14-year-old jumps to his death after unaccompanied police interrogation for Molest

[kuasimi]

Review on system not just about Benjamin’s death: Law Society’s president

http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...tys-president/


https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/



BY CARLTON TAN ON FEBRUARY 17, 2016 LEGISLATION



In the February issue of the Singapore Law Gazette, the Law Society’s president, Thio Shen Yi argued for better protection of suspects, especially minors, by granting them early access to counsel.

Benjamin Lim is a 14-year-old boy who jumped to his death following a two-hour police interview. His mother’s request to be present during the interview was denied.

Explaining why her request was denied, Mr Thio wrote:

The simple answer is that there is no legal requirement for parents to be present in the interview room when a minor is involved.

The reason for this as explained by Mr Lionel de Souza, ambassador for the National Crime Prevention Council is because: “A police investigation is about searching for the truth. Having a parent in the same room with the accused would hamper this search, because they will not be neutral parties”.

This belief that the police’s investigation will be hampered by the presence of lawyers is also the reason why the law does not grant suspects the right of immediate access to counsel.

Thio argues that this is especially problematic for children because they are more easily terrified than adults and because “a stressful interrogation can extract what the interrogator is looking for, which may, or may not, be the truth.”

“There are plenty of empirical psychological studies that strongly suggest that people of sound mind and temperament can be made to confess to something that they didn’t do,” he adds.

Acknowledging that there is a need to balance police effectiveness and protection for the accused, Thio points out that “this incident forces us to contemplate the potentially catastrophic cost of getting the balance wrong.”

His position is that suspects should be granted near immediate or at worst, early access to counsel. Responding to the argument that access to lawyers may hamper police investigations, Mr Thio argues:

It cannot be the case that our well-trained, well-resourced, first world police force will be stymied in their investigations by something as anodyne as the presence of parents or lawyers. Perhaps the time is right to fast forward this discussion and reboot our thinking.

Mr Thio cites four nearby countries to show that it is possible to protect suspects while still allowing the police to do their work effectively. In Malaysia, Hong Kong, India and Taiwan, suspects are allowed to consult a lawyer before or during his interrogation. However, reasonable limits may be imposed, such as in India where the lawyer may not be present throughout the entire interrogation.

Asking that Singapore learn from the experience of other legal jurisdictions, Mr Thio reiterates that early access to counsel creates a justice system where we can “safely rely on the fairness of the convictions and acquittals.” This, he believes, “is a necessity in ensuring sustainable confidence in our criminal justice system.”

Is it fair to the arrested person or suspect if they can only talk to a lawyer days (or a couple of weeks) after the investigation? Intimidation, coercion or psychological manipulation can come in many forms, is often subtle, and may even be unintentional. In the context of an investigation by the police, which is inherently stressful, surely every suspect is vulnerable? The precise level of vulnerability is just a matter of degree. This must ultimately devalue the reliability of the statements (let alone confessions) given under those circumstances. The trial should not start, and for all intents and purposes end, at the police station.

In addition, Thio asks if the investigative process may “unintentionally cause avoidable psychological trauma and long-term distress.”

“If Benjamin’s death was avoidable with a better system in place, then it is one death too many. But it is not just about Benjamin,” he said.

Thio concluded by making an appeal to fellow lawyers:

The role of the Bar, as stakeholders in the Criminal Justice System, is to give our clients, and victims, a sense of confidence, to tell them that they can trust the system, it is not perfect, but it is largely fair and transparent, and is ultimately aimed at generating just outcomes. Can we at the Bar genuinely say that yet? We can do better. We must do better. And we should do it together.

On 22 January, days before Benjamin’s death, Law Minister K Shanmugam said that the Ministry of Law was looking into substantive reforms in civil and criminal law.

On 1 February, The Singapore Police Force announced that it would conduct a review of its procedures when interviewing a minor. There have been no updates yet.

[AC_Milan]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

In addition, Thio asks if the investigative process may “unintentionally cause avoidable psychological trauma and long-term distress.”

“If Benjamin’s death was avoidable with a better system in place, then it is one death too many. But it is not just about Benjamin,” he said.

Likewise i don't trust clone(S) like you, the fugitives, the no substance opposition parties, the disgruntled individual and the foreign media (good at stirring shit in order to boost readership at the expense of our country)



Pls stop destroying my country, stop making false accusation against our govt, stop spreading untrue rumours, stop tarnishing our govt's image to the outside world via Youtube, Facebooks, private shitty blogs, chatrooms etc........


pls stop lurking at all internet forums 24/7 365 days fabricating stories, destroying Singaporean values and cohesiveness, split our community and create hatred among Singaporean, brain washing Singaporean to vote against our govt and trying to destroy our country thus causing our currency to depreciate !!!



