The politically correct justification then was that the practice, already prevalent in First World countries like Australia, the United Kingdom, and South Korea, could also save the court precious time and money. What was left unsaid is that unscrupulous law officers can write any damn thing to fix the vulnerable. (At the trial of former Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) chief Ng Boon Gay, when Deputy Director of Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) Teng Khee Fatt was challenged in court about a conflicting entry, he simply dismissed the incongruence with: "I left out the 'not'.") Senior Minister of State for Law Indranee Rajah was quick to snuff out further discussion by simply declaring from on high that the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) had no plans to introduce video recording for the taking of statements. Full stop.
Yesterday, MHA released a press statement announcing that the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) will pilot video recording of interviews (VRI) during investigations from the first quarter of next year. It added that together with the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) and the Ministry of Law (MinLaw), it has been studying the feasibility of introducing video recording of interviews. Somebody was either not informed, or simply told a bald-faced lie in parliament.
The inter-agency workgroup said that while Singapore’s existing criminal investigation processes are robust, the implementation of VRI in Singapore will further strengthen confidence in the integrity of our criminal justice system. What the workgroup did not say is that the fundamental rights of any individual being questioned by law enforcement officers - the right against self-incrimination and the right of access to a lawyer - are still not addressed after 50 long years. So much for the robustness of criminal investigation processes in Singapore.
Posts
Problem with the ruling party is that it does not acknowledge good suggestions. Since when we have come across ruling party thanks opposition for their suggestions? Each suggestion is deem a challenge to their rule. First World politics?
ReplyDeleteBut, but…Ah Loong described the duty of the opposition as one to "raise serious issues which concern the country, which offers real alternatives to the population and which then debates the hard choices which the country has to make".
DeleteIt is well known that they always co-opt the opposition ideas, repackage them, and claim them as their own. In PAP speak, they don't do "U-turns" but policy "shifts".
You are not allowed to write, dictate, type your own statements.
ReplyDeleteStatements MUST be recorded by a police officer or authorised person.
In practice, it is not "recorded" , as in you speak, I write... but you speak, I write what is convenient so as to close the investigation.
Adjectives, verbs are all added to facilitate you further into the dungeons. No interest at shades of grey. You are the one with the handcuffs on.
Personal experience.
Personally, me does not see much purpose in video recording of statement recording or interrogation.
ReplyDeleteA suspect or prisoner can be subjected to whatever imaginable treatments anywhere beyond the Interrogation Room and Office where statement is recorded.
There is no need for much commonsense to know how detainee can be subjected to from the Moment of arrest to the Day he/she walks freely without cuffs and shackles.
If anything, video recording will help the Authority more than it helps detainee.
patriot
amen, right you are. they can film it, re-film it, film it until they get the result they want; in between filmings, who knows what has happened?
DeleteSo this will avoid inducement or falsification of (false) statements?
ReplyDeleteDoes this only apply to in-station recording, what about on sie on -scene recording of witnesses statement? They have portable too?
In Australia, the maximum recording time is 4hrs. Here? Days or weeks ?
The Pertinent Question is who owns and operates the
ReplyDeleteVideo System?
patriot
I bet that they already have CCTV but only use them for their advantage? It simply does not square off because Just imagine for simple illegal parking around congested areas, they even have CCTVs to make sure maximum fines can be extracted from the people.
ReplyDeleteSo in this age is there really any reason for them to pretend there is no need for them?