@Dixon, great comment. I’ve re-posted it on my blog. Hope you don’t mind! :)

As a start, I refer to the CNA online report dated 18 May 2010 and I quote, “the minister emphasised there was no change in the law but a reproduction of a section in the Evidence Act.”

This is rubbish.

Background. The proposed clause 258, seemed to be a reproduction of s.29 Evidence Act (SG).

s.2(2) Evidence Act (SG) clearly provide that it is a subordinate Act. Legally, it means that when part of the provisions of the said Act is inconsistent with other Acts of Parliament, the affected part would be deem repeal for that purpose (or as far as the subject matter of the trial goes). Compare that to the Criminal Procedure Code, which is a full Act, the Code will prevail against the Evidence Act.

The effect of that?

First, there are balancing provisions in the Evidence Act i.e. s.24, s.25 and s.26 of the same. The practical effect to it would be that the court is open to assess the facts before it in a liberal, if I may, commonsensical manner. By enacting a mirroring provision in the Code, it would arrest the court’s able jurisdiction to approach the evidence before the bench in any other way but the manner which the Code demands.

Secondly, the legal onus of proof would be lifted in the Prosecution’s favour. Overwhelmingly. Making any changes to the discovery (of document) process to criminal trials minute, if not redundant. This murks the foundational legal doctrine that defines “beyond reasonable doubt”. The effect of the proposed clause in the Code greatly suggests that if the statement had came from a particular body, it is assumed to be free of doubt.

Thirdly, the proposed clause in the Code greatly dehumanise the Accused/Suspect. Making the person a mere subject of interest to a legal forum. By allowing a statement of those cited nature to be admissible, regardless of the condition of the person’s attribute, characteristics, mental capability and health, may gravely suggest that the presumption of innocent is revoked or displaced.

Therefore, the proposed clause in the Code acts in contravene to the tradition and spirit of the common law system and certainly defies the logic and soul of liberty and democracy.

@Concern citizen I think you should check with your lawyer about that (before you ever get arrested, of course!) but from what I recall reading, I think they can sometimes take your silence as a presumption of guilt.

@Jeff well said. Is that from somewhere?

@Singa TODAY already covered it, and my post is not really a proper article that can be submitted to TOC.

This is infuriating!

Would you like to submit this article to TOC?

I think this is a very serious violation of the citizens’ rights with huge implications and the message has to be broadcasted as widely as possible.

If they won’t take the lead, who else can?

The fact that THIS Government neither believes nor trusts any such things, and which holds its primary purpose to be its own continuation by any means necessary, merely proves the difference between a government of laws and a government BY law. One is a society that seeks justice and prosperity for all through equality and democracy, and is at peace with its neighbours absent their malicious attacks. The other is a totalitarian régime, drunk on its own power and proud of the degree to which it has detached itself from the “common rabble.”

Which of those governments do we live under? And what type of Government shall we seek to live under? Clause 258 is a reminder that THIS Government well knows the truism that “any government which makes peaceful change impossible, makes violent change inevitable.”