新加坡国会讨论：拘留私会党犯罪成员流程是否要修改

内政部兼国家发展部政务部长费绍尔副教授：我谨代表内政部请求提议，该法案进行二读。

先生，刑法（临时条款）法案（1955年施行，也称第55条）上一次延长是在2018年，为期五年，至2024年10月20日。该法案是现行立法的重要组成部分，用以惩治威胁社会安定和公共安全的性质恶劣的犯罪活动，尤其是帮派和私会党的活动。草案提议该法案延长五年。

私会党在新加坡已经存在很长时间了。20世纪50年代，帮会活动在新加坡猖獗，私会党涉嫌一系列非法活动，运用暴力行为在居民社区中制造恐慌。受害者和目击者害怕报复，不敢出庭作证，这使得法庭起诉极其困难。

在这种情况下，《刑法（临时条款）》应运而生。该法案为政府应对问题提供了有效手段。依照该法，内政部长可以拘留与犯罪活动有关的人，或将其置于警察监督之下。这些活动列于该法附表四，包括参与私会党或黑帮活动。

这些权力一向是谨慎和节制地使用的。部长必须确信依照法案拘留某人是出于保障公共安全、社会治安和良好秩序的目的。根据该法案，只有在起诉不可行时才会使用拘留权力。例如，因受害者和证人害怕报复而拒绝作证时。

我们为行使这些权力制定了保障措施。首先，必须获得检察官的同意才能发出拘留令或监督令。他必须确信起诉不可行，然后才允许根据该法案采取行动。

其次，我们设立了三个独立于内政部的委员会，以确保拘留确实是为了保障公共安全、社会治安和良好秩序。

第一个委员会会详细审查部长发出的每一项拘留令和警方监视令。该委员会由一名现任最高法院法官领导，成员包括社会贤良和颇具经验的律师。委员会将审查部长在发布命令时所依据的材料，并向总统提交报告，建议确认、变更或取消该命令。

第二个委员会将对每一个得到确认的拘留令开展每年至少一次的审核。它会考虑被拘留者是否继续对公共安全、社会治安和良好秩序构成威胁；以及被拘留者是否应该被继续拘留或释放的问题。

第三个委员会审查那些超过十年的拘留案件，以确定是否有必要继续拘留。

该法案要求三个委员会在审议时考虑公共安全、个人保护和信息来源的保护。他们需向总统提交报告，总统可以根据内阁的建议，确认、修改或取消部长的命令。

第三，拘留者在委员会首次审议部长所下命令时，必须亲自出席。拘留者可以由律师代理，并可以向各委员会陈情。

第四，根据该法案作出的每一个决定都可以进行司法审查。2018年修订法案时，内政部长明确了这一点。先生，我想强调这一点，因为我知道有些成员对该法案是否排除司法审查抱有疑虑。事实并非如此。

多年来，依据该法案发出的拘留令和警方监视令的数量有所下降。从2019年10月21日到2023年12月31日，共有123人依该法案被处理——发出了86份拘留令和37份警方监视令。这比前一个法案期限内的案件数量有所减少。即便如此，发出的命令数量仍然显著，该法案对于惩治私会党和其他犯罪活动仍然是必要的和相关的，例如非法放贷。

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc Prof Dr Muhammad Faishal Ibrahim) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): On behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time".

Sir, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act 1955 was last extended in 2018 for five years, till 20 October 2024. The Act is a critical piece of legislation for us to deal with egregious criminal activities which threaten the sense of safety and security in Singapore, in particular the activities of gangs and secret societies. This Bill seeks to extend the Act for another five years. 

Secret societies have been in Singapore for a long time. In the 1950s, gang activity in Singapore was rampant. Secret societies were involved in illicit activities and used violence to impose fear on the community. Victims and witnesses feared reprisal against themselves and their family members, if they testified against the secret societies. This made prosecution in court extremely difficult.

It was against this backdrop that the Act was introduced. The Act gave the Government levers to deal effectively with the problem. Under the Act, the Minister for Home Affairs may detain, or place under Police supervision, persons associated with activities of a criminal nature. These activities are set out in the Fourth Schedule of the Act and include involvement in a secret society or as a gangster. 

These powers are exercised carefully and sparingly. The Minister must be satisfied that detaining a person under the Act is necessary in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. The power to detain someone under the Act is used only when prosecution is not viable. For example, because victims and witnesses refuse to testify for fear of reprisal. 

We have put in place safeguards in the exercise of these powers. First, the consent of the Public Prosecutor must be obtained for a detention order or supervision order. He must be satisfied that prosecution is not viable, before allowing executive action under the Act.

Second, we have three committees that are independent of the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) to ensure that detentions are necessary in the interests of public safety, peace and good order. 

The first committee scrutinises every detention and supervision order issued by the Minister. It is chaired by a sitting Judge of the Supreme Court and comprises senior and experienced lawyers. It examines the evidence that was considered by the Minister in issuing the order and submits its report to the President to recommend the confirmation, variation or cancellation of the order. 

A second committee considers every confirmed detention order at least once annually. It will consider whether the detainee continues to pose a threat to public safety, peace and good order; and whether the detainee should continue to be detained or released. 

A third committee reviews detention cases which are being considered for extension beyond 10 years, to determine if continued detention is indeed necessary. 

The Act requires the committees to have regard to public safety, the protection of individuals and the safeguarding of sources of information, in their deliberation. They are required to submit a report to the President, who may, on the advice of the Cabinet, confirm, vary or cancel the order made by the Minister. 

Third, detainees are required to attend in person before the first committee, when the committee considers the order made by the Minister. Detainees can be represented by lawyers and may make representations to the various committees.

Fourth, every decision made under the Act can be subject to judicial review. This was made clear by the Minister for Home Affairs when the Act was amended in 2018. Sir, I want to emphasise this point as I know that some Members have raised their concerns as to whether the Act ousts judicial review. It does not. 

Over the years, the number of detention and supervision orders issued under the Act has declined. From 21 October 2019 to 31 December 2023, 123 persons were dealt with under the Act – 86 Detention Orders (DOs) and 37 Police Supervision Orders (PSOs) were issued. This was fewer than the number of cases in the same period of the previous term of the Act. Even so, the number of orders issued is significant and the Act continues to be necessary and relevant – not only against secret societies, but also other criminal activities, such as unlicensed moneylending.