MPs question premature extension and whether Singapore could rely less on detention without trial

Premature extension

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok) and Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied GRC) raised concerns that Parliament was being asked to extend the Act prematurely when it was only due to expire on Oct 20 next year.

Mr Murali said the sunset clause was a safeguard to ensure periodic scrutiny by Parliament before approving an extension that lapses every five years.

"Seeking an extension too early before expiry of the Act thus reduces the effect of the safeguard, as Parliament would not have benefit of being apprised of the most current security situation in Singapore close to the expiry of the Act, to decide whether to extend it," he said.

What Mr Shanmugam said: The Government decided to include the extension along with the proposed amendments.

Listing offences may reduce pressure for full justification

Mr Louis Ng (Nee Soon GRC) asked whether the listing of offences in the Act would reduce the pressure for explanations and justifications for criminal detention.

"The minister may simply be tempted to point at the list of offences as the basis for the decision," he said.

Mr Murali also asked if spe-cifying the list of the type of criminal activities under the Act would "unduly tie down the minister's hands" and make the authorities "less nimble in tackling the evolving types of cri-minal activities".

What Mr Shanmugam said: The minister would now have to fulfil two criteria: Existing criteria for detention, and that the offence is listed on the schedule.

Relying less on detention without trial

NMP Kok Heng Leun and Mr Ng both asked if there was room to re-evaluate the necessity of the Act.

Mr Kok said there have been proposed amendments to the Evidence Act and the Criminal Procedure Code to enhance protection of witnesses. The recent Cybersecurity Bill also contained provision to protect informants, he said.

Mr Kok said: "(We should) consider tweaking witness protection methods to better protect witnesses to offences for which the Act is applicable, rather than continue relying on detaining individuals without trial as part of the overall security strategy."

Mr Ng also asked if there was a need for the Act to list offences that were already dealt with under their respective legislation. Instead he asked whether it was possible that other legislation be amended instead to address the difficulty in securing witness testimony in open court and lessen the need to rely on the powers of the Act.

What Mr Shanmugam said: Suggestions to amend other legislation to secure witness testimony had been considered but were found to be "not workable".

Tan Tam Mei

Join ST's WhatsApp Channel and get the latest news and must-reads.

A version of this article appeared in the print edition of The Straits Times on February 07, 2018, with the headline MPs question premature extension and whether Singapore could rely less on detention without trial. Subscribe