Fellow Singaporean pls B E W A R E !!!


Pls help to spread this P O W E R F U L message around !!!

[kuasimi]

Questions about Benjamin Lim’s case, Home Affairs Minister and SPF cannot answer


http://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2016...cannot-answer/

https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/


BY ONLINECITIZEN ON FEBRUARY 23, 2016 SOCIAL JUSTICE


On 26 January, fourteen-year-old Benjamin Lim Jun Hui was found dead at the base of a HDB flat where he lived. Prior to that, five plainclothes police officers showed up at Benjamin’s school on Tuesday morning and took him away for questioning for allegedly outraging the modesty of an 11-year-old girl. Benjamin’s mother was denied access to him for the whole duration of police interview. (read more)

In its attempt to learn more about the incident, The Online Citizen (TOC) wrote to the police on 29 January to seek response on the incident. Receipents include commander and deputy commander, AC Lian Ghim Hua and DAC Chong Zunjie. TOC did not receive any reply from the police.

On 30 January, another query was made again to the police, this time with the Police Commissioner being copied in the mail. But alas, no reply from the police again.

On 5th February, the same query was sent to the different agencies and police commissioner, along with the question of the police’s statement about the plain clothes police officers. (read more). Still, the police remained silent on the issue till today.

On the same day, TOC also wrote to Minister of Home Affairs, K Shanmugam about Benjamin’s case and asked if he had anything to comment or to help with the questions that the police have refused to answer. Similar to the police, Mr K Shanmugam has not given a reply since the mail was sent. Mr K Shanmugam is also the Minister of Law.

What are the questions that the Singapore Police Force and Minister of Home Affairs so unwilling to reply? See below if you’re interested to know.

1) Was the offense deemed urgent enough not to schedule an interview with the boy in question along with his guardian with the police?

2) Was it standard police protocol to visit schools for suspects who are students?

3) Given that it has not been judged that the boy was guilty of his offence, does the police feel that the arrest of the boy could create unreversible damage to his reputation and image?

4) TOC understands that the boy was interviewed by the police without the presence of his guardian, and the mother was denied access to the boy until the investigation is over.

Singapore acceded to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) on 2 October 1995 and under section 2(b) of article 40 of CRC. Does the police procedure, especially in the mentioned case, follow the points as stated in the CRC?

5) Would the police officer who gave the orders to arrest the boy at the school be named? If not, does the police force take ownership of the orders to carry out the arrest of the boy at school during school hours.
6) Would the police release the details of the investigation into the boy’s death to the public or to his parents?

7) Does the parent of the boy have any means to file a complaint against the actions of the police?

[sadfa]

Knn you come back only when its zap free zone.

Toc is not real media so of cos they won't reply Lo.
And their questions r as bad as yr posts.

Benjamins family together with garbagements mp met the police. I bet a lot of bad things said bout Benjamin that's why his family kept quiet.

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by sadfa

Knn you come back only when its zap free zone.

Toc is not real media so of cos they won't reply Lo.
And their questions r as bad as yr posts.

It is not zap free zone anymore.

It is still better than remaining silent, sweeping under carpet and not caring at all which does not look good on the Police and Minister.

At least TOC is doing something within their limited means.

You showed passion for this topic but what else have you done so far?

I am sure Minister and Police would have responded if election results were more competitive and their jobs remain on the line.

[ComplainKing]

How to ownself check ownself ?

[sex crusader]

Originally Posted by kuasimi

It is not zap free zone anymore.

It is still better than remaining silent, sweeping under carpet and not caring at all which does not look good on the Police and Minister.

At least TOC is doing something within their limited means.

You showed passion for this topic but what else have you done so far?

I am sure Minister and Police would have responded if election results were more competitive and their jobs remain on the line.

Didn't you read that this section should be politics free?

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by sex crusader

Didn't you read that this section should be politics free?

This is current affairs, not politics else CNA and ST will be reporting about politics everyday?

Besides, the way you put it make it sound politics is more taboo than sex, prostitutes and pornography. The wonder AMDKs like to laugh at Singaporeans for being illogical.

