By Teo Soh Lung, retired lawyer

During the discussion of the 7 hours police interview marathon of Ms Han Hui Hui, someone asked a very important question. If not 7 hours, then how long should the police interview be?

My answer is “Not more than one hour.”
I say this because an investigation into a case of unlawful assembly (Ms Han was said to be investigated for this offence) is not a complicated case.
unlawful assembly
The police letter to people who were asked to assist in their investigation.
It is not one about a murder committed in the middle of the night and the murderer has disappeared without a trace.
In Ms Han’s case the alleged offence took place at our Speakers’ Corner. Here we have to go on the premise that as long as the National Parks (NParks) is notified, the assembly is lawful. The only unlawful assembly I can think of is when those who gathered carried weapons in order to create chaos in the park.
Other than that, we have to start the investigation on the footing that Ms Han and her audience, as long as they had notified NParks and here I am told they had done so, were lawfully gathered at Hong Lim.
So how should the police have proceeded from there? I heard that the police were thinking that the permit to use the park was revoked. Well, whether it was revoked or not, the best witness should be NParks officers, not Ms Han. There should be a document in writing as oral revocation tends to be problematic since NParks is a government department. I am sure those running NParks know that its authority come from someone who will not be stationed at the park. Who represents the department and who has the authority to revoke such a permit would definitely be disputed if there was nothing in writing from a person authorised to issue such revocations. And if at all the police needs to put this issue to Ms Han, her answer would surely be a yes or no. There is nothing to elaborate.
Before Ms Han is called for the interview, I am sure the police would have done all the necessary preliminary investigations and obtained statements from their own force – plain clothes police officers as well as those in uniform who were present at the park on the day in question. They would have access to a great amount of video footages and would have run through them efficiently. They would have gone through the rules and regulations governing the use of the park.
After all, the police officers were on the scene and recorded the whole event from the start till the end, what else can the police know more from Ms Han? They already have on record and the accounts of their police officers.
police at hong lim park
Plain clothes policemen at Hong Lim Park from start till end of the CPF protest event.
So if you ask me for my view, I would say one hour is more than sufficient. Anything more than that would be fishing and harassment of a witness.
In passing, I would like to comment on the power of the police.
During the days of our colonial master and until 1984, section 68(2) of the Criminal Procedure code authorised the police to detain a suspect for 24 hours. In 1984, an amendment to this law increased this duration to 48 hours.
Despite this extended period, I noticed that public prosecutors frequently sought further remand of accused persons in court. The presiding magistrate tend to lean in favour of such requests and remand whether it be in a mental institution or in the police station were granted without hesitation.
Today we have computers and not manual typewriters to record statements. Tape recorders or even close circuit surveillance system could be used to record the interview.  Surely the speed of recording has increased tremendously and 48 hours can now revert to 24 hours again.
Having myself been detained for 48 hours and more and being subjected to harsh interrogation, I strongly oppose this practice of the police to detain a suspect for an inordinate period of time. Being subjected to interrogation in harsh and unfamiliar environment is not an invitation to tea. Forty-eight hours is a very long time and many involuntary confessions can result.
The present law does not require video-taping of police interrogations and abuse can, though I am not saying that it happens, take place. I hope the attorney general will look into a revision of this unjust law. While there is a need to protect the public against crimes, there is also a need to protect suspects of crimes for the suspect remains innocent until conviction in open court. The suspect’s human rights too need protection.
Subscribe
Notify of
5 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

M’sia media says SG rejected request to build HSR stop at KLIA cause SG sees move as threat

It was reported yesterday that a Malaysian media, The Malaysian Insight, has…

习惯居家工作模式?调查称59巴仙人士不太愿意返工作场所

阻断措施间接改变国人生活习惯,从以往庸庸碌碌赶着去上班,一瞬间许多人只能居家上班。一开始会显得相当不适应居家工作的模式,嚷着要回去上班;但两个月的居家上班日子,居然也日渐习惯。有调查称,现在高达59巴仙国人,竟不太愿意回到工作场所! 阻断措施“解封”逐步放宽,已有部分国人能回到工作场所上班。管理公司Qualtrics,就邀请511名新加坡人,进行了“复工民意调查”。了解他们对当前重返工作场所信心如何。 结果显示,66巴仙的国人希望能在7月之前返回工作场所;也有45巴仙认为最好疫苗出世,重返职场才最放心。 另59巴仙的人表示,他们不愿意回到自己的工作场所;62巴仙的人则等待政府批准。 另一方面,调查也发现,员工希望雇主能够在回去上班前采取预防措施。69巴仙的人希望所有员工都必须戴口罩;68巴仙的人则希望能够在办公室内准备手部消毒和清洁用品;56巴仙的人希望能够加强社交距离;53巴仙的人则认为应该进行温度检测;52巴仙的人希望能够让出差的员工在家中隔离14天。 一旦复工,员工认为雇主应该采取预防措施让他们感觉到安全。约95巴仙的人认为,要求员工戴口罩对他们很重要;93巴仙的人则认为,希望能够在他们感到不安全时,可以进行远程工作;93巴仙的人则说,限制亲自参加工作会议的人数对他们很重要;92巴仙的人认为在工作场所实施社交距离很重要。90巴仙的人认为任何人在进入大楼前需每日进行体温检测。 询及日常生活的影响,45巴仙的受访者认为永远都不会恢复正常;逾一半的受访者则认为去健身房使他们感到不安全,而64巴仙的受访者认为对参加团队运动而感到不安;而58巴仙的人表示如果去参加宗教仪式会感到不安心。 将近七成的受访者认为如今参加现场的体育赛事和音乐会而感到不安,其中约39巴仙的受访者表示,至少要等到2021年开始,他们才愿意参加体育比赛; 43%的受访者表示,至少要到2021年1月,他们才会参加现场音乐会。 约53%的受访者对去餐厅感到不舒服,而34巴仙人士也对亲自去购物感到不安。 针对结果显示,其实大部分消费者仍然对公共活动感到相当不安全,这也意味着即使所有商业活动即将开放,也可能不会让消费者即时回归。 Qualtrics指出结果能够协助商业活动或企业了解消费者对现况的信心,再采取行动,对症下药。

Extension of Stay-Home Notices for Work Permit and S Pass Holders in construction sector till 18 May

Ministry of Manpower (MOM) has announced that the current mandatory stay-home notices…