Connect with us

Legal

You have the right to remain silent … Or do you? Lawyer M Ravi explains how silence may backfire during police interrogations in Singapore

Published

5 years ago

on

“You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided for you …”

Singaporeans familiar with films or television drama series originating from the United States are bound to have come across scenes in which a police officer reads the suspect their “Miranda rights” and the “Miranda warning” during arrest.
The “Miranda rights” and the “Miranda warning” were enacted by the 1966 U.S. Supreme Court via its decision in Miranda v Arizona. Under the U.S. Fifth Amendment, a criminal suspect has the right to avoid self-incrimination during police interrogation.
However, what Singaporeans might not necessarily know is that such a right to remain silent during police interrogation may not easily be invoked here, and may in fact be detrimental to a suspect when applied, said Singaporean human rights lawyer M Ravi.
In a video titled “The Erosion of Rights in Singapore” published on Wed (24 Jul) on his RAVIsion YouTube channel, M Ravi recounted a conversation he had with a friend of his, who told him that that he will exercise his right to silence during police questioning until he sees a lawyer and obtains legal advice.
“His jaw dropped to the floor when I told him that the right of silence was abolished by the government in 1976,” said M Ravi, adding that “if he did not answer the questions [posed] by the police, his silence will be adversely interpreted against him in a court of law”.
“Your immediate access to a lawyer upon arrest has also been curtailed in favour of granting the police priority in its investigation,” he stressed.
While the Singapore Constitution guarantees citizens access to counsel, the courts have “repeatedly decided that this access to counsel can be given within a ‘reasonable’ time period to be determined by the police”, noted M Ravi.
Back in 2014,  the court upheld a 20 year-old Court of Appeal decision that allows for accused persons to be denied access to a lawyer for up to two weeks or more after their arrest and detention.
In his judgement for a case that M Ravi was representing, Justice Choo considered the issue of what amounts to a “reasonable time” between an individual’s arrest and his freedom to contact a lawyer.
Referencing a 1973 High Court decision, Justice Choo observed that it is arguable that the Court’s reference to “reasonable time” did “not mean that the police ought to be afforded a ‘reasonable time’ for investigations, as the Court of Appeal in Jasbir Singh thought… but rather intended no more than to acknowledge that, while an arrested person should be entitled to consult counsel immediately after arrest, there has to be a ‘reasonable time’ for any necessary or unavoidable delay occasioned by practical or administrative concerns, eg, having to transport the arrested person to the place of remand or having to contact the counsel of the arrested person’s choice.”
“In other words, the police can detain you for an extended period without you being advised by a lawyer as long as it is deemed a reasonable period, although the police may have to explain their reasons in court if asked to do so,” he warned.
M Ravi highlighted that should someone undergoing police investigations signs a statement to the police, the police is not required by law to provide them with a copy of said statement.
However, citing the example of social worker and civil rights activist Jolovan Wham’s case, he added that someone who refuses to sign the statement for the above reason, they could be charged for not signing the statement.

Right to silence a “constitutional” one: M Ravi
M Ravi also argued that the removal of the right of silence during police interrogations is a reflection of the “erosion of rights in Singapore” referred to in the title of his video.
“Do you know [that] when we were ruled by the British, we had greater protection of our rights compared to now? … In Singapore in the last 50 years, we have seen certain rights either being abolished or curtailed to the point we no longer know what exactly those rights are, even if they still exist,” he said.
Singapore’s criminal justice system, he said, is “very much based on a crime control model as opposed to the due process fair model” where “the repression of crime and removing of legal technicalities that ‘handcuff’ the police” are prioritised over “the fundamental due process of law and giving effect to our constitutional rights”.
While facilitating the efforts of authorities in combating crime is important, he questioned if the curtailment of constitutional and basic rights of individuals is justified in light of such repression.
Restoring the right to silence during police interrogations in Singapore, is “in fact, a crucial part of the legal process, and it is a constitutional right to protect us from incriminating ourselves during police interrogation or interviews”, M Ravi further argued.
“Few Singaporeans are even aware that they have this right or how to make use of this right. This is especially important, as you can be convicted on your statement alone. I repeat, you can be convicted on your confession alone,” he warned.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Comments

Malaysian police seek Interpol’s aid in locating Jocelyn Chia, netizens criticise action as unnecessary

The Royal Malaysia Police plan to seek Interpol’s assistance in locating comedian Jocelyn Chia, according to Bernama.

However, many Malaysian netizens argue that pursuing action against Chia is unnecessary, as it would only give her the attention she desires.