[kuasimi]

Articles / February 22, 2016
Justice in Criminal Investigations
by Sujatha Selvakumar

http://www.inconvenientquestions.sg/...nvestigations/


https://www.facebook.com/inconvenientquestions/



The suicide of 14-year-old Benjamin Lim, who was interrogated by the police unaccompanied by an adult, raises questions about individual rights and police procedures. In the Singapore system, the police is not obliged to inform suspects of their rights, and there are features that make the process unfavourable towards suspects. A better balance needs to be struck between efficiency and individual rights, especially when it comes to youthful suspects.

Criminal Investigations are daunting for anyone, and even more so for young persons. The unaccompanied police interrogations of 14-year-old Benjamin Lim, and his decision shortly thereafter to jump to his death, fills me with disquiet.

Much has been written about the treating of a young person like an adult and submitting him to interrogations unaccompanied. There have been several calls for authorities to justify their actions in an attempt to vindicate Benjamin Lim’s death, and some of it seems politically-motivated.

The incident has brought to the forefront the precarious balance between the rights of individuals and the ability of the police to carry out investigations effectively to maintain public safety, as well as much deeper questions about our rights as citizens.

Article 9(3) of the Constitution states that a suspect, when arrested, shall be informed as soon as may be, of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.

The difficulty arises when suspects are not informed of their constitutional rights by the police. In the US, UK and several European countries, a positive obligation is placed on the police to inform suspects of their rights before interrogations begin. Failure to do so could mean any statement taken by the police during the interrogations will be disregarded during trial.

In Singapore, there is no obligation on the part of the police to inform the suspect or witness of their rights, particularly that against self-incrimination. Even an innocent person who is kept ignorant and uninformed of his rights is unlikely to claim them. While we now have the Pamphlet of Rights, what use is it if it cannot be placed before every suspect at the lock up and is instead sitting pretty in the station canteen?





Are Singapore’s children adequately protected during police investigations?



This is further compounded by the fact that in the Singapore system, the suspect ought to state his defence during the course of the investigations. Failure to do so could mean an adverse inference is drawn against the suspect in Court.

To make matters even more challenging for the suspect, the right to counsel is not immediate but can be withheld within a reasonable time frame. This feature is quite unique to Singapore. In most countries, access to counsel is immediate; or, alternatively, a middle ground is reached permitting some communication and consultation.

The practical application of the term “reasonable” is fraught with ambiguity—there is inherent elasticity in the idea. It also means that, before interrogations begin, the counsel is unable to advise the suspect to tell the truth, to articulate any defences they may have, to co-operate with the police, or to advise against self-incrimination and also advise if no defence is available. This often leaves the suspect, regardless of his age, emotionally and psychologically vulnerable.

These practical issues, coupled with the vulnerability of youth, gave rise to the unfortunate case of Benjamin—a life lost too soon.

We must move away from the inherent sense that a suspect’s exercise of his rights may in some manner impede police investigations. Due process must mean that procedures are filled with “hindrances” that serve the interest of justice and protect the innocent.

We should not merely pay lip service to the notion of “innocent until proven guilty”. As seen above, the nuances are in the application of the principle by the police, the Attorney General’s Chambers and at Court.

The Witness Support Program is made available to children below the age of 18 who give evidence at criminal trials. This is a precedent that clearly acknowledges that young people are vulnerable, and it is equally available to all young persons regardless of their role as witness or suspect. Similar treatment should be extended to young people at police stations. The trial should not begin in the police station.

Much like the balance scales held by the Greek goddess of justice, Themis, there is a precarious balance, and we must constantly be willing to tweak due processes in the interest of justice.

Constitutional changes will not be possible overnight as it requires more debate and consideration. This does not, however, preclude civil society from lending its voice to the many proposals and constructive solutions that can be considered and lobbied for. An example is the proposal by the criminal practice committee of the Law Society of Singapore that a suspect be allowed to consult a lawyer privately for up to one hour before statements are recorded by the police.

More urgently, we should consider expanding the Appropriate Adult Scheme, which is intended to protect vulnerable accused, and is thus far used only for persons with intellectual or mental disability. MOE could assist by having all its school counsellors trained as Appropriate Adults who can thus be the neutral person needed for investigations while also acting as a familiar person as the child undergoes criminal investigations.

Schools can also do more by participating in Project Schools, an initiative by The Law Society of Singapore. The initiative aims to engage, enable and empower our youth by creating a greater awareness of the law, highlighting their rights and obligations, and informing them of the consequences of juvenile delinquency.

