No due process please, we're Singaporean
Wednesday, May 19, 2010 at 1:41PM Gerald Giam is rightfully alarmed by the proposed changes to Singapore's Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), in particular Clause 258, which makes no effort to disguise its egregious denial of fundamental rights to Singaporeans suspected, not convicted, of a crime.
Clause 258 of the new CPC allows for statements from accused persons to be admitted as evidence in court even if the accused was not told that he was not obliged to make the statement, that the statements could be used against him, or if the recording officer did not fully comply with the rules governing the way statements are collected.
In the US, police officers are obliged to issue the Miranda warning when they arrest suspects and before they are interrogated. The Miranda warning will be familiar to many who watch a lot of American TV. It reads: “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 appointed to you…”
Clause 258 renders it completely unnecessary for our police to inform suspects of such rights. As far as the government is concerned, they only need to show that the statement from the accused was not made as the result of a threat, inducement or promise. However they have turned down proposals to videotape all interrogations, despite the ease of doing so with today’s digital technology.
Giam's alarm should be well-heeded by Singaporeans. If we are a nation of law, which our government always claims it is, this refusal to protect the rights of the accused to legal representation and due process, instead channeling all ways and means to the priority of a quick conviction, makes that contention little more than lip service.
The Ministry of Law argues that the Singapore Police Force (SPF) has no incentive to deceive, and that we have "one of the most highly admired police forces in the world". The first one is a fallacy, as quick convictions is a mark of "efficiency", which is an overrated virtue in Singapore. The ease of entering usable evidence, gleaned from denying the rights of the accused, is itself an incentive.
The SPF and its officers may not intend to deceive, or even think this is deception, because they are only acting in accordance to the law. With Clause 258, the law simply makes their jobs easier in securing convictions, but does not provide any incentives to ensure a fair and thorough investigation. If the reputation of the SPF as a highly admired police force is earned, then this expediency needs to be counterbalanced with securing the rights of the accused. But since all suggestions to record interrogations have been turned down, one can only wonder how our rights can be safeguarded while ensuring crime is tackled effectively.
When the new CPC is passed, it will shift the balance completely to ease and expediency for law enforcement, while throwing our rights under the bus. Due process be damned, a quick conviction is better than a right conviction.
Reader Comments (2)
Looks like PAP again wants to abuse the whole system to suit its aims. The amendments will become very useful especially for PAP to 'fix' the opposition or any govt critic to get a quick conviction.
They really are shameless in doing this kind of things to fellow Singaporeans.
Since we're on this track to ensure and expedite convictions, I suggest
that the burden of proof be shifted to the accused. All the prosecutor
needs to do is to charge the accused, even without any evidence.
The accused will need to prove that he is innocent, otherwise he is
convicted.
Better, cheaper, faster.