Written answer by Minister for Law, K Shanmugam, to Parliamentary Question on SMRT Bus Drivers

08 JUL 2013

8 Jul 2013 Posted in Parliamentary speeches and responses

Mr Yee Jenn Jong, Non-Constituency Member

Question
To ask the Minister for Law with regard to the investigations into claims by former SMRT bus drivers of police brutality (a) whether there is an attempted retention or confiscation of a laptop, desktop computer and mobile phone belonging to a film maker at her residence by Singapore Police Force officers; and (b) if so, whether it is in conformity with proper procedures and requirements of the Criminal Procedure Code and what is the legal basis for the attempted retention or confiscation.

Answer

  1. The four former SMRT drivers were charged in November 2012 for the offence of engaging in a conspiracy to instigate other drivers to take part in an illegal strike. All four drivers were represented by lawyers and pleaded guilty to the charges on 25 February 2013.

  2. On 28 January 2013, while proceedings were on-going, two videos were uploaded on a website administered by Ms Lee Seng Lynn. In these videos, two of the drivers had alleged that they had been physically assaulted by the police in the course of investigations. The videos were posted for viewing by the public, while, as stated earlier; the criminal proceedings were on-going. The allegations in the video were also widely reported in the mainstream media.

  3. These were serious allegations. The truth or otherwise of the allegations would have been relevant in deciding, at the trial, whether the drivers’ confessions were made voluntarily. That in turn could have related quite directly to the criminal proceedings themselves. The allegations thus had to be investigated quickly. The allegations also raised the possibility of a disciplinary offence under s 40 of the Police Force Act.

  4. Police officers from the Internal Affairs Office (IAO) were tasked to conduct the investigations. They have the power to secure all relevant evidence under section 35 of the Criminal Procedure Code. Ms Lee’s equipment was relevant to verify, among other things, the authenticity of the videos, and may potentially have had to be produced in court. Ms Lee herself was also a relevant witness.

  5. On 5 February 2013, in exercise of their investigative powers, the IAO officers sought Ms Lee’s cooperation to hand over her external hard drive containing interview footage of the drivers. Ms Lee requested to first copy some of her work from the hard drive. The officers agreed to this. After copying her work, Ms Lee delivered up the hard drive to the officers.

  6. On 7 February 2013, the police approached Ms Lee again and sought her further assistance for access to her laptop and mobile phone. They did not request for her desktop. Ms Lee’s lawyer agreed with AGC that her equipment would be examined in her presence. The examination was done later that day. The items were not seized.

  7. The hard drive was returned to Ms Lee after the investigations were completed. The laptop and mobile phone were not seized as I have explained.

  8. The videos, which were publicly available, alleged police brutality. As explained earlier, the voluntariness of the confessions would have been an important question which would have been for the trial judge alone to determine based on evidence properly introduced in court.

  9. I should add that AGC has stated that this was an interference with the administration of justice. Consider if the reverse had happened, and third parties had posted a video online alleging the guilt of the drivers. This would have been equally wrong. Everyone accused of a crime is entitled to a fair hearing. We cannot allow a public airing on questions of guilt and innocence, while the trial is on-going.

  10. Consider a case where an accused is alleged to have molested someone. How would we as a society react if someone were to post a video alleging that the accused was a serial molester, and goes into the facts of the case which is in court?

  11. This is why we require all relevant allegations to be made in court. It is improper to make them outside, while proceedings are on-going, as such allegations may interfere with the administration of justice.

  12. These allegations of police brutality ought to have been raised by the drivers or their lawyers in court. They did not do so.

  13. In any event, after a full investigation, the IAO concluded that the allegations were not substantiated. The AGC agreed with this conclusion. The drivers themselves also subsequently retracted their statements. Their allegations were baseless.

Last updated on 12 Aug 2013