Lastly, video recording of interviews during investigations is to be piloted this year by the SPF. The police should also consider piloting it for young offenders and making it available during criminal discovery, as it will accurately capture proceedings, thus acting as a safeguard of the rights of youthful suspects. At the same time, it would offer protection to officers from any baseless allegations.

As Mahatma Gandhi said, “A nation’s greatness is measured by how it treats its weakest members”. I believe in this matter, we can and must do better.

Top photo: Benjamin Lim’s school, Northview Secondary

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this publication are those of the author’s and do not reflect the opinions or views of IQ or its editorial team.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

About the Author:

Sujatha Selvakumar is a Singapore lawyer. Having graduated from University of Manchester with LL.B (Hons) and LL.M (Corporate Governance), she works as a Senior Associate in a local law firm. She loves to quietly contemplate life over a cup of coffee and passionately believes in access to justice, in eradicating the aspiration gap amongst youth and in empowering women.

[kuasimi]

https://www.facebook.com/STReview


https://www.facebook.com/TheIndependentSG


https://www.facebook.com/theonlinecitizen/


https://www.facebook.com/The-Alterna...8759327518739/


https://www.facebook.com/allsgstuff


https://www.facebook.com/Fabrication...97912132/?rc=p


https://www.facebook.com/The-Workers...5421570592834/


https://www.facebook.com/WPgrassroots/


http://wpcf.sg/


http://wpyouth.sg/


https://www.facebook.com/wpyouth/


https://www.facebook.com/aljuniedcommunity


https://www.facebook.com/hougangsmc

[Fuckster]

Originally Posted by curry_mutu_man

and also my question to you is why do you want to create clone(s) to brain wash singaporean to vote against our hardworking govt ???


Our strong sing currency will drop and our beautiful well organized country will be in chaos if our hardworking honest govt is toppled by unscrupulous unethical irresponsible and dishonest opposition parties and the foreign media like you guys always making false accusation(s) against our honest govt !!!


The most horrendous thing is poison internet pests like you all lurking at all forum(s) and private social media 24/7 365 days telling lie and poisoning the mind of singaporean(s) to vote against our honest govt !!!

My dear fellow singaporeans, the foreign media and the dishonest opposition parties are out to destroy our stable country, please beware !!!

you are really a big 'plp'. Pm me if you want me to translate to you the meaning of "plp"

[Fuckster]

Is a little kitten really so dangerous and life threatening that you need to go to the extent of activating 5 full grown gorillas that are lawfully equipped with pistol and handcuffs to capture it? WTF!

[ComplainKing]

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapo...ice-falsehoods

Fact that a teen life was lost after police interrogation .

Since the Home Minister had mentioned that they are reviewing the protocal for handling minors . May I make the following suggestion :

1) While the interrogation process is ongoing , the police should at least let a parent / guardian of the minor be present .

2) A criminal lawyer should also be present to advise the suspect and to ensure that the suspect rights are not violated.

3) All interviews should be recorded on camera .

4) A suspect is only a suspect until otherwise proven .

A life was lost at such a young age. What a pity .

[kuasimi]

Originally Posted by ComplainKing

http://news.asiaone.com/news/singapo...ice-falsehoods

Fact that a teen life was lost after police interrogation .

Since the Home Minister had mentioned that they are reviewing the protocal for handling minors . May I make the following suggestion :

1) While the interrogation process is ongoing , the police should at least let a parent / guardian of the minor be present .

2) A criminal lawyer should also be present to advise the suspect and to ensure that the suspect rights are not violated.

3) All interviews should be recorded on camera .

4) A suspect is only a suspect until otherwise proven .

A life was lost at such a young age. What a pity .

After all the answering sessions in Parliament, Government did not really answer any questions that could determine how much of a role did School and Police played in Benjamin's suicide.

All Ministers of Education and Home Affairs did was to tell the public what they already knew, paint social media/ Law Society as false and tried to silence public discussion on Benjamin's suicide which was already public knowledge.

Why Benjamin's family dispute the stories from both Ministers after the Parliament?

Since it is the Government's words versus Benjamin's family words then it will never be solved. Cases about Government versus People usually ends in dead knot because both sides will accuse each other of collusion.

Regardless Benjamin is guilty or not, separate questions to determine if Police and School have any role in Benjamin's suicide remained not answered by Ministers. e.g. How did Police got Benjamin to confess during interrogation?

