20130623.223432_spf_entertainment

Adequate victim assistance and protection serve the interest both of the victim and of prosecution of the offenders. From a law enforcement perspective, poor victim assistance and protection may discourage victims from seeking assistance from law enforcement officials for fear of mistreatment, deportation or potential risks to their personal safety.”
– UNODC, Model Law on Trafficking in Persons, p.44

By Stop Trafficking SG
At first glance, the Prevention of Human Trafficking Bill currently being debated in Parliament may appear to finally end Singapore’s inability to deal with trafficking effectively. On closer inspection however there are some glaring oversights and a disproportionate focus on enforcement, while victim support is woefully understated.
Of the 19-page long Bill introduced by MP Christopher de Souza in October, six full pages were dedicated to a section on “Enforcement” while only two pages were dedicated to “Victim Protection and Assistance”. In percentage terms the “Enforcement” section takes up 30% of the Bill, while the “Victim Protection and Assistance” section takes up only 10% of the bill.
This disparity is something that we are particularly concerned about, and what this article will go on to examine.
StopTraffickingSg is a campaign initiated by AWARE, HOME, MARUAH, Project X, the Singapore Committee for UN Women, and TWC2. It advocates the inclusion of victims’ rights in the proposed Bill.
Since the release of the draft, the six organizations have collectively agreed on a set of amendments that MP Christopher de Souza should take into serious consideration. Amongst these urgent recommendations, one of which calls for the removal of Part 3 of the Bill—the section on Enforcement, as the current provisions under the Criminal Procedures Code of Singapore would suffice.
The United Nations Office for Drugs and Crime (UNODC) has put together a model law for States to take into consideration when drafting national laws against human trafficking. In the model law, great emphasis is given to victim protection and assistance and how to right the wrongs done to them by traffickers; there is not a section on enforcement.
It states that “it is of particular importance that any legislation on trafficking in persons be in line with a State’s constitutional principles, the basic concepts of its legal system, its existing legal structure and enforcement arrangements, and that definitions used in such legislation on trafficking in persons be consistent with similar definitions used in other laws.” (emphasis added)
Much of the current section on enforcement by de Souza is based on the Criminal Procedures Code (CPC), and the Police Force Act. For example, Section 9 on “Power to arrest without warrant” is based on Article 64 of the CPC; Sections 10 and 11 on “Arrest how made” and “No unnecessary restraint” are based on Articles 75 and 76 of the CPC; and Section 15 on “Enforcement officers to be armed” is based on Article 22 of the Police Force Act. This list is not exhaustive. As such, it is not clear as to why there is a need for an enforcement section.
There are two things that are particularly worrying about Part 3 of the Bill.
Firstly, de Souza’s Bill extends the current powers granted to police officers under the CPC to non-police officers. In Section 7 of the Bill, he extends traditional police powers such as the authority to arrest without warrant, forcibly gain entry into premises, and to be armed to:

  • “public officers appointed as employment inspectors under section 3(2) of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act”;
  • “public officers appointed as inspectors under section 15F(1) of the Human Organ Transplant Act”; and
  • unnamed “public officers appointed by the Minister as enforcement officers for the purposes of this Act”.

Furthermore, Article 8(3) of the draft Bill enables all these officers to “break open any outer or inner door or window leading to the premises; forcibly enter the premises; or remove by force any obstruction to such entry”.
This article finds its precedent in Article 77(4) of the CPC. However, under the CPC, only “a police officer with authority to arrest or a person acting under an arrest warrant” (emphasis added) has the power to forcibly gain entry to premises. By removing this line, the Bill not only gives non-police officers extraordinary new powers, but it also effectively removes the mechanism that ensures accountability.
Secondly, the undue emphasis of enforcement over victim protection reveals a worrying approach that this Bill is taking.
Victim protection is of utmost importance because it encourages and empowers victims to come forward to report crimes against them. Without victims to report, testify and stand witness against their perpetrators, this Bill will not be effective at all.
Without legal guarantees to work while on trial, to not be prosecuted for crimes they commit under duress, and to be provided basic care and protection such as medical treatment and legal aid, victims will most likely not come forward.
Not only is this part of the Bill severely lacking, there is also an implicit promotion of raids to presumably seek out or “rescue” victims of trafficking. This deduction was also made because the Inter-Agency Taskforce on Trafficking in Persons has championed raids of sex spaces as a strategy to combat trafficking. A critique of this position and the harmful implications of it has been delineated by Project X.
Of particular concern and something worth reiterating is how violent raids by nature are. Officers come in a pack, armed with batons, tasers, and sticks against a group of people who will be unarmed. They surround the premises so that people are trapped, breaking doors and shouting—sometimes even shouting vulgarities.
Furthermore, such raids result in the arrest, detention, and deportation of most, if not everyone, in the premises. If police raids becomes an anti-trafficking strategy and not just a (horrible) anti-vice strategy, it will no doubt result in secondary traumatisation and even secondary victimisation of people who have been trafficked.
In addition, it is hard to imagine such raids occurring in a foreign worker dormitory or in the house of an employer of a domestic worker. As such, there seems to be a reduction of human trafficking to merely sex trafficking and the resulting “over-sexualizing” of the discourse on trafficking.
In India, organized groups of sex workers have educated and empowered sex workers to identify trafficked persons in brothels and to provide them with resources for help. This is something we should learn from for anti-trafficking work in all industries. It involves outreach and empowering workers with knowledge about their rights and responsibilities, and where to seek resources for help.
We should be wary of “saviour” mentality as this further reduces the agency of victim-survivors—people who already have had their agency robbed from them.
As such, we call from the removal of Part 3 of the draft Bill, and for enforcement officers to adhere strictly to the provisions under the Criminal Procedures Code and related existing statutes.
Finally, this article merely addresses one part of our critique of the Bill. This should not be taken as a standalone critique. The effectiveness of the Bill can only be enhanced if all our interdependent recommendations are taken into consideration.
This article was first published at stoptraffickingsg.wordpress.com