Chia defended her controversial MH370 joke in a CNN interview, explaining that the context was lost when a clip of the routine circulated on social media.

She clarified that the joke was based on the friendly rivalry between Singapore and Malaysia and expressed no ill feelings toward Malaysia.

Published

1 year ago

on

13 June 2023

By

MALAYSIA —  The Royal Malaysia Police are planning to seek the support of Interpol, the International Criminal Police Organization to track down comedian Jocelyn Chia, Malaysian state news agency Bernama reported.

Inspector-General of Police Acryl Sani Abdullah Sani, as quoted by Bernama, revealed that an official application will be submitted to Interpol on Wednesday (14 June).

The purpose is to conduct further investigations under Section 504/505(c) of the Penal Code and Section 233 of the Communications and Multimedia Act 1998.

The police’s objective is to obtain both the “full identity” and the current whereabouts of Jocelyn Chia.

Additionally, they have applied to the Malaysian Multimedia Communications Commission (MCMC) for user profiling to aid in the investigation of the comedian’s social media accounts.

“We (police) have also transcribed the suspect’s speech from the video clip,” he said.

Malaysian netizens said action against Jocelyn Chia is unnecessary

However, a significant number of Malaysian netizens have expressed their opinion that taking action against Jocelyn Chia is unnecessary.

They believe that such actions would only serve to give her the attention she seeks, and they argue that allocating resources and taxpayer money toward addressing an individual like Chia would be a waste.

S Arutchelvan, the deputy chairperson of the Malaysian Socialist Party, expressed the opinion that it is unnecessary to waste time on pursuing Jocelyn Chia.

He believes that it is more important to focus on locating Jho Low, referring to the prominent figure involved in the 1MDB scandal, and police should prioritize addressing serious matters rather than comedic issues.

Chia’s insensitivity has drawn heavy criticism from both Malaysians and Singaporeans

Chia, in her controversial performance, portrayed Malaysia as an ex trying to reconnect with Singapore after the nations’ separation in 1965.

In a particularly distasteful jest, she associated Malaysia’s attempt to ‘visit’ Singapore with the tragic MH370 incident.

Her remarks were met with disapproval by the audience, but she unapologetically responded, “What? Malaysian Airlines going missing is not funny, huh? Some jokes don’t land. This joke kills in Singapore.”

Chia’s insensitivity has drawn heavy criticism from both Malaysians and Singaporeans, many of whom regard her comments as a stark reminder of the ongoing pain of the MH370 tragedy for victims and their families.

Chia defended her joke

Chia mentioned that Malaysian audience members often approach her after shows to express their enjoyment, indicating that they “did not take offense” to her performance.

Singapore High Commissioner distancing Jocelyn Chia as “no longer Singaporean”

Meanwhile, Singapore Foreign Minister Vivian Balakrishnan and the Republic’s High Commissioner to Malaysia, Mr Vanu Gopala Menon, also expressed their disapproval of Chia’s comments, emphasizing that she does not represent the views of Singaporeans.

Memon posted on social media to sincerely apologise to all Malaysians for Chia’s hurtful remarks.

“The Singapore Government does not condone words or actions that cause harm or hurt to others and Chia, who is no longer Singaporean, does not in any way reflect our views.”

He reiterated that as closest neighbour, Singapore and Malaysia enjoy a strong and multi-faceted relationship, with deep and cross-cutting ties, “We also have unique historical and close people-to-people ties. ”

“Comments such as those made by Chia are unhelpful and undermine the close trust and friendship that both our countries and peoples enjoy,” Menon added.

Continue Reading

Arts & Culture

Malaysian Home Ministry withdraws appeal against High Court’s 2021 ruling on ‘Allah’ in Christian publication

Malaysia’s Home Ministry has withdrawn its appeal against a High Court ruling that overturned the ban on using the word “Allah” in Christian publications. Home Minister Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail cited ‘contradictions’ between an administrative order and a 1986 Cabinet decision.

Despite this, Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim stated that restrictions remain for non-Muslims in other states, a claim contested by Sarawak state assemblyman Baru Bian

Published

1 year ago

on

17 May 2023

By

MALAYSIA — The Home Ministry of Malaysia has withdrawn its appeal against the High Court’s decision in March 2021, which overturned the government’s ban on the use of the word “Allah” in Christian publications throughout the country.

Datuk Seri Saifuddin Nasution Ismail, the current Home Minister under Anwar’s administration, explained that his Ministry made the decision due to “contradiction found between a Home Ministry administrative order and a Cabinet decision made in 1986″.

The court record shows that The Attorney-General’s Chambers, representing the Home Ministry, notified the Court of Appeal that they would not pursue the appeal.

