S Iswaran, Second Minister for Home Affairs, announced in Parliament on Thursday that police officers will wear body cameras from the middle of the year. Iswaran cited their use in countries such as the UK and Canada which have benefitted from the use of this technology. The hardware and support will cost millions but this will be tax dollars well spent.
Strangely, Iswaran ignores the fact that UK police have also been leveraging on the use of technology to video record the statements of accused persons in police custody. This suggestion was first brought up by WP MP Sylvia Lim during a MinLaw COS debate 6 years ago and subsequently in 2011 and 2013. link The response given was that “video recording does not ensure that statements are voluntarily given”.
The response was a non response because it ignored all the other benefits such as saving of police and court time in the event of the statements being challenged.
In 2013, Ms Indranee Rajah’s response again ignored all the benefits of video recording. She claimed there were “clear avenues available” for “an accused (who) wishes to challenge the statement given by him”. link
Recent allegations of police abuse/assault and the use of unprofessional or dubious tactics of interrogation have surfaced. Andrew Loh highlighted the following instances:
– Lutz Pfannenstiel, former goalkeeper, alleged that CPIB officers had assaulted him during questioning.
– Ng Boon Gan, ex CNB chief, alleged that CPIB deputy director had pressured him into pleading guilty.
– Law professor Tey Hsun Hang alleged the use of heavy-handed tactics to force him to make “confessions” while he was under medication. (after serving his jail sentence, Tey appealed and the High Court acquitted him of all charges of corruption link)
In 2009, Neo Siong Leng, CPIB investigator was charged with hurting a Chinese national Lin Yanmei’s knee during investigation. He was later found not guilty by the courts.
Police and court limited resources have been expanded and wasted. Perhaps Ms Indranee is agreeable to wasting the court and police time?
During a police interrogation, Chinese SMRT bus drivers had also alleged in a video interview that they were abused and threatened by police officers for taking part in a strike. Despite the conclusion of police investigations and the issue of a statement denying the abuse had taken place, one of the bus drivers continued to insist that the alleged assault had taken place.
Without video evidence, many citizens may tend to believe the driver instead of the police.
(read Andrew Loh’s article for more details)
Indranee went on to say that she thought “the government recognises the rationale behind the suggestions” and this suggestion will be considered when “MHA further reviews the processes”.
It has been a year since Indranee vocalised her thought on this issue and 6 years since Sylvia Lim first brought it up. It does not cost an arm and a leg, so why has the government repeatedly refused?
In a MinLaw COS debate speech, Assoc Prof Ho Peng Kee said: “The crux of the matter lies in whether Singaporeans have trust and confidence in our legal system and our Police Force. On both counts, this is the case.” That was 6 year ago in 2008. After the recent spate of high profile cases of corruption, including the ‘incorruptible’ CPIB, the trust and confidence in our legal system and Police Force is unlikely to be the same.
The repeated refusal to implement video recording during police interrogations may lead to increasing speculation of wrongdoing and cover up by the police. The government should not continue to ignore MP Sylvia Lim’s suggestion as the introduction of video recording could also “help protect the integrity of Singapore police”.
likedatosocanmeh 