Disclaimer: This site has been first put up 15 years ago. Since then I would probably do a couple things differently, but because I've noticed this site had been linked from news outlets, PhD theses and peer rewieved papers and because I really hate the concept of "digital dark age" I've decided to put it back up. There's no chance it can produce any harm now.
| Identifier: | 05SINGAPORE3489 |
|---|---|
| Wikileaks: | View 05SINGAPORE3489 at Wikileaks.org |
| Origin: | Embassy Singapore |
| Created: | 2005-12-13 06:02:00 |
| Classification: | CONFIDENTIAL |
| Tags: | PGOV PHUM KJUS KCRM SN |
| Redacted: | This cable was not redacted by Wikileaks. |
This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.
C O N F I D E N T I A L SECTION 01 OF 02 SINGAPORE 003489 SIPDIS E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/13/2015 TAGS: PGOV, PHUM, KJUS, KCRM, SN SUBJECT: NO MIRANDA IN SINGAPORE: RIGHT TO COUNSEL Classified By: E/P Counselor Laurent Charbonnet for Reasons 1.4(b)/(d) 1. (U) Summary: While Singapore is proud of its tough, law-and-order reputation, legal circles are actively discussing liberalizing a criminal defendant's right to counsel and the government-linked media is covering the debate. Under current practice, the police may detain a person for two weeks or longer before granting access to counsel. While it is highly unlikely that the GOS soon will make a major change to its fundamental approach, members of the Law Society hope that the GOS will modify police procedure in "non-sensitive" cases. End Summary. The Current Situation --------------------- 2. (U) Singapore's legal system provides for basic judicial protections, but frequently under significant limitations. The Singapore Constitution guarantees the right to counsel, but only "as soon as may be" practicable. The courts have interpreted this to mean up to two weeks or longer after initial detention. Police have little incentive to change their policies because unfettered access to the accused makes it easier for them to secure corroborating evidence, build cases, and secure confessions. Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng told Parliament on October 18 that accused persons are denied immediate access to their lawyers to avoid "compromising" police investigations. Public Opinion -------------- 3. (U) A Straits Times (ST) op-ed unapologetically claimed that Singapore's criminal justice system should continue to value efficiency over fairness to the accused, even if it results in innocent people being punished. The ST also, however, published an informal poll indicating that 91 percent of Singaporeans believe an accused person should be granted immediate access to legal counsel. One prominent criminal defense attorney commented to us that most Singaporeans believe that they already have the immediate right to counsel--the lawyer claimed that many of his clients are shocked to find this is not the case. The Push for Change ------------------- 4. (C) The two leading legal organizations in Singapore agree on the desirability of reform, but are approaching the issue differently. The Association of Criminal Lawyers in Singapore (self-registered under the Societies Act) has tried to raise public awareness of the issue, and a few high-profile cases have garnered significant media coverage. The Law Society (established by statute) has been working quietly behind the scenes with policy makers. Law Society President Philip Jeyaretnam (son of veteran opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam) told us the Law Society had met earlier this year with both Deputy Prime Minister Wong (concurrently Minister of Home Affairs, which oversees the police) and Deputy Prime Minister Jayakumar (concurrently Minister for Law). The Law Society discussed expediting access to counsel and asked permission to submit a paper on this issue to the Ministry of Law. (Note: Due to a political dispute in the 1980's, the Law Society is limited by statute to commenting on legal issues only when the GOS asks it to do so, and then only when the issue directly affects the legal profession. End Note.) Jayakumar agreed to accept the paper, which the Law Society submitted in September, but the GOS has not yet responded. The Likelihood of Change ------------------------ 5. (C) The Law Society believes that the GOS is actively considering improvements to the rights of the accused. The Society does not believe that Deputy Prime Minister Wong's statements in Parliament were either the final position of the GOS or a prejudgment on the Law Society's paper. However, Jeyaretnam acknowledged that the GOS was highly unlikely, in the short term, to liberalize right to counsel through fundamental constitutional or legislative change. Jeyaretnam commented that Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew would have to approve such a change, and his strongly held view that not even one guilty man should go free was well-known. Jeyaretnam also acknowledged that Deputy Prime Minister Wong is widely known as a tough, law-and-order proponent, who emphasizes efficiency. 6. (C) Members of the Law Society have proposed that one possible mechanism for reform might be an unlegislated change in police procedure, which Deputy Prime Minister Wong might be persuaded to adopt if public pressure to do so grows. The GOS could compromise by carving out certain "non-sensitive" cases and allowing faster access to counsel in these cases. The Law Society has advocated this approach as a fall-back position, which would allow the GOS to maintain its current practices in "sensitive" cases such as narcotics or terrorism. Most people in the legal profession support the Law Society's position, claimed Jeyaretnam, and public sentiment is in favor of reforming aspects of the criminal justice system. Comment ------- 7. (C) Jeyaretnam's father was an opposition MP who was bankrupted for defamation and expelled from Parliament. Jeyaretnam has opted to operate within Singapore's "out of bounds" markers and promote change from inside the elite. The Law Society also includes a number of prominent ruling party MP's, so its positions tend to be well within the mainstream. While change and liberalization in Singapore are always deliberate and incremental, Jeyaretnam is right that the public is increasingly aware of the rights enjoyed in other countries and will slowly increase pressure to change. End Comment. HERBOLD
Latest source of this page is cablebrowser-2, released 2011-10-04