The price of liberty is eternal vigilance

This power to request the surrender of travel documents is granted to a wide range of officers as long as they are in a “law enforcement agency”. A “law enforcement agency” is defined under section 2 of the CPC as “any authority or person charged with the duty of investigating offences or charging offenders under any written law”.

I don’t know if officers of the Manpower Ministry, Inland Revenue, Environment Ministry, Registry of Businesses and other government bodies exercise this power. But police officers investigating offences allegedly committed by activists routinely require the surrender of their passports when they are subjected to investigation.

In March 2020, lawyer M Ravi and Terry Xu, the editor in chief of The Online Citizen were investigated for contempt of court over some articles published in the now shut down alternative media.

The police requested the surrender of their passports. Ravi complied. For Terry Xu, he had already surrendered his passport a year earlier over another matter.

In May this year (2022), M Ravi applied to the police for the return of his passport as he had intended to travel to various countries for work. It was rejected. Ravi then applied to the District Judge under section 113 of the CPC for the return of his passport.

Before the judge, the public prosecutor argued strenuously that Ravi was a high flight risk and that because of his mental illness and lack of cooperation, investigations for the contempt of court case could not be completed. Besides, there was at least one other matter that the police intended to investigate. (It subsequently turned out that the police interviewed Ravi for a little over an hour over six matters.)

The judge was not persuaded and ordered the release of the passport to Ravi subject, however, to certain conditions. The question of an appropriate sum of money to ensure Ravi’s return to Singapore pending completion of investigation then arose. The prosecutor suggested a sum of S$40,000. He informed the judge that Ravi was liable for some personal costs payable to the attorney general. The judge ordered the sum of S$30,000 to be guaranteed by one or two sureties. The matter was then schedule for review in three months’ time.

It was not easy for Ravi to find two people who have to deposit the sum ordered. But miraculously, Ravi managed to find the sureties. He must have prayed very hard to Lord Ganesh!

At the review on the progress of investigation in August this year, the public prosecutor informed the judge that investigations had yet to be completed. He confirmed that Ravi had cooperated and attended the interview requested by the police. He also suggested that the bond be reduced. Ravi objected. The judge after due consideration, ordered the release of the passport to Ravi saying that the police had more than two years to complete their investigation.

I understand that Terry Xu had also applied to the district judge for the release of his passport which was held by the police for over three years. He too succeeded in getting his passport returned.

Section 112 of the CPC was introduced in 2010. I do not know how many people have had their passports impounded by law enforcement agencies. I also do not know if anyone, besides Ravi M and Terry Xu have applied for the return of their passports.

At the second debate of the CPC bill in 2010, section 112 was mentioned by Christopher de Souza who praised its introduction saying:

“First, allow me to address the greater powers of investigation under the new CPC. Clause 112, division 7, empowers certain authorised officers to require a person to surrender his or her travel documents if there are reasonable grounds for believing that the person has committed an offence. If the person refuses to surrender his or her travel documents, he or she may be arrested. This is a positive measure as this will help our officers greatly in their investigations. Singapore is becoming an increasingly cosmopolitan society. We need to guard against the rise of triad activities, drug abuse, money laundering, and so on. Our men-in-blue need more tools at their disposal to keep crime rates in Singapore low as before.
Therefore, the surrendering of travel documents will deter international crime syndicates from carrying out quick “stop-over” crimes such as drug trafficking or money laundering.”

I do not know how many travel documents are being held by law enforcement agencies.

During the debate, Minister Shanmugam did not address section 112. He did, however, give us a very important insight into the caseload undertaken by law enforcement agencies. He said:

“The Subordinate Courts deal with about 250,000 charges a year, of which some 200,000 are departmental cases. …”

If 250,000 people are charged in court every year, I cannot imagine how many people are investigated by law enforcement agencies every year. The number would surely exceed 250,000! If law enforcement agencies have custody of 250,000 travel documents a year, what is the total they are holding today?

Travel documents are exceedingly important documents. They are required not only when we wish to travel abroad but also in the course of our work or business. Passports also have expiry dates. What happens when there is a need to travel and the passports have expired?

I do not allege that passports kept by law enforcement agencies are in danger of being lost. But why burden them with custody of such important documents? The minister had time and again complained that they are short-handed.

Surrender Of Passports Pending Investigation

I believe this practice of requiring the surrender of passports from activists did not come about until 2017. In that year, several activists were summoned to the police station for holding a vigil outside Changi Prison several hours before death row prisoner, Prabagaran a/l Srivijayan was scheduled to hang.

According to journalist Kirsten Han, a couple who attended the vigil and were accompanying their grandmother back home in Johor Bahru were stopped at the causeway.

Similarly, Terry Xu was turned back from the causeway as the police wanted to investigate him. (For details, read An Illegal Vigil in Ridiculous, Untold Tales of Singapore).

As recalled in Kirsten’s article, the police did not exercise their power under Section 112 to confiscate their passports but prevented Terry Xu and the couple to remain in Singapore for investigation by issuing a notice in the immigration system.

I suspect that it was after these incidents reported by Kirsten Han that the police and other law enforcement agencies started to make full use of section 112 of the CPC.

Surrender Of Passports Pending Trial

While on the subject of surrender of passports, I notice that the practice of impounding passports by the court has become an accepted practice.

Several years ago, I learnt from activists who were charged in court that their passports were impounded. It was new to me because when I was in practice decades ago, very few accused persons had their passports impounded. The prosecution had to justify to the court that they were high flight risks and the offences alleged to have been committed must be grave. Defence counsel would as a matter of duty, object to the impounding of passports should such requests be made by the prosecutor. To the credit of prosecutors in those days, such applications were few and far between.

These days, however, it is common practice for prosecutors to apply for passports to be impounded. Defence counsel do not object to such applications. I understand that such requests are made even if alleged offences are trivial in nature and pose no flight risks.

Recently, I learnt that community worker and activist, Gilbert Goh was charged and convicted for holding a placard outside the immigration building, an offence under the POA.

I learnt that one year ago when he was charged before the court, the prosecutor applied for his passport to be impounded. He was shocked. The request was granted and he had to contact his family to produce his passport before he was released on bail.

Recently, Gilbert paid a fine and served a day’s jail. His passport was then returned to him and he was elated.

Over the years, law enforcement agencies have been bestowed great powers, one of which is section 112 of the CPC. I don’t know what will happen next. If we are not vigilant, I think we will lose even more of what remains with us today.

Someone said: