Connect with us

Singapore

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance

Published

2 years ago

on

by Teo Soh Lung

Laws in Singapore are speedily enacted and speedily amended. I don’t know if existing laws are ever speedily repealed!

Sometimes new laws are made without any fanfare. Sometimes the public and the legal profession are invited to give their views. Elaborate select committee hearings are occasionally conducted and telecast over television.

For most of us, we play no part in the enactment of laws. We leave this work to our lawmakers and expect them to enact laws that will protect us. It is only when we are adversely affected by the law that we realise the danger of trust.

The Criminal Procedure Code (2010) (CPC) was enacted after two years of public consultation. It seeks “to repeal and re-enact with amendments the Criminal Procedure Code and to make consequential and related amendments to such other written laws”.

Despite this long gestation period, some additions or amendments are unfortunately overlooked by those who scrutinised the bill. It is understandable because the CPC contains more than 400 sections and six schedules. It is extremely difficult to analyse everything, especially when the Code introduced several measures that are good for society. Criminal discovery and new forms of sentences that seek to rehabilitate the offenders such as community sentences are all commendable.

In this essay, I wish to comment on one clause in the CPC that has impacted human rights defenders who for short, I shall refer them as “activists”. I am sure the general public is also affected but we don’t hear their voice.

I am referring to section 112 of the CPC which allows enforcement officers to require the surrender of travel documents of persons who are subject to investigation as long as the officers have reasonable grounds to believe that they have committed an offence.

The relevant section is reproduced below:

112.—(1) Despite any other written law —
(a) a police officer of or above the rank of sergeant, with the written consent of an authorised officer;
(b) the head or an authorised director of any other law enforcement agency or a person of a similar rank; or
(c) any officer of a prescribed law enforcement agency, with the written consent of the head or an authorised director of that law enforcement agency or a person of a similar rank,
may require a person whom he or she has reasonable grounds for believing has committed any offence to surrender the person’s travel document./su_quote]

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:

The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.

This commentary was first published on Function 8’s Facebook page and republished with permission.

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

Opinion

Police say LHY and LSF free to return, but risk of arrest and passport seizure remains

The Singapore Police have stated that Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) and Mrs Lee Suet Fern (LSF) are free to return to Singapore, but there are no guarantees against arrest or passport seizure upon arrival.

Published

2 hours ago

on

11 October 2024

By

Lee Hsien Yang and Dr Lee Wei Ling at Machu Picchu in 2020.

The Singapore Police have clarified that there are no legal obstacles preventing Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY), the younger son of the late founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew (LKY), and his wife, Mrs Lee Suet Fern (LSF), from returning to Singapore.

This statement, released on 11 October 2023 in response to media queries, follows renewed interest in LHY’s potential return after the death of his older sister, Dr Lee Wei Ling, on 9 October 2023.

“In response to media queries, the police confirm that there are no legal restraints to Mr Lee Hsien Yang and Mrs Lee Suet Fern returning to Singapore. They are and have always been free to return to Singapore.”

“The police had asked both Mr Lee and Mrs Lee in June 2022 to assist in investigations by attending an interview. They had initially agreed but in the end did not turn up for the scheduled interview, left Singapore on Jun 15, 2022, and have not returned since.”

“They are and have always been free to return to Singapore,” said the police.

The topic of LHY’s return has resurfaced, particularly after he announced that he would not be present at his sister’s wake and funeral.

Instead, he is overseeing the arrangements remotely, while his son, Li Huanwu, manages them in Singapore in line with Dr Lee’s wishes. Dr Lee Wei Ling passed away at the age of 69, having battled progressive supranuclear palsy, a rare brain disorder, for four years.

While the police have emphasised that there are no travel restrictions for LHY and LSF, it’s important to recognise the potentially contradictory nature of this statement.

The police have not provided any guarantees that LHY and LSF would not be arrested upon their return or have their passports impounded, given that they could be considered a flight risk.

Furthermore, The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and other media reports did not address a significant recent legal development involving Mdm Kwa Kim Li. This omission is notable because it relates directly to the ongoing legal complexities surrounding the Lee family’s disputes.

In its coverage, ST highlighted that “In 2020, the Court of Three Judges and a disciplinary tribunal found that Mr Lee Hsien Yang (LHY) and Mrs Lee Suet Fern (LSF) had lied under oath during disciplinary proceedings against Mrs Lee, a lawyer, over her handling of the last will of Mr Lee Kuan Yew, who died on 23 March 2015, at the age of 91.”

This framing appears to justify the ongoing investigations into LHY and LSF, yet the report notably omits a significant development: Mdm Kwa Kim Li, the former lawyer of Lee Kuan Yew, was found guilty of misleading the executors about her knowledge of the will.

In May 2023, a Disciplinary Tribunal (DT) found Mdm Kwa guilty of misconduct after determining that she had, in fact, been aware of the intended changes to the will and misrepresented her role in the matter.

The tribunal determined that Mdm Kwa had misled the executors of Lee Kuan Yew’s estate—Dr Lee and LHY—by withholding critical information regarding the instructions she received from Lee Kuan Yew about his will.

Her statements falsely claimed that LKY had never instructed her to amend his will, despite evidence of her correspondence with him about potential changes in November and December 2013.

The DT ruled that her conduct fell short of the standards expected of a solicitor and imposed penalties, including a fine of S$8,000 and additional costs to the Law Society of Singapore.

This development provides crucial context to the allegations put forth against LHY and LSF, who are accused of lying about Mdm Kwa’s involvement in the drafting of the last will.

Another critical aspect that I think needs to be highlighted is the open-ended nature of the ongoing investigations into LHY and LSF.