If elevator CCTV showed clearly Benjamin molested girl, why need 3 hours interrogation and why Minister's own conclusion is Benjamin deserved only a Warning without Charge? So was there really a molest or horseplay between kids only? Will this 'lift CCTV' be shown to Benjamin's family?

Why Adult cannot accompany Minor during Police interrogation?

If really clear cut molest case with evidence, why interrogation of suspect not held in private room which was the normal practice but in open office space which usually is for making police reports by the victims? Does conducting the interrogation in the private room help maintain Benjamin's privacy?

Why need 5 Police officers (3 from NPC) to go school? We all know only one leader usually do the talking but why 5 officers need to go to the school? Will Government release school's CCTV to public or at least Benjamin's family to show all 5 police officers actually wore civilian clothes (not police T-shirts) and hide police ID cards when they went to the school?

Now that Shanmugam had brought politics into Benjamin's case by accusing TOC of politics, will that mean whatever Government answers on Benjamin's case will now be a conflict of interests?

The Government is not giving the answers that public and Benjamin's family need to know. Blaming politics, Law Society, social media , Benjamin's family, netizens and everybody else will not help clear up the case. It only deflects the real issues away.

[kuasimi]

Benjamin Lim suicide: shadow puppetry begins

Published 2 March 2016

law, crime, court cases , politics and government


https://yawningbread.wordpress.com/2...ppetry-begins/


Whenever a politician goes on the attack, saying others have been trafficking in “falsehoods”, one has to be alert to the possibility that amidst the smoke and thunder, some more important questions are being avoided. This appears to be the case when the law minister K Shanmugam finally addressed the Benjamin Lim case.

The apparent suicide of 14-year-old Benjamin, hours after being hauled to a police station on 26 January 2016 and interrogated for three-and-a-half hours without lawyer or even parent present is, in itself, troubling enough. That it also shines a light on the lack of rights even if the accused were an adult is why this case is doubly significant.

Addressing Parliament, Shanmugam accused The Online Citizen of stating or suggesting unsubstantiated claims as fact:

The overall narrative and impression conveyed by the articles put up by TOC was that the police were lying, the police intimidated Benjamin and they put pressure on him to confess to a crime that he did not commit.

These are allegations, implications which are false, noted Mr Shanmugam, adding that this led people to conclude that as a result of this, Benjamin committed suicide.

— Today, 1 March 2016, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam hits out at TOC, LawSoc president for putting out ‘falsehoods’

He also accused Thio Shen Yi, president of the Law Society, of similar disregard of “facts”.

The minister also criticised how LawSoc president Thio Shen Yi weighed in on the case, expressing his surprise that “even a lawyer” had made comments which should not have been made.

Last month, LawSoc’s official monthly newsletter, Singapore Law Gazette, published Mr Thio’s commentary that said the police should have taken a “less intimidating way” of approaching the investigation, among other things.

Mr Shanmugam said Mr Thio’s statements effectively imply that Benjamin killed himself because of police intimidation.

Mr Thio has a duty to be fair to the police officers involved, he said before adding that Mr Thio need only refer to the police statement on Feb 1 to know he “got his facts wrong”.

Without knowing anything about Benjamin, his mental make-up or his family background, Mr Shanmugam said one cannot reach such conclusions that the boy was intimidated and as a result, took his life.

— ibid.

I find the last line noteworthy, and a fine example of politics-speak. Shanmugam is trying to put distance between the actions of the police and the boy deciding to jump from his high-rise flat. He does so by reducing the comments by detractors to a claim that the police intimidated the boy, and then says that no such conclusion could be reached. The synaptic leap is that therefore the police were not responsible for the boy’s death; the authorities cannot be held culpable in any way.

We should not fall for such greased logic.

The timeline cannot be ignored. Being taken from school to a police station, interrogated alone for over hours, held alone in a holding room, and (as Shanmugam said in Parliament) admitting to an offence of touching an 11-year-old girl inappropriately, is a tectonic life moment for a teenager. Sure, the possibility exists that there were other proximate causes for his decision to take his own life, e.g. he could have become angry at losing at his videogame, or he was in pain from constipation, but to dismiss or minimise the preceding police events because it is not proven, is disingenuous.

It is particularly offensive, and just as irresponsible and unsubstantiated as whatever allegations he accused The Online Citizen of, to suggest that the parents themselves, or family dysfunction, might in some way be a factor (when Shanmugam referred to “family background”).

