WP MP’s statements on detention law “pure theatrics with no substance”: Shanmugam

2367

Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam has criticised a female Workers’ Party parliamentarian’s statements on the proposed renewal of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLTPA) as “pure theatrics with no substance, calculated to mislead” in a Facebook post yesterday.

The Minister is most probably referring to WP chief Sylvia Lim who excoriated the bill in Parliament on Tuesday (6 Feb) as a “draconian” and “untenable” one.

The only other WP Members of Parliament (MP) that spoke on the subject were Pritam Singh and Dennis Tan, but the Minister clarified that he had “a good exchange” with these parliamentarians in the same post.

The Minister called Lim’s statements “curious” and one assertion in particular “untrue”. Read his comments on the matter in full here:

[ Curious Debate in Parliament ]
Had a curious debate in Parliament yesterday, on amendments to the CLTPA.
2. Couple of the WP MPs made points which were good to clarify. I had a good exchange with Mr Pritam Singh and Mr Dennis Tan.
3. But WP MPs also took issue with two changes.
4. First: the amendments now specify the activities for which a detention can be ordered.
5. In the past, the Minister had to be satisfied that a detention was necessary in the interests of public safety, peace and good order within Singapore. This is set out in the Act.
6. Yesterday’s amendments impose an additional requirement on the Minister. Now the Minister can only order the detention if:-
(i) he is satisfied that it is necessary in the interests of public safety, peace and good order within Singapore – as was the position, before; and
(ii) the activity is listed in the new Schedule to the Act.
7. This is something to be welcomed – it sets out transparently the activities, and imposes two requirements for detention instead of the original one requirement.
8. But it gave rise to some curious statements from one of the WP MPs. She said that this would expand the Minister’s powers under the Act, which is absurd – in fact, it does the opposite, by now specifying what activities are covered. There could have been no reasonable belief that it increases the Minister’s power.
9. Second: the amendments introduced a “finality” clause. WP MPs asserted that this will take away the power of judicial review.
10. This is untrue. The amendments simply put into the Act, what the Court of Appeal has already said (in the Dan Tan case, and other cases). The Minister’s decision on the facts is final, and cannot be appealed from.
11. And, as I repeated many times yesterday, the amendments do not take away the power of judicial review set out in the Dan Tan case. That power of judicial review continues.
12. Despite the clear legal position, the assertions continued. Anyone who actually read the Dan Tan case, and knew some law, will know that.
13. My conclusion, listening to some parts of the debate: pure theatrics with no substance, calculated to mislead.

[ Curious Debate in Parliament ]Had a curious debate in Parliament yesterday, on amendments to the CLTPA.2. Couple…

Posted by K Shanmugam Sc on Wednesday, 7 February 2018

Sylvia Lim and Shanmugam cross swords over “untenable” bill that allows for detentions without trial

28 COMMENTS

  1. Please review the history books. It not without precedence that the most innocuous of legislation are often abused and interpreted in the most heinous of laws.

  2. The big boss wants them to die in detention. They come out he die cos the old birds are the father’s biggest fear. U thk small boy can handle their intellect? Sure die chialat chialat

  3. The whole bunch of them just too proud and arrogant of themselves. Try the next GE to stand on 2 feet and see how there fair. As I said before now most families do have a brilliant and genius children so there are a bit outdated in thinking but did not want to admit.

  4. When one can’t rebut with a strong counter argument ; jus say “no substance” fullstop… and some people
    Will believe him !!! Or choose to believe maybe WP can jus stand up in parliament and say “this is rubbish” without explaining why ?? Yes ??

  5. Must the opp said sweet things and always agreeable to the ruling party. Opp.has to raise questions, reasonable or unreasonable and whether you like it or not. This is Parliamentary debates. If he can’t take the heat then resign and go back to private sector. Just look at the British Parliament, their parliamentary debates are more fiery. Each time, WP raised valid questions, they were castigated by these learned tyrannical MIW.

  6. THE LAW MINISTER’S CLARIFICATION ON AMENDMENTS TO THE DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL BILL.

    1) POINT 13 : THE MINISTER SAID BY LISTENING TO “PART” OF THE DEBATE (LIKE FROM TV NEWS) IS “THEATRIC WITHOUT SUBSTANCE, CALCULATED TO MISLEAD”

    THEN, ALL THE MORE NETIZENS SUPPORT TO WEBCAST ALL THE PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES IN FULL IN ORDER TO HV CLEAR KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEBATES.

    2) POINT 6(ii) : PLS FURNISH BY PUBLISHING THE FULL “NEW” LIST OF THE ACTIVITIES UNDER THE SCHEDULE OF THE BILL SO THAT PEOPLE OUGHT TO KNOW AND BE AWARE WHICH ACTIVITIES FALL UNDER THE ORBIT OF SUCH BILL AND TO AVOID OFFENDING IT.

