The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act

The Straits Times

Historically, the Act - introduced in 1955 - has been invoked to deal with persons such as members of secret societies, syndicates and unlicensed moneylenders, where witnesses may not be keen to testify in court for fear of reprisal. The law also requires parliamentary renewal once every five years, taking into consideration prevailing circumstances. It was last renewed for the 12th time in 2009.

 IT IS a necessity for a law that permits the detention and supervision of persons, without them being charged in court, to be examined in Parliament periodically. The public must be satisfied that the law is not being misused, that safeguards against abuse are in place, that those safeguards are actually used, and that the job of ensuring the safeguards falls on those who are impartial and who function independently of those implementing the law. Protecting the innocent being as much a duty of justice as prosecuting the guilty, the public interest is best served when the need for that law is discussed and debated thoroughly. Parliament this week upheld the best traditions of public interest when it passed, but only after robust discussion, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA).

The use of this Act, most recently against four suspected football match-fixers, occasioned some disquiet, but Second Minister for Home Affairs S. Iswaran replied that syndicated crimes such as this one are a genuine threat to public order. The larger point was whether using the law continued to be justified long after the lawless times in the mid-1950s when it had been enacted. Although the law-and-order situation has improved vastly since then, it is reasonable to argue that this happy state of affairs is itself a result of the deterrent capability of laws, including the CLTPA.

Also, improvements notwithstanding, the pernicious activities of gangsters, drug traffickers and loan sharks have not been eradicated, making it important for the authorities to have recourse to legislation that can deter hardened criminals. A critically important factor is that charging criminals in court, which is the Government's preferred course of action, depends on the willingness of witnesses to testify against the accused. Since criminals such as gangsters thrive on the public fear of reprisals, the CLTPA is necessary to ensure that they do not benefit from a culture of impunity. Malaysia's experience is instructive. The repeal of its Emergency Ordinance in 2011 was followed by such a spike in violent crime that it has found it necessary to restore detention provisions in its laws.

The elaborate precautions taken against abuse in the administration of the CLTPA should set hearts at rest. The more regular release of detention statistics, promised in the House, will help. In the final analysis, though, the very fact that the Act is temporary - being dependent on parliamentary renewal every five years - is a safeguard of the highest order. Parliamentary scrutiny obliges the authorities to show why they are justified in using a powerful law, instead of becoming dependent on it out of habit.

Match-fixing ringleader Dan Tan

Dan Tan, the suspected ringleader of a football match-fixing syndicate, will not be getting out of jail anytime soon. The 48-year-old Singaporean is believed to be among four alleged members of the syndicate who have been issued detention orders on Wednesday under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, which allows for them to be held by the police without trial. A fifth suspect has been issued a police supervision order in lieu of prison detention. All five were among 14 suspects arrested on suspicion of being part of a global football match-fixing operation, during a raid conducted by the police and anti-graft officers on Sept 17.

Tan, who is also wanted in Italy and Hungary, was nabbed after an islandwide crackdown led by the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) and the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). Former Interpol officer Chris Eaton, who headed the international football authority's security arm, has said that the arrests marked "the death knell" to the syndicate.

The Home Affairs Ministry, without naming the five, confirmed in a statement earlier that detention orders were issued to four persons and a police supervision order given to one. The ministry also said that the remaining nine suspects - believed to include Tan's wife from China - are being investigated for corruption and have been released on bail. Under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act, detention orders must be reviewed annually, and once every three years for police supervision orders.

An independent Advisory Committee hearing comprising private citizens such as senior lawyers, will be held within 28 days. At the hearing, detainees may be legally represented. The committee will then present its findings to the President, who has the power to cancel, confirm or vary the order on the advice of the Cabinet.

Wage dispute? Protest? Or strike?

Was the SMRT bus driver episode a "strike"? Netizens seemed to think so, but the word "strike" was missing in official statements on the dispute. SMRT said the 102 drivers from China "did not show up for work". The Ministry of Manpower said it was told about the "SMRT situation" and that it takes "the workers' actions very seriously". It added: "Workers are advised to speak to their HR and management to discuss and resolve any employment-related issues amicably, rather than take matters into their own hands."

 At least two sections of Singapore's laws make reference to strikes.

The Trade Disputes Act defines strikes as "the cessation of work by a body of persons employed in any trade or industry acting in combination, or a concerted refusal... to continue to work or to accept employment". It lays out the regulations for strikes or industrial action organised legally by unions. Any person found guilty can be fined up to $2,000 and/or jailed up to six months.

The Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act defines a strike as a group of workers employed under essential services making a concerted refusal to work. Essential service workers cannot go on strike unless they have given their employer 14 days' notice of their intention to strike.

Public transport and air transport services are among the list of essential services covered. Those found guilty can be fined not more than $2,000 and/or a prison term of not more than a year.

The National Transport Workers' Union called it a "dispute", and urged workers and management to "resolve their disagreement". The police said that officers called to the scene established the matter to be "a wage dispute between a group of foreign workers and their employer". Wire stories on the dispute also described it variously as a "labour dispute" (Bloomberg News), "a rare case of labour mass action" (Agence France-Presse) and "rare labour protest" (Reuters).