According to Malaysia English media outlet The Star, the Home Minister clarified that the court’s decision was based on an administrative approach and not a theological standpoint, as the court is not deemed appropriate to decide matters related to religion specifically.

“This is because the function of the Court itself is not appropriate to decide matters related to religion specifically,” he explained the matter to the reporters on Tuesday (16 May).

In Malaysia, the legal system consists of both civil courts and Shariah courts, the latter being responsible for matters concerning Islamic law.

The Home Minister said in the 10 March 2021’s judgement, it is clear that the Judge made a decision “based on an administrative approach” and it was found to be consistent with the decision of the Federal Court in the case of the Titular Roman Catholic Archbishop of Kuala Lumpur vs the Home Affairs Minister in 2014.

“Regarding this, the Government’s decision not to proceed with the appeal is made on a case-by-case basis; without affecting the facts of each case that is currently in court,” he added.

Saifuddin added that the government intends to review and update a comprehensive directive on the use of words like “Allah” to align with the interests of the multi-racial and multi-religious community in Malaysia.

Malaysian PM acknowledges rights of Christians in Sarawak

In the meantime, when responding to the Home Ministry’s decision to withdraw its appeal in the case, Malaysia Prime Minister Datuk Seri Anwar Ibrahim acknowledged that Christians in Sarawak can use the word “Allah,” but restrictions remain for non-Muslims in other states.

“The court had ruled (in favour of Sarawak) and we must understand that it is Sarawak’s prerogative,” he said in an event on Tuesday.

However, Baru Bian, a lawyer and a state assemblyman in Sarawak challenged the Prime Minister’s statement, emphasizing that the High Court’s ruling applies to the entire country and not just Sarawak.

“The judgment of the High Court applies throughout the whole of Malaysia,” he reiterated.

One of the high-profile cases in Malaysia

On May 11, 2008, Malaysia’s Home Ministry seized eight educational CDs and books from Jill Ireland Bill, a Sarawak Christian of the Melanau tribe, at an airport in Sepang.

The CDs containing titles including ‘Cara Menggunakan Kunci Kerajaan Allah’, ‘Cara Hidup Dalam Kerajaan Allah’, and ‘Ibadah Yang Benar Dalam Kerajaan Allah’, which Jill brought back from Indonesia.

In August 2008, Jill Ireland filed a lawsuit against the Home Minister and the Malaysian government, challenging their decision to confiscate the materials.

This legal battle spanned over a decade and focused on Jill Ireland’s constitutional rights to freely practice her religion and seek recognition for those rights.

A significant breakthrough came on 10 March 2021, when the Malaysian High Court delivered a landmark ruling in favour of Jill Ireland.

The court granted her the right to use the word “Allah” in her religious education, overturning a 1986 directive by the Home Ministry that prohibited its use in Christian publications.

During the ruling, Judge Datuk Nor Bee stated that the four Arabic words, including “Allah,” could be used by Christians in their publications, provided it is clearly indicated as “For Christians Only” on the front page.

The judge deemed the 1986 directive “illegal and unlawful,” as it lacked justification on the grounds of public order or potential confusion.

Furthermore, the judge pointed out that the use of the word “Allah” in Bahasa Malaysia by the Christian communities of Sabah and Sarawak since 1629 had not caused any significant problems leading to public disorder over the centuries.

Sabah church drops its 16-year-long legal challenge 

While the High Court made landmark decision for Sarawak’s Jill Ireland case, Malay Mail reported on Wednesday (17 May) that a Sabah church, Sidang Injil Borneo’s (SIB), has chosen to end its 16-year-long legal challenge against the Malaysian government’s 1986 ban on the use of the word “Allah” in Christian publications.

SIB’s case was linked to the Home Ministry’s 2007 decision to seize and withhold the release of the church’s Christian educational materials containing the word “Allah.”

On 15 August 2007, the customs department seized three boxes of educational materials belonging to SIB at the Low-Cost Carrier Terminal (LCCT) airport in Sepang.

Despite SIB’s explanation that the materials were intended for educational purposes within the church and not for sale, the Home Ministry initially refused to return them, citing a directive from 19 May 1986.

However, in January 2008, the Home Ministry returned the publications to SIB with the condition that they could only be distributed if the front page was stamped with the symbol of the “cross” and labelled as a Christian publication.

Despite this, SIB decided to continue pursuing the case, which involved constitutional rights such as freedom of religion, equality before the law, and protection against religious discrimination.

The legal process surrounding the case has been ongoing since 2008 and continues to the present day.

Continue Reading

Trending