Can Singapore rely on Self Check to protect the rights of its citizens?

‘Detention of match fixing kingpin ‘unlawful’’ This is the headline in the media on 26 Nov. The release of Dan Tan after being detained for 24 months without trial under the Criminal Law(Temporary Provisions) Act(CL/TPA) has very serious implications to the enforcement of law and order in the city state and question the rationale of ‘Self Check’ as the best check on the system. The Court of Appeal headed by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Appeal Judges Chao Hick tin and Andrew Phang Boon Leong ruled that Dan Tan’s detention under the CL/TPA was unlawful.  This means that the Law Minister that invoked this law was wrong and a citizen was detained unlawfully for two years.  The first thought coming to mind, can Dan Tan seek redress and compensation against the Minister or the govt?

Dan Tan’s detention was debated in Parliament, a kind of self check in the system to ensure that the law is enforced fairly and equitably and lawfully. And for it to go to Parliament, many legal minds and experts in MOH must have gone through the law with due diligence and found it right and lawful to detain Dan Tan. And Parliament, a few questions, allowed it to pass.

If this Dan Tan did not have the money and the able lawyers to defend him, he would still be locked up without trial, on the ground of threatening public safety, peace and order in Singapore. The CL/TPA was to protect the country against hard core criminals from harming the people and law and order. What did Dan Tan do to be feared like hard core criminals? He was a bookie, a big time international bookie fixing football matches. And that was seen by the people in authority as very dangerous and threatening public safety, peace and order in Singapore. And the Minister thought so, his ministry thought so and Parliament, the whole lot of MPs and ministers also thought so.

Now the Court of Appeal said NO!. It is unlawful. And some people are worried that this decision will compromise peace, good order of Singapore. This means that this loosely written law can be subjected to all kinds of interpretation depending on the person’s psychological make up, his values and beliefs and wha the person thinks is a danger to peace and good order, and a bookie or gambler is also that dangerous.  What is astounding is that so many brilliant, clever, super talented people, MPs elected by the people to sit in Parliament, in this case, were all wrong and read the law wrongly. Is it frightening? And more frightening, they are afraid that because they were ruled to be wrong, it will compromise good order and peace, or that their decision should be upheld for good order and peace.

What about self check? Is this about self check? Is the system, the courts doing a self check on the system? Some would say yes, some would say not really. Some would now be questioning, how credible and reliable were those people that were given the trust and authority to apply the law and did it so badly resulting in a man being detained without trial for 2 years.

And so many people, clever people, thought the law was right and they were right to use the law on Dan Tan. Thank God, there is self check in the courts of law and there is wisdom to apply and uphold the law lawfully.

On hindsight, many wise men have also wisen up to say how could Dan Tan fall into the category of dangerous criminals that would affect public safety, peace and good order of Singapore? Would the Law Minister and MOH make an appeal against this judgement from the Court of Appeal and to rule that what they did to Dan Tan was lawful?

Would anyone be held accountable for applying the law so wrong?