DEBATE ON INFORMATION, SAFEGUARDS
Opposition members Leong Mun Wai and Dennis Tan ( WP-Hougang ) asked MHA to clarify the circumstances under which the ministry was prepared to halt the extension of detention powers.
Mr Tan said the WP was “in careful help” of the Bill, but maintained its objections to modifications to the Act made in 2018, when it voted against the improvement.
He recalls that the WP had expressed concerns about revisions giving the Home Affairs Minister the last say on whether confinement is essential in 2018.
The WP had also expressed concern about the inclusion of a plan of criminal offenses under the Act, which “may let the ministers to pass” questions about the seriousness of the cases or the possibility of prosecutors in judge, and the development of the minister’s powers to criminal activities conducted abroad, he said.
Mr. Tan noted that the current Bill did not attempt to alter the Act, that the WP had supported the extension prior to the 2018 modifications, and that it accepted the “uncomfortable compromise” that this regulation entails on the legal right to freedom.
The WP senator even inquired about whether any public prosecutor had withheld acceptance for an order and how frequently the confinement provision is used, such as a breakdown of incarceration and police supervision orders by criminal activity.
Dr. Faishal responded that MHA typically does n’t make any disclosures about how the Act is used because it must “balance the need to prevent prejudice to investigations and to keep witnesses safe”
When Mr. Tan inquired if such data could be provided to MPs privately as they question the Act every five centuries, Dr. Faishal said MHA had to be “very watchful” about what it shares given the breadth of organized and international violence.
Mr. Leong, a PSP, suggested adding more protections for MHA that would involve sitting Supreme Court judges to serve on advisory committees that evaluation detainee cases. This is now the exercise, but is not written into rules, he said.
He even suggested giving the President discretionary authority to create or extend a detention or authorities care order. In these circumstances, the President is now acting on the cabinet’s recommendations.
Mr. Leong even inquired as to whether the Public Defender’s Office, which was established in 2022, has the legal standing to represent detainees. According to Dr. Faishal, detainees may get their own solicitor but are not given legal counsel by the state.
Dr. Faishal claimed that Singapore had been given careful consideration of the latest safeguards. He urged the NCMP to” prevent pursuing concept” and concentrate on whether the rules has worked, claiming that it appeared the PSP was” not able to point out any misuse of the system.”
Additionally, Dr. Faishal claimed that the government is in charge of maintaining law and order rather than the President, and MHA disagreed with Mr. Leong’s idea.
Later, Mr. Leong pointed out that the President currently has discretionary authority under the Internal Security Act ( ISA ), which also allows detention without a trial.
Under the Constitution, if the state disagrees with an expert club’s suggestion that an ISA defendant be released, the President’s concurrence is required for ongoing detention.
Dr. Faishal reiterated in his response that the detention provision has functioned in its current form.