The internal security Act of Singapore (cap 143,1985 Rev. Ed) gives executive powers to enforce various legislative powers and ensure adherence and, if need be, detention by the sate of persons that are deemed to be a threat of national security. The core aim of the act is to prevent actions of Subversion, suppress organized violence directed towards the general public or private property, or any other activity that is likely to result in distorted public order and hence internal security of the State of Singapore. The act that is currently in operation came into place in 1960 by the State Federation of Malaysia.
There are various guidelines that govern the implementation of the statue. For instance, for instance, prior to any detention under the Internal Security Act (ISA). The first condition reinforces the executive nature of the act; it states that for a person to be detained by the ministry of home affairs under violation of this act, the president must have contended that the persons’ freedom and actions pose a threat to national security. Such detention must also be necessitated by the commission of any of the acts that are well stated under the act. The president must, therefore, be convinced that the detainees are threats to national security prior to authorizing their arrests. For instance, in Chng Suan Tze v. Minister for Home Affairs (1988) some legal limits were imposed after been campaigned for by the court of appeal; such limits, for instance, required the ministry of internal affairs to outline some objective evidence that proved the presidents’ satisfaction and justification of arrests and detention of persons under this act.
After the decision of this case, there was a series of legislative amendments that eventually resulted in the reversal of the court decision. Later further discussion and contradictions on this case lead to the High court decision that it is sufficient for the president to be satisfied that the detainee is a threat to national security and thus be detained on the basis of ISA for the outlined period of time. The Internal Security Act further accords the government through the Ministry of Internal Affairs to hinder or instead prohibit and political or military (including quasi) from assembling or conducting any forms of communication. It also bans subversive documents publications that are deemed to contradict national interests either internally or externally. Lastly, the act serves the purpose of suppressing all forms of organized violence through all means, such as the declaration of various parts of the State to be “State security zones.”
Situational Analysis
Upon the arrest and the initial detention of Adam and Bernice, there is the various administrative proceedings that the act requires the government to follow. The guidelines for such processes are outlined under sections 9,11 and 12 of the ISA. For instance, they were supposed to be well informed of the ground of their detention immediately after their arrest. This should be done as soon a possible unless such disclosures further compromise national internal security.
Adam and Bernice also have the right to have been served with copies of detentions prior to the arrests with a proper explanation of their grounds of the allegations of the facts that support both their arrests and detention. In this case, this right was clearly violated, and thus they have the right to pursue their freedom through filing a legal suit against the State.
Within 14 days from the day of their arrest, the detainees also should be informed about their fundamental rights of making legal representations against their detention to the advisory board. Chaired by the supreme court judge, the board should then hear and put into consideration the detainee’s argument through their legal representatives.
Secondly, the detainees have the right to be summoned and cross-examined by the board and heard by the board that comprises of various presidential appointees. The board then evaluates the evidence produced before them and makes recommendations to the president within a period of three months. Irrespective of the board’s recommendation, the president retains a personal discretion over the matter under the act.
Adam and Bernice’s arrest warrant only indicated that they were being arrested due to the commission of “dangerous activities.” Whereas in the prima facie, the duo was not engaging in any illegal activities, the ministry of the internal affair could have initially concealed the actual motivation behind the arrest. Further, they were not given the opportunity to document the evidence of their innocence against the said accusation. Irrespective of the decision that the board recommended to the president the detained retains the right to appeal the decision. The president can then make a decision upon consultation with the advisory board. It is, however, important to note that this been an executive order Act allows the ministry to consider or decline a request for legal representation. Depending on whether Adam and Bernice are Singapore citizens, their request for lawful representation requests fully lies at the discretion of the board and strength of the evidence they present before the board either in written form or during the cross-examination. The entire burden of proving citizenship lies on the detainees.
The Minister of Home Affairs’ initial order may allow for a person to be detained for up to two years. This can be expanded further by directives provided by the president for prolonged periods of up to two years at a time. The Minister is empowered to suspend a detention order with discretion but also has the right to cancel the suspension at any time, which reactivates the detention order. Detention orders must be reviewed by an advisory board, which then makes its recommendation to the Minister, at least once every 12 months.
Under administrative law, judicial review is an activity in which the High Court scrutinizes the judgments and orders taken by the executive to ensure that they adhere to the law. If the decisions and orders are not approved by statute or were made in contravention of the standards of administrative law, they may be invalidated by the court.
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )