Why OSA offender cannot be named
[2011] 14 Sep_ST
Title: Why OSA offender cannot be named
Source: Straits Times
Author: K. C. Vijayan
Legal News Archive
THE Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) yesterday said details of cases relating to the Official Secrets Act (OSA) are at times withheld because disclosure could compromise the very interests protected by the Act.
The amount of details released would depend on the specific circumstances of each case, and also the directions given by the court hearing it.
It was responding to queries from The Straits Times on a recent case in which a gag order was placed on the name of a retired senior civil servant jailed three weeks for OSA offences.
The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had said in a statement last Thursday that the man was charged with one count of receiving a confidential document and 24 counts of possessing sensitive and classified documents.
He was convicted last month and sentenced on Sept 6. His name, former designation, the department in which he served and details of the documents, people and organisations involved were not released.
A CPIB spokesman said the court had explicitly ordered that the man not be named, and that the other details be withheld as well. It is believed that the prosecutor - in this case, the AGC - had sought the information blackout.
This non-disclosure sparked a buzz online, with more than 50 netizens on the local forum fuckwarezone.com wondering aloud why he had been granted anonymity.
Some asked what made this case special, others speculated about who he was, and one netizen suggested that the Government was protecting his identity to save him from being targeted.
Lawyers said that names in OSA cases are sometimes not revealed for state security reasons.
A gag order could also be imposed when an investigation is under way so as not to prejudice the ongoing probe.
Lawyer Peter Fernando said the case in question may have started out as a probe into alleged corruption, but could have morphed into an OSA case when details surfaced during investigations.
In a 2002 case, for example, a CPIB officer was charged under the OSA for revealing the car number plates of unmarked surveillance cars to two suspected corrupt officers who were being tailed.
The OSA prohibits the unauthorised disclosure or retention of official documents and information which someone has obtained in the course of his work, among other things.
Under civil service rules, official information obtained in the course of work cannot be taken by an officer when he leaves the service. An officer who does so can open himself up to prosecution.
Mr Goh Shih Yong, 62, who served as deputy corporate communication director of the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority before he retired, said: 'The day we joined, we were told that whatever we did was confidential - that meant it was confidential whether I was in the organisation or had retired.
'So automatically, I returned all confidential documents I had to the office when I retired, including those in my laptop. They belong to the office, not to me.'
[email protected]
Additional reporting by Jessica Lim and Jennani Durai
Source: Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.
[2011] 14 Sep_ST
Title: Why OSA offender cannot be named
Source: Straits Times
Author: K. C. Vijayan
Legal News Archive
THE Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) yesterday said details of cases relating to the Official Secrets Act (OSA) are at times withheld because disclosure could compromise the very interests protected by the Act.
The amount of details released would depend on the specific circumstances of each case, and also the directions given by the court hearing it.
It was responding to queries from The Straits Times on a recent case in which a gag order was placed on the name of a retired senior civil servant jailed three weeks for OSA offences.
The Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had said in a statement last Thursday that the man was charged with one count of receiving a confidential document and 24 counts of possessing sensitive and classified documents.
He was convicted last month and sentenced on Sept 6. His name, former designation, the department in which he served and details of the documents, people and organisations involved were not released.
A CPIB spokesman said the court had explicitly ordered that the man not be named, and that the other details be withheld as well. It is believed that the prosecutor - in this case, the AGC - had sought the information blackout.
This non-disclosure sparked a buzz online, with more than 50 netizens on the local forum fuckwarezone.com wondering aloud why he had been granted anonymity.
Some asked what made this case special, others speculated about who he was, and one netizen suggested that the Government was protecting his identity to save him from being targeted.
Lawyers said that names in OSA cases are sometimes not revealed for state security reasons.
A gag order could also be imposed when an investigation is under way so as not to prejudice the ongoing probe.
Lawyer Peter Fernando said the case in question may have started out as a probe into alleged corruption, but could have morphed into an OSA case when details surfaced during investigations.
In a 2002 case, for example, a CPIB officer was charged under the OSA for revealing the car number plates of unmarked surveillance cars to two suspected corrupt officers who were being tailed.
The OSA prohibits the unauthorised disclosure or retention of official documents and information which someone has obtained in the course of his work, among other things.
Under civil service rules, official information obtained in the course of work cannot be taken by an officer when he leaves the service. An officer who does so can open himself up to prosecution.
Mr Goh Shih Yong, 62, who served as deputy corporate communication director of the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority before he retired, said: 'The day we joined, we were told that whatever we did was confidential - that meant it was confidential whether I was in the organisation or had retired.
'So automatically, I returned all confidential documents I had to the office when I retired, including those in my laptop. They belong to the office, not to me.'
[email protected]
Additional reporting by Jessica Lim and Jennani Durai
Source: Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.