    3) POINT 9: “FINALITY CLAUSE” – ONCE THE MINISTER HAS POINTED
    OUT THE FACTS OF THE CASE, & “NO APPEAL” CAN BE SOUGHT.
    TO ME, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE MINISTER “ALONE” ACTS LIKE A
    “GOD” AND CAN SUBJECT TO “ABUSE OF POWER”. THIS IS
    “DRACONIAN”.

    4) WHATEVER IT IS, AS I SAID, SINCE THIS BILL “ONLY” EXPIRES IN
    OCT 2019, WHY IS THERE AN “URGENT” NEED TO EXTEND “NOW”?

    I STRONGLY BELIEVE IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO ADDRESS THE
    “IMMEDIATE” PROBLEM THAT SG FACES NOW, THAT IS TO
    OBTAIN THE “REPATRIATION TREATY BETWEEN SG AND
    THAILAND” RATHER THAN TO ADDRESS THIS EXISTING “VALID
    AND OPERATIONAL” DETENTION WITHOUT TRIAL” BILL.

    WITHOUT ADDRESSING THE IMMEDIATE PROBLEM OF GETTING
    THE REPATRIATION TREATY BETWEEN SG AND THAILAND
    CERTAINLY PUTS SINGAPORE’S “PUBLIC SAFETY, PEACE AND
    GOOD ORDER” (DULY CITED BY THE MINISTER HIMSELF) AT
    STAKE. DON’T YOU ALL AGREE?

  7. 1) I’M “NOT” ANYBODY’S PUPPET OR SACRIFICIAL OBJECT
    2) PLS NOTE THAT EVEN LKY AND HIS WIFE DO NOT FORCE THEIR
    OWN DAUGHTER, DR LWL, TO GET MARRIED AT ALL.
    3) SO DO MY OWN BIOLOGICAL MOTHER DO NOT FORCE ME TO GET
    MARRIED TOO
    ========================================================

    THE SHIT CHANNELNEWSASIA KEEP SHOWING NEWS ON CANADA, PHILIPPINES AND RUSSIA (ASSUMING TO REPRESENT TIMOTHY GO BECOS HE HOLDS BOTH FILIPINO AND CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP)

    I ALREADY SAID, I HV NO INTEREST IN THIS SHIT MAN, TIMOTHY GO AT ALL. WE HV NEVER MET EACH OTHER AT ALL. WE HV “NO” RELATIONSHIP AT ALL.

    I HV TESTED HIM OUT AND HE IS TRULY “NOT” THE RIGHT MAN FOR ME AND ALSO, “NOT” THE RIGHT WORKING PARTNER AT ALL.

    AS I SAID, WHOEVER WANTS TO ASSOCIATE ME WITH TIMOTHY GO, GET YOURSELF MARRIED TO HIM, OR GET YOUR SPOUSE OR DAUGHTERS TO MARRY HIM.

    SINCE THE SHIT CNA STAFF STILL INSISTS ON ASSOCIATING ME WITH TIMOTHY GO, THEN ALL THE SHIT FEMALE CNA STAFF CAN HV SEX WITH TIMOTHY GO. AND THOSE MALE CNA STAFF CAN BRING YOUR SPOUSE OR DAUGHTER TO HV SEX WITH TIMOTHY GO.

    I’M “NOT” ANYBODY’S PUPPET OR ANYBODY’S “SACRIFICIAL OBJECT”. DON’T TRY TO MANIPULATE ME FOR YOUR OWN SELFISH MEANS.

    I DON’T SACRIFICE MY SACRED BODY AND HAPPINESS FOR SOMEONE WHOM I HV NEVER MET BEFORE AT ALL. AND WORSE STILL, SOMEONE I DON’T THINK IS SUITABLE FOR ME AT ALL.

    WHICH LAW IN THE WORLD STATES THAT ONE MUST GET “ATTACHED” OR GET “MARRIED” BEFORE ONE IS ABLE TO WORK?

    NOT EVEN MY OWN BIOLOGICAL MOTHER HV FORCED HER OWN DAUGHTER OR HER OWN SON TO GET MARRIED AT ALL. WHO ARE YOU ROTTON PEOPLE TO FORCE ME TO GET MARRIED?

    EVEN LKY AND HIS WIFE DO NOT FORCE THEIR OWN DAUGHTER,
    DR LWL TO GET MARRIED!!

    IF THE SHIT TIMOTHY GO WHO HV NEVER MEET ME AND HV NO RELATIONSHIP WITH ME AT ALL INSISTS ON TAGGING WITH ME, THEN I TRULY DOUBT HIS MOTIVATION. HE POSES MORE OBSTACLES AND PROBLEMS TO ME INSTEAD.

    STOP ALL YOUR NONSENSE!!

  8. detention without trial is draconian, BUT v effective against those hardcore, hardened criminals.
    wait til sylvia lim meets one of them. she will be v thankful for this law.

  9. Instead of debating on those contentious points of the laws being amended, some fork-tongued adopts yet again the usual whitish cult tactics of Papsmearing and bullying byt not reasoning in order to get things done in his own way like a screaming spoilt child and throwing tantrums in papleement!!!

Comments are closed.