I was frankly appalled by the PAP arguments in Parliament yesterday on why the police would be allowed use of the TraceTogether information in “serious” crimes.
It was pathetic that Vivian Balakrishnan – who assured Singaporeans last June that the TraceTogether data would only be for use to combat the virus – could tell Singaporeans that he did not realise the implications of the Criminal Procedure Code when he gave the assurance and that he had had sleepless nights deliberating whether he should try to persuade his colleagues to change the law.
When he gave the assurance last June, he would have known that there were real concerns in the public that the information could be used for other purposes, and that was why the assurance was given. And when the government has given its word, they should jolly well change the law, which can easily be done, if that is what is needed to keep their word. Don’t hide behind the skirt of some law like the Criminal Procedure Code, to backtrack on your promise to Singaporeans.
They need not even change the law if they were serious about keeping their word. The Government could issue a directive to the Police that they would not be allowed access to the information, period. Look how resolute the Australian Government has been in not granting the Australian Police access to their tracing information.
Shanmugam’s argument that there could be judicial review challenges if the police are absolutely prohibited from accessing the information is nonsense. It once again attempts to introduce fallacious legal arguments to cloud a clear-cut issue. Once a Government has issued an assurance, that constitutes a compact with the citizens and to suggest that the courts will go behind that compact is rubbish.
More at https://tinyurI.com/yyr9pqa2
It was pathetic that Vivian Balakrishnan – who assured Singaporeans last June that the TraceTogether data would only be for use to combat the virus – could tell Singaporeans that he did not realise the implications of the Criminal Procedure Code when he gave the assurance and that he had had sleepless nights deliberating whether he should try to persuade his colleagues to change the law.
When he gave the assurance last June, he would have known that there were real concerns in the public that the information could be used for other purposes, and that was why the assurance was given. And when the government has given its word, they should jolly well change the law, which can easily be done, if that is what is needed to keep their word. Don’t hide behind the skirt of some law like the Criminal Procedure Code, to backtrack on your promise to Singaporeans.
They need not even change the law if they were serious about keeping their word. The Government could issue a directive to the Police that they would not be allowed access to the information, period. Look how resolute the Australian Government has been in not granting the Australian Police access to their tracing information.
Shanmugam’s argument that there could be judicial review challenges if the police are absolutely prohibited from accessing the information is nonsense. It once again attempts to introduce fallacious legal arguments to cloud a clear-cut issue. Once a Government has issued an assurance, that constitutes a compact with the citizens and to suggest that the courts will go behind that compact is rubbish.
More at https://tinyurI.com/yyr9pqa2
