By MP for Aljunied GRC, Pritam Singh
[Delivered in Parliament on 11 Nov 2013]
Madam, I rise to seek clarification on the use of the CLTPA with respect to the recent arrests of four local match-fixers and their detention under the Act. It is difficult to see how match fixing gels with the objective of the Act, namely to address crimes that are a threat to public safety, peace and good order.
My concern with extending the Act to match-fixing is that it provides a too convenient means by which to get around the usual legal processes in trying accused persons. Can we not look to improve our legal framework to address such crimes in open court as opposed to doing it through the Act?
I would also like to ask the Minister if our transnational agreements and exchanges are sufficiently robust and deep enough to specifically address match-fixing such that we can prosecute offenders in open court.
With regard to the recent detentions, the Minister for Home Affairs stated that our security services work closely with international law enforcement agencies and “were able to obtain information from INTERPOL, Europol, and European countries affected by the syndicate’s match-fixing activities”. It would seem that this information was insufficient to prosecute the match-fixers in open court for some reason. Were there requests for extradition? Were there specific difficulties in extraditing the match-fixers to countries where the crimes were committed for the law to take its course?
Madam any decisions about whether to add another category of crime to the orders issued under the Act should be weighted carefully between an affront to the right of the accused to have his case heard before an open court and the need to give our law enforcement bodies adequate tools to tackle real and pressing threats to public safety, peace and good order.
While the government may argue that the environment may not be appropriate to remove the Act, the government can certainly do better in explaining to Singaporeans, at the appropriate time if necessary, why the Act should be expanded to include more crimes, in addition to explaining what makes Singapore different from European countries which have dealt with match-fixers before an open court.
It would be very important to do this because in the Malaysian example, the laws governing detention without trial had to be removed because of a public perception that there was an abuse of power by the authorities. As such, it would be important for the Minister to explain how match-fixing gels with the objective of the Act, so that the public does not feel that the definition of a threat to public safety, peace and good order is defined too loosely.
Thank you.