have by no means been eradicated. Instead, they are evolving their modus operandi and becoming more sophisticated to evade capture and prosecution. Every time an arrest is made, the syndicates quickly adapt and adjust their operations in response.

The recent experiences of other countries reinforce the dynamic and pernicious nature of this threat. Several Members, Mr Hri Kumar and Mr Vikram Nair, in particular, have cited the example of Malaysia where the Emergency Ordinance was repealed in 2011. However, in just two years, they have found it necessary to restore detention provisions in their laws to bring the worsening situation of violent crime under control.

Mr Christopher de Souza mentioned the situation in Australia where biker gangs have been responsible for violent crimes such as brazen public shootings and clashes with rival gangs. Tough anti-biker gang laws were recently passed in Queensland to address the lawlessness caused by these established criminal groups.

In Singapore, we cannot afford to merely react to the situation after the impact of a pernicious criminal threat has become fully apparent. We have an imperative to act swiftly and decisively, especially given our circumstances as

Page: 84

a small city-state. I do not think this is just an argument about Singapore's exceptionalism. It is, I think, an honest assessment of the realities that we face. That is why we need the CLTPA and the powers it affords our law enforcement agencies to deal with such syndicated criminal groups.

Mr Hri Kumar has asked about the relevance of the CLTPA in the future, given that the Ministry of Home Affairs is developing legislation to deal with organised crime, criminal syndicates. An Organised Crime Act is being considered with the view to enhance powers to deal with criminal syndicates and strengthen our ability to disrupt their activities. But I must emphasise that any organised crime legislation will serve to complement the CLTPA and it is not intended to replace the CLTPA, much like we have the Misuse of Drugs Act in the context of drug trafficking. The CLTPA will continue to be necessary and relevant in addressing serious criminal activities, especially where it is not possible to prosecute persons in Court because witnesses are fearful or unwilling to testify.

Assoc Prof Eugene Tan has asked for an articulation of the circumstances and conditions under which the CLTPA may be abolished. I think it is neither possible to do so nor, in my opinion, is it something we should attempt to do. Criminal groups re-organise and re-work themselves constantly. This is the experience of all our law enforcement agencies. And new forms of serious criminal activities evolve in a borderless world, assisted by advances in technology.

Thus far, the CLTPA is and has remained an effective measure in our context to deal with serious criminal elements. So, the circumstances warrant it; they are dynamic. And I think it would be unwise for us to set specific conditions without knowing how the situation would evolve in the future. But I will assure the Member and all Members of this House that the Government will always make a rigorous case based on a thorough assessment of all circumstances and the criminal landscape each time we seek Parliament's approval to extend the CLTPA.

Several Members have also raised the questions pertaining to the scope and application of the CLTPA. Mr Christopher de Souza has described the CLTPA as a tool that enables our law enforcement agencies to proactively deal with criminal activity that threaten the safety and security of Singaporeans. This is critical in the face of the kind of criminal activities that continue to pose a challenge to our society.

Page: 85

Assoc Prof Eugene Tan and Ms Sylvia Lim have expressed their concerns for the rights of individuals who may be detained without an open trial. And I think this is a concern and a cautionary note that all Members of this House share and would sound. But the equally valid countervailing consideration is the impact such criminal act can have on victims and the broadest society if they are committed with impunity and the perpetrators not taken to task. We must find a balance between the rights of individuals and the need to preserve public order.

I want to assure Mr Edwin Tong, and indeed all Members, that the powers under the Act are used judiciously against serious criminal activities and where it is necessary to do so as stated in the Act, in the interest of public safety, peace and good order. This is a point that MHA has made several times in the past and it is a matter of parliamentary record.

Neither should we, as Ms Sylvia Lim suggested, interpret public safety, peace and good order as merely referring to danger to life and limb. That is one important consideration. But, indeed, there are many other elements that contribute to an assessment of what constitutes a threat to public safety, peace and good order.

The Act has not been used and not meant for non-criminal matters as Assoc Prof Tan has suggested. The fundamental tenet remains that Court prosecution is the first and preferred course of action, and the Act is used in a calibrated and targeted manner only as a last resort.

