la nausée

So the controversy surrounding the Budget 2008 Debate (which I haven’t the time to follow) has been drowned out by this news of the Manhunt. A rifle-totting, able-bodied, combat-trained CPL Dave Teo is apparently small-fry in comparison with the unarmed, partly-crippled former chief of the Jemaah Islamiah.

The Straits Times was notably quick to publish a report assuring readers that security at the Whitley Road detention centre (”WRDC”) is “very tight”. Conveniently, the report cites anonymous “people who have visited detainees there”. Surely the level of security should be gauged (on a technical basis) against those of regular prisons like Changi and Queenstown Remand, rather than on the basis of the opinions of ‘visitors’ to the WRDC.

Already, two differences of the WRDC from regular prisons may be noted from the Straits Times report. The WRDC has no watchtowers, and it is housed within a complex which rather bizarrely includes a “heritage centre” (not exactly what you would expect in a highly-secured facility).

Anyway, a dedicated incarceration facility such as Changi Prison will always be superior.

First, given Government policy objectives, the Singapore Prison Service understandably receives far more funding than the Internal Security Department (both are within the Ministry of Home Affairs). Superior resources mean better infrastructure, better staff (sometimes, you need to rely on more than just Gurkha guards), and so on.

For instance, a total of $1,095,000,000 has been set aside ( $98,454,600 in FY2008 ) for the redevelopment of Changi Prison Complex; this excludes smaller projects for Changi Prison such as a “Visits Management System” and new furniture and equipment. By contrast, $21,732,000 was set aside for upgrading the Whitley Road Centre ( a paltry $271,200 in FY2008 ) — and who knows how much goes towards renovating the heritage centre!

(… … notice how I ingeniously dovetailed Budget 2008 into this discussion on the ISD ;0)).

Second, with a larger facility, you can tap on economies of scale: it is surely far more efficient (read: cheaper for the taxpayer) to put ISD detainees in Changi Prison, where lots of moo-lah is already spent in guarding, supervising and rehabilitating hundreds of prisoners, than to house them at another facility.

Why the different regime of treatment for ISD detainees? Conceivably because they are being detained without trial under the Internal Security Act (”ISA”), unlike regular convicted prisoners in Changi Prison.

The solution? Try them, convict them, then put them in maximum-security lock-up at Changi!

Of course, I recognize that in the area of counter-terrorism, the ISA is useful to pre-emptively clamp down on would-be terrorists before they cause real damage. In using preventive detention as a counter-terrorist weapon, Singapore is not much different from countries like the U.K. (see the Terrorism Act 2006) and the U.S. (see the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act 1996).

That being said, I am unconvinced that indefinite detention of would-be terrorists under the ISA is necessary. For one, our Penal Code is already replete with various inchoate offences (attempt, abetment, conspiracy etc.) which do not require that an offender commit real ‘harm’ before finding guilt on his part.[1] Second, it is surely possible for Parliament to legislate specific offences dealing with preparatory terrorist operations, as has been done in the U.K.[2]

The crucial thing is that these alleged terrorists (even if they are first detained under the ISA) should be prosecuted for specific offences and tried in public. This is not just a question of protecting their fundamental liberties, or of protecting the integrity of the law. A public trial serves as a cynosure for our collective moral revulsion and a rallying-point against these barbaric acts. It also sends a stronger deterrent signal to other would-be terrorists, as compared to secretive detention under the ISA. Indonesia has publicly tried and convicted terrorists — why not us?

add to del.icio.us | digg this!