The other thing to note is that intimidation has a subjective element. Shanmugam is trying to use the word to mean a certain kind of aggressive behaviour on the part of police officers. But we all know that what is intimidating to one person may not be to another, depending on that subject person’s life experiences, response-skills and most importantly, power position, vis-à-vis the “intimidator”. Thus, denying that the police used aggressive behaviour does not mean that Benjamin did not feel intimidated. Mobsters after all, have been known for dressing smartly, calling politely and using suave, allusive language in order to extort: “Sir, as we all know, flowers enjoy the sunlight; they bloom and thrive from the blessings of heaven. But they share their bounty with the bees. Such is the order of nature. And bees help in pollination. Without sharing with bees, the plants might have no offspring.”

So, Shanmugam’s strenuous denial that there was no intimidation may only be true in a very narrow sense. We need to be alert to politics-speak.

The wider issue

Singapore would be poorer for it if we do not take this opportunity to look at the bigger picture of the rights of accused persons. An article in the Asian Correspondent succinctly listed the shortcomings. (Singapore: The legal rights we don’t have, 28 Feb 2016, by Carlton Tan). Key points from there:

… the police may prevent him from consulting a lawyer for as long as they deem necessary or “reasonable”.

Even after the suspect has engaged legal counsel, the police is still not required to let counsel be present during subsequent interviews. This means that he can be questioned without his lawyer.

Any incriminating statements that he gives can then be used to convict him, regardless of whether or not the statements were obtained unfairly.
In fact, even if he chooses to remain silent on the grounds that he is waiting for his lawyer, his silence can be used against him. The judge may make what is called an adverse inference from his silence.

In addition, the suspect has no right to contact third parties to discover and ask about into his right to counsel, and he has no right to contact family and friends to ask about the legal consequences of his arrest.

Instead of addressing these wider issues, what we have seen so far, reiterated by Shanmugam in Parliament, is that

The police will review their procedure for interviewing young persons.

Mr Shanmugam said the review will take in three broad points: what happened in Benjamin’s case, the type of young persons who are picked up, and how to reduce the risk of officers flouting procedure.

— Straits Times, 1 March 2016, Shanmugam lays out facts on schoolboy Benjamin Lim’s case, says police followed procedures

This is very, very narrow. Firstly, it is an internal review. The police are reviewing their own actions and procedures. There always exists in such circumstances an incentive to minimise self-blame. Secondly, it is tightly referenced to this particular case itself and similar cases involving young persons.

Significantly, what is left totally unsaid is this: What is the yardstick for review? Without setting up an objective standard to measure by, reviews (especially internal ones) are little more than shadow puppetry. The yardstick should be developed-country standards for the rights of accused persons. And once this yardstick is recognised, it becomes obvious that the scope should be broadened to include adult accused persons.

Moreover, it would be a lot more credible if independent lawyers and human rights monitors are part of the review panel, and if members of the public have an avenue for input.

The Law Society has been calling for earlier access to counsel. In this connection, it is interesting that Acting Minister for Education (Schools) Ng Chee Meng told Parliament:

… that the Ministry of Education will participate in the review of police practices and protocols following Benjamin’s death.

School processes will be adapted and refined where needed, he added, to align them with the recommendations arising from the review such as requiring a school staff to act as an “appropriate adult” at the police station.

— Today, 1 Mar 2016, Ng Chee Meng addresses public concerns on students under investigation

I think he has just thrown a spanner into the works, probably unwittingly. While Shanmugam’s stance seemed to be to not question or influence what the review panel may recommend, as seen from his silence about what he’d like to see as outcome, Ng Chee Meng, by the above words, has already flagged what his own ministry wants the review panel to do.

But if the ministry wants an “appropriate adult” to accompany a schoolkid to the police station, this will surely beg the question why this person (probably a teacher) should have right of presence or access when a parent does not. Which in turn will raise the question: Why not a lawyer?

This is the kind of muddle-headed nonsense we see from our government. They are driven by contradictory impulses: to avoid the whole question of human rights and the public scrutiny these may bring onto them and their executive actions, while at the same time assuaging criticism of their most egregiously callous behaviour. Their response is typically, and in a completely arbitrary way, to give a little bit but at the same time to guillotine discussion of the whole, all the while reserving total discretion (as to what to give) to itself.

I will not use the words “cover up”, because it is in no way one. But the government’s response is clearly a determined attempt to evade the full panoply of questions about the rights and treatment of accused persons that logically arise from this case.