These were the same considerations in the decision to use the CLTPA to deal with the members of a match-fixing syndicate in October 2013. While I am unable to go into the specifics of this case – as some Members have observed, because it is still in process – I will address some points that have been raised by Mr Hri Kumar, Mr Ang Wei Neng, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Pritam Singh in general terms.

Fundamentally, match-fixing syndicates operate no differently from those involved in drug trafficking or unlicensed moneylending. They share some of the most egregious characteristics that render them a threat to public order. Yes, some Members have said they have complex and layered structures, use technology and other means to avoid detection, and are motivated by financial gain. And the implied question is, "But, so what?"

Page: 86

They also have links to other transnational criminal syndicates. They are also known to resort to violence and other means to settle scores against those who stand in their way.

At the same time, the transnational nature of the activities does aggravate the difficulties we have in securing witnesses willing to cooperate and testify against the syndicates in our Courts. This is a fact. We cannot afford to consider match-fixing or transnational crime another country's problem.

Organised crime syndicates often collaborate and have links with syndicates in other countries and are involved in a whole plethora of businesses. If allowed to take root, this kind of criminal activity will cause a profound decay in public order in Singapore.

Ms Sylvia Lim has asked about the extent of collaboration with other jurisdictions in tackling the problem of match-fixing. This is an important point. Our agencies work together with their international counterparts with exchange of information and intelligence. If we receive a request for extradition, and this is allowed for in the law, we will extend our fullest cooperation to other countries in accordance with the law. But it does not change the fact that our agencies need to act decisively to cripple the illegal activities of such syndicates.

I want to caution against taking the view that match-fixing is simply a case of cheating or corruption with no threat to life, limb and security. On that basis, unlicensed moneylending is also simply a financial transaction between two parties. However, we are all well aware of the deeply harmful spillover effects of the scourge of loansharking and associated activities, and the threat that they pose to public safety, peace and good order.

Mr Kumar, Mr Ang and Assoc Prof Tan have also asked whether we can give a more detailed update or even an annual report on the use of the CLTPA. Let me just reiterate some of the facts that I shared in my Second Reading speech. The majority of inmates have been detained for less than four years. Long detentions of over 10 years are only used in exceptional circumstances. There is currently one detainee who has been detained for close to 11 years for being involved in drug trafficking activities.

From 2009 to 31 October 2013, close to 300 Police Supervision Orders (PSOs) were issued under the CLTPA. This includes persons who have been released from detention in prison.

Page: 87

Assoc Prof Tan has also asked about the recidivism rate of detainees. In general, the recidivism rate of detainees is lower than that of the broader prison population. It could in part due to the PSO regime that we have. However, the key point is that there is a range of provisions and, moving forward, we also intend to release relevant statistics on the detentions under the CLTPA on a more regular basis as part of the Singapore Prison Service Annual Statistics Release.

Mr Ang has also asked if it was possible for MHA to inform the public on the frequency with which the Advisory Committees had summoned and examined witnesses. Madam, the need for Advisory Committees to do so is dependent on the circumstances specific to each case. Hence, such aggregate or average information would not be very helpful. Advisory Committees comprise individuals with legal training. They work independently of MHA, as Mr Edwin Tong has stated. They understand the general rules and the need for adequate evidence. And I assure Members that we give the Committees our full support so that they can do their work.

Finally, Members have also mentioned the need for strong safeguards under the CLTPA. I fully agree with all who have said so. The powers under the Act are wide-ranging and, therefore, we need strong safeguards. I have elaborated on these safeguards earlier, but I think it bears repeating. First, it is an important fundamental safeguard that the Government must seek Parliament's endorsement to extend the CLTPA every five years. It provides for periodic parliamentary scrutiny and ensures that the CLTPA continues to be relevant in the present operating environment. It is also an opportunity for us to remind ourselves that we do not operate in a benign environment, and we must remain vigilant. Second, the assessment of each case is deliberate, with comprehensive checks and balances with several independent parties and communities involved at each stage. Each case is reviewed thoroughly before an order is issued. The order is for a duration of up to one year in the first instance.