In theory, the police have the authority to continue their investigations for as long as they deem necessary. There is no legally prescribed timeframe by which they must conclude their inquiries, allowing them the discretion to keep the investigation active indefinitely.

This aspect adds to the uncertainty surrounding LHY and LSF’s situation, especially given that any return could potentially reignite legal scrutiny.

I’ve had my own experience with the lengthy nature of police investigations, which can take years to resolve.

When I was investigated for contempt of court back in July 2020, the authorities sought to impound my passport under Section 112 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Even after serving my time for criminal defamation of cabinet members for corruption, they seized my passport again until I challenged the decision in July 2022 to have it returned.

After regaining my passport in August 2022, I left Singapore immediately—without giving the police a chance to issue another order to seize it. Since the IMDA revoked its license, it is now illegal for me to operate The Online Citizen within Singapore.

Although the case took nearly three years to conclude, eventually closing in March 2023 with a warning issued to me, I was already out of the police’s jurisdiction by then. It’s uncertain how much longer the police might have taken to close the case if I had remained in Singapore, as the investigation could have been prolonged at their discretion.

This experience gives me some insight into why LHY might remain overseas despite the police’s statement that there are no travel restrictions.

LHY and his family have been subject to various investigations by the Singapore government following public criticism by Dr Lee and him in a highly publicised dispute, where they criticised their elder brother, Lee Hsien Loong, the former Prime Minister, over alleged abuse of his position.

His wife, LSF, was suspended for 15 months over alleged misconduct as a lawyer, related to the handling of LKY’s last will. His son, Li Shengwu, was fined for contempt of court over a private Facebook post.

In March last year, LHY posted on Facebook, “I am heartbroken that my own country has made me a fugitive for standing up for my father’s promise, Lee Kuan Yew.”

Back in 2022, Li Shengwu posted on X, stating, “It has been five years since I left home because of a political prosecution by the Singapore government. Friends often ask me if it’s safe to return.

The court case is technically over. However, I assess that there’s a substantial risk that my uncle, the Prime Minister, would find an excuse to imprison me if I were to return to Singapore. He likes to relitigate old disputes.”

Continue Reading

Comments

Netizens: Was Ho Ching smirking before entering Dr Lee Wei Ling’s funeral?

On 10 October at around 8.30 PM, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong and his wife, Ho Ching, were spotted arriving at Dr Lee Wei Ling’s funeral. While Singaporeans mourned Dr Lee’s passing, some netizens, after viewing media footage, questioned whether Mdm Ho was smirking before entering the funeral.

Published

3 hours ago

on

11 October 2024

By

Dr Lee Wei Ling, the daughter of Singapore’s founding Prime Minister, Lee Kuan Yew, passed away on 9 October at the age of 69, at her family home at 38 Oxley Road.

Lee Hsien Yang (LHY), Dr Lee’s brother, announced her passing on social media, and had earlier requested that the wake and funeral remain a private affair.

He also noted that respects could be paid on a strict queue basis, adding, “There will be no exceptions, not even for VIPs,” to ensure that everyone is treated equally during the visitation period.

The wake is being held at the Pearl & Sapphire Hall of Singapore Casket, located at 131 Lavender Street, Singapore. Public visitation is open from 2 PM to 10 PM on 10 October, and from 10 AM to 10 PM on 11 October. The final visitation period is scheduled for 10 AM to 1 PM on 12 October.

Despite the request for privacy, mainstream media (MSM) representatives have gathered outside the Singapore Casket building.

MSM reporters are focused on whether Dr Lee’s elder brother, Senior Minister Lee Hsien Loong, will attend her funeral.

On Thursday (10 October ) at around 8.30pm, MSM spotted Senior Minister Lee and his wife, Ho Ching, entering Singapore Casket.

SM Lee and His Wife Attended the Wake for Approximately 10 Minutes

According to Lianhe Zaobao, SM Lee and his wife stayed at the wake for about 10 minutes and did not provide any comments to the media.

Comments on social media pages of various media outlets show Singaporeans pouring in with condolence messages, remembering Dr Lee’s contributions to Singapore’s medical field.

They praised her as a low-profile and modest woman, despite being a President’s Scholar and the Head of the Neurology Department.

Many noted how much she resembled her mother, who also shunned the limelight, even at their funerals.

However, some netizens, after viewing videos and photos taken by mainstream media, questioned whether Mdm Ho Ching was smirking before entering Dr Lee’s funeral.

Netizens Urge Media and Public to Give Grieving Family Space

Some netizens disagreed with the speculation surrounding Mdm Ho Ching’s expression in the media footage, urging others to refrain from making unfounded assumptions.

They called for compassion, emphasizing the need to give the grieving family some space.

Some netizens also recalled the Lee family feud surrounding the 38 Oxley Road house, where Dr Lee and LHY accused their brother, SM Lee, of opposing their father’s wish to have the house demolished after his passing.

One netizen lamented the strained relationship within the Lee family, questioning why there was supposed to be a sense of family, yet it felt more like guests attending the wake.

Another commented on the fact that SM Lee and his wife attended the wake rather than being involved in arranging it, especially given that Dr Lee was unmarried and their parents are no longer around, “it says alot about their relationship.”

One netizen speculated that Dr Lee might be SM Lee’s greatest regret in life, as he had failed to mend his relationship with her.

The comment added, “Attend or not attend his sister’s wake doesn’t really matter since the person had already gone.”

Meanwhile, some netizens questioned the media’s actions, pointing out that despite LHY’s request for no media coverage, reporters were still camping outside Dr Lee’s funeral.

 

 

Continue Reading

Trending