Subscribe
Notify of
1 Comment
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

去年2月曾飘出异味 警在公寓单位寻获八旬老妇遗体

疑已离逝近两年,警方在加东地区安珀路(Amber Road)的一座公寓单位内,发现一名八旬老妇与宠物犬的遗体。 据英语媒体《海峡时报》报导,这名老妇Lily Loh相信是独居,一名受访居民反映鲜少有访客探望她。居民从去年1月从海外返国后,就没有再见到老妇一面。 他指去年2月份时,老妇单位中曾飘出异味;不过数周后他出远门回到来,就没闻到异味了。 老妇单位的邮箱也堆积信件。居民指尽管单位有接到老妇不见踪影的反映,不过似乎未有采取行动。 直至今年10月,蒙巴登区议员林谋泉获悉该名老妇失踪的消息,于是通知警方。本月初警员曾登门造访,但是迟至本周一(23日),才连同公寓管理员破门而入,才发现倒卧家中的老妇。初步调查暂未发现可疑犯罪行为,但警方仍在持续侦办。

Mulitple fires break out in Malé

Chaos erupted in Malé in the early hours of Friday (20 March) when fires broke out in at least three locations across the Maldives’ capital. The largest blaze was in a warehouse at Maafannu Orchid Villa. No injuries were reported.

本地留英生遭袭击事件 15岁男落网将被控上庭

我国学生乔诺登·莫(Jonathan Mok译音)在伦敦遭攻击事件在社交媒体上曝光后,一名15岁男子被警察以涉嫌袭击新加坡学生之罪逮捕。 伦敦警方周末(7月18日)在回应《亚洲新闻台》询问时指出,15岁少年被指控在牛津街,涉嫌与“种族暴力袭击”相关的“无意伤害或造成他人身体严重受伤”。 因被告未成年,所以并没有公布其姓名,但是他将于8月10日到海布里裁判法院(Highbury Magistrates Court)聆审。 警方补充,于3月4日被逮捕的16岁少年已经被释放,并没有对他采取进一步行动。他和被告因涉嫌此案,于3月被警方逮捕,而警方尚在追查另外两名嫌犯。 现年23岁的伦敦大学学院生,乔诺登·莫是于2月24日晚上9时15分,在伦敦牛津街因冠状病毒疫情和其肤色,被一群青少年袭击。而青少年们在警方抵达之前,就已经逃之夭夭。 乔诺登随后在脸书上公布有关事件,并附上他的受伤照片。“我感到非常生气……作为亚洲人而成为他人目标。” 伦敦警方指出,他们于当天晚上9时15分接获投报,并于3月份的新闻发布会上指出,受害者遭拳打脚踢,且脸部遭严重伤害。

我国一商人在柔遭绑架 马警方逮捕七嫌犯

我国一名50岁蔬菜商人,在振林山遭绑架,家属缴交33万新元赎金,才被绑匪释放。 根据马国媒体报导,上述事件是在今年1月27日发生。当地警方展开调查,目前已逮捕了七名涉案嫌犯。 柔佛总警长莫哈末卡里尔,向媒体证实此事,不过拒绝透露更多详情,仅表示会在明日下午,在柔佛警察总部向媒体公布最新进展。 据了解,绑匪索讨100万令吉(33万新元)赎金,该名商人家属因担忧亲人安危只得就范,在商人被绑五天后交赎金,商人则在隔日被释放。 商人获释后,柔佛警方则根据线索追查贼踪,并联合武吉阿曼警察总部的特别部队,分别在2月1日及2日,逮捕共七名嫌犯归案,同时起获部份赎金及武器。 此案将援引马国《1961年绑架法令》第3条文,以及《1960年危险武器法令》调查。