Mr Edwin Tong asked how the Minister can be reasonably satisfied that criminal prosecution is not possible. First, the law enforcement agencies themselves know that they need to abide by the safeguards and they investigate each case thoroughly, no different from any other case that they investigate. Specifically, each proposal from the enforcement agencies, together with the evidence that has been gathered, is first scrutinised by senior officials in MHA. The Attorney-General's consent, in his capacity as the Public Prosecutor, is also required for the issuance of orders by the Minister for Home Affairs. There have also been instances where Ministry officials or the Attorney-General has

Page: 88

disagreed with the recommendations for detention by the law enforcement agency. Third, the orders are reviewed by Criminal Law Hearing Committees which comprise distinguished members from the community and the legal profession, including former High Court and District Court Judges. Mr Nair's proposal to have at least one former Judge chair each committee is a good one, and we would take this into consideration when looking at how we can improve the system.

The review process is thorough and rigorous. Committee members may examine detainees, investigating officers and witnesses. They have untrammelled access. Detainees are informed of the case against them and have an opportunity to present their case to the Committee or through their legal counsel. On this point, we also note Mr Tong's suggestion for assigned counsel for persons dealt with under the CLTPA. I understand that the Ministry of Law has been generally looking at enhancing criminal legal aid and I think it will be able to announce its position on this soon. Having scrutinised the evidence and the facts of the case, the Committee will submit its recommendations on whether to cancel, vary or confirm the orders.

Members have asked for the number of instances when the final recommendation was in variance with the original Detention Order. This question poses an interesting dilemma. If there were many instances, the conclusion would be that the system is not working. If there were no instances, a similar conclusion would also be drawn. So, the answer really is one that cannot really satisfy the level of curiosity that some Members have expressed. But I would say this. There have been a number of instances where the initial Detention Orders were cancelled and Police Supervision Orders subsequently issued in their place in view of the Committee's recommendations. Each Detention Order is only valid for up to 12 months, and each case is then reviewed annually by a Criminal Law Review Committee. Members of this review committee are different from those of the initial hearing committee. Review committee will similarly submit its recommendations to the President on whether to extend or vary the Detention Order. The President then acts on the advice of the Cabinet. Each extension of the Detention Order is for a period of up to 12 months.

Mr Ang asked how the length of detention is determined. In making its recommendation, the Criminal Law Review Committee considers a number of factors, including the nature and gravity of the offences committed, the detainees' criminal antecedents, conduct and response to prison's rehabilitation programmes and the likelihood of reoffending and continuing to pose a threat to safety and security. The assessment is holistic, specific to the

Page: 89

circumstances of each case and each individual, and the various factors need not carry equal weight; not just any single factor outweighs the others. Yet another independent Advisory Committee is the Criminal Law Review Board which reviews all cases of detention beyond 10 years. The Board comprises members who are different from the Review Committee and the Hearing Committee, and this process ensures that cases where persons have been detained beyond 10 years are scrutinised by a separate committee and that they have not been detained longer than necessary.

Ms Sylvia Lim suggested that judicial review cover the merits of detention as well. That has not been the intent of this legislation from its very outset. Parliament has conferred on the Executive the power to issue such Detention Orders and the Judiciary's role is limited to the review of the procedural integrity and rationality of the processes. That is also why we come back to Parliament every five years because of the temporary nature to account to Parliament, for Parliament to vest the authority. Renew the authority that is assigned, to be exact.

She also drew comparisons with the Malaysian system of detention. The detention provisions within the Prevention of Crime Act in Malaysia have to be renewed by Parliament every five years. The members of the Prevention of Crime Board are appointed by the Yang Di Pertuan Agong for a term not exceeding two years. The Yang Di Pertuan Agong acts in this instance on the advice of the Cabinet. If you contrast this with the Singapore system, Parliament explicitly vests the authority for detention under the CLTPA with the Executive who is then clearly accountable to Parliament for the use of the Act. She has compared this with what is the accountability for a committee appointed for two years in terms of the exercise of powers accorded to it under the Prevention of Crime Act. At the end of the day, it is the system that needs robust safeguards, checks and balances and people of integrity who are involved in ensuring that we are doing the right thing in the right way.

Assoc Prof Tan proposed removing the provisions on essential services in Part III of the CLPTA and incorporating them under other legislations such as those dealing with employment or trade unions. Some clarifications are in order and I agree with the Member that this may not be the most elegant legislative solution. But to clarify, the detention powers under the CLTPA apply judiciously and only in situation, which is quite clear, like the threat to public order. In practice, these powers have not been used for strikes and lock-outs. Second, the provisions on illegal strikes and lock-outs in essential services, unlike those on detention, those who commit an offence under this section, are dealt with through Court prosecution, as was the case with the SMRT strike recently. The

Page: 90

penalties are also clearly spelt out, which are a fine – maximum of $2,000 – and imprisonment of up to 12 months.

The provisions on illegal strikes and lock-outs sit independently from those on detention. Third, these provisions on strikes and lock-outs in the CLTPA are specific to essential services. They prohibit strikes and lock-outs in three sectors: gas, water and electricity. As for the other essential services such as public transport and air transport, broadcasting and banking, which are listed in the First Schedule of the CLTPA, workmen or employers who wish to take part in a strike or initiate a lock-out must give a 14-day notice period. This notice period is required to ensure minimal or no disruption to services which are necessary for the proper functioning of critical operations in Singapore. These are not provided for in other legislation, such as the Trade Unions Act and the Trade Disputes Act. And I believe that these provisions are still relevant and appropriately placed within this Act at this juncture. Legislation will constantly be reviewed and, if there is an opportunity that is suitable, we will consider the Member's point.

Madam, I want to conclude by thanking Members who have spoken for voicing their support for the extension of the CLTPA. I know that this is a difficult decision. Since its inception, the CLTPA has been essential in allowing our law enforcement agencies to act decisively against evolving criminal threats and they are constantly evolving their modes of operation and manifest themselves in different forms. What remains common across all of these threats, whether it is secret society activities, drug trafficking or other types of criminal syndicates and criminal rogues, the consequential impact on public safety, peace and good order is beyond question. The experiences of other countries underscore the need for the CLTPA. It provides us with appropriate powers which can be used in specific circumstances. In practice, the Act is applied judiciously to a targeted group of persons associated to the activities of a criminal nature and where it is in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. Court prosecution is and will continue to be the norm. Powers under the Act will be used as a last resort. This is why there has to be an elaborate system of strong safeguards and multiple checks and balances to ensure that the Act is used judiciously and the powers not abused in application. I have elaborated at length on this because it is important that Members of this House appreciate that we do not take these powers lightly.

Madam, ultimately, the essence of today's debate is really about ensuring safety and security of Singapore for present and future generations. The CLTPA is an integral part of our efforts to do so. I hope that you will not take it for

Page: 91

granted.

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.

Madam, first on the level of international cooperation between match-fixing cases: it will be fair to say that all enforcement agencies in the relevant jurisdictions are alive to the challenge and they are working together. We have, for example, in Singapore, the CID and the CPIB which have formed a special investigation unit that is working closely with their counterparts in Interpol and so on, in order to ensure that the collaboration is as deep and extensive as possible.

Page: 92

As the Member would appreciate, there are legal constraints to how much you can do cross borders. Extradition treaties are one aspect of it. I think this is something that will continue to have to be worked on, but I think the problem is well recognised. Its transnational nature necessitates this kind of close collaboration across enforcement agencies. I want to re-state the assurance I gave that we fully cooperate with all international bodies on these sorts of crimes, and where there is a request for extradition or any other form of cooperation, we will do so as provided for under the laws that we have.

I am not sure if Mr Vikram Nair can clarify but I heard him saying, in terms of Judges, we are not contemplating asking sitting Judges. We are talking about Judges who may have retired but who have that body of knowledge and the experience and the judgment to be involved in the rigorous process of review.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Minister, I would just like to clarify whether with regards to the four match fixers and their detention under the Act, was there any difficulty working with international counterparts in bringing sufficient evidence forward for these individuals to be charged in open Court, as opposed to being tried under the CLTPA?

Madam, again I have to state that I am unable to go into details because the matter is in progress. But I will say that the fact we have invoked provisions under the CLTPA should itself offer the Member some understanding of the circumstances.