balanced. posted on Sunday, June 18, 2006
-
The report, 'Entrapment: Lawyers say narcotics officers crossed the line in quest to nab offender, but any method of entrapment is legal here' (ST, June 9), suggested that the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) had acted unethically in the apprehension of Adrian Yeo for drug possession.
This led to various letters from concerned members of the public on the entrapment issue.
The Straits Times followed up on the subject with an editorial, 'Entrapment: Fair or not?' (June 14), advocating that CNB's action against Yeo was somehow wrong because 'fair-minded people are entitled to point out it seems neither fair nor ethical to encourage a person to break the law, just for enforcement agencies to gather evidence'.
The ST article published on June 9 regrettably did not report all the facts of Yeo's case. A diligent reading of Yeo's mitigation plea which was presented in court will show that he had been consuming drugs even before he came to the attention of CNB.
In fact, he would not have been of any interest to CNB otherwise; it was his drug abuse which led CNB to investigate him in the first place.
When Yeo was asked if he had any drugs, he volunteered to take drugs to the hotel where he was subsequently arrested with Ecstasy, 'Ice' and Ketamine.
Yeo was, therefore, not a law-abiding person enticed into committing an offence by CNB.
In omitting to highlight the fact that he was a habitual drug abuser, the ST report has misled readers into thinking that CNB had acted unethically when the circumstances of the case clearly showed the contrary and that CNB had acted professionally.
The ST editorial suggests that law-enforcement methods like entrapment should be reserved for only more serious offences involving drug trafficking and 'national security', rather than drug abuse. This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the situation.
Drug abuse is a serious threat. The battle against drugs in Singapore faces a new challenge - even as we succeeded in addressing the serious heroin problem of the past, today we face a growing potential problem of synthetic-drug abuse.
A majority of those arrested for synthetic-drug abuse are first-time offenders. One of the concerns this trend raises is the mentality of certain segments of our society who think that synthetic drugs are 'soft' drugs which should be tolerated as they are acceptable as part of a modern 'cool' lifestyle. This is a dangerous attitude which we must not allow to take root in our society.
The ST editorial also suggested that because Yeo is a taxi-driver's son who made it as a doctor, but whose future is now uncertain, the action taken against him will 'reinforce in some people a sense that natural justice had been violated'.
This is a strange argument. Surely, the ST is not suggesting that the CNB action would be fairer and more just if Yeo had been related to a person of high social standing?
This cannot be the way our criminal-justice system should work. Indeed, if the application of our criminal laws and the actions of our law-enforcement agencies were to be dictated by factors such as an offender's family connections, income and social status, it would be highly unjust and perverse, and no Singaporean will stand for it.
Finally, the ST editorial concluded by referring to the 'entrapment' case of insurance agent Teo Ya Ling as another illustration of unethical action by the authorities. This is wrong and without basis.
Teo was not an innocent law-abiding party tempted by CNB officers into committing an offence. She was a small-time drug dealer who had all along been supplying drugs to her clients in return for their buying insurance policies from her.
While a time-honoured tenet of natural justice is audi alteram partem - 'to hear the other side' - the ST reporter chose not to obtain and verify the facts of the case with any of the relevant enforcement agencies, other than to ask whether CNB polices chatlines and the Internet.
At no point did the reporter seek the views of any relevant enforcement agency on the issue of entrapment.
If the reporter and the person who wrote the editorial had done their research, your paper would have been able to present a more balanced perspective.
-
Ong-Chew Peck Wan (Mrs)DirectorCorporate CommunicationsDivision for Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs)
--
Jun 17, 2006, Straits Times
-
The report, 'Entrapment: Lawyers say narcotics officers crossed the line in quest to nab offender, but any method of entrapment is legal here' (ST, June 9), suggested that the Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) had acted unethically in the apprehension of Adrian Yeo for drug possession.
This led to various letters from concerned members of the public on the entrapment issue.
The Straits Times followed up on the subject with an editorial, 'Entrapment: Fair or not?' (June 14), advocating that CNB's action against Yeo was somehow wrong because 'fair-minded people are entitled to point out it seems neither fair nor ethical to encourage a person to break the law, just for enforcement agencies to gather evidence'.
The ST article published on June 9 regrettably did not report all the facts of Yeo's case. A diligent reading of Yeo's mitigation plea which was presented in court will show that he had been consuming drugs even before he came to the attention of CNB.
In fact, he would not have been of any interest to CNB otherwise; it was his drug abuse which led CNB to investigate him in the first place.
When Yeo was asked if he had any drugs, he volunteered to take drugs to the hotel where he was subsequently arrested with Ecstasy, 'Ice' and Ketamine.
Yeo was, therefore, not a law-abiding person enticed into committing an offence by CNB.
In omitting to highlight the fact that he was a habitual drug abuser, the ST report has misled readers into thinking that CNB had acted unethically when the circumstances of the case clearly showed the contrary and that CNB had acted professionally.
The ST editorial suggests that law-enforcement methods like entrapment should be reserved for only more serious offences involving drug trafficking and 'national security', rather than drug abuse. This demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of the situation.
Drug abuse is a serious threat. The battle against drugs in Singapore faces a new challenge - even as we succeeded in addressing the serious heroin problem of the past, today we face a growing potential problem of synthetic-drug abuse.
A majority of those arrested for synthetic-drug abuse are first-time offenders. One of the concerns this trend raises is the mentality of certain segments of our society who think that synthetic drugs are 'soft' drugs which should be tolerated as they are acceptable as part of a modern 'cool' lifestyle. This is a dangerous attitude which we must not allow to take root in our society.
The ST editorial also suggested that because Yeo is a taxi-driver's son who made it as a doctor, but whose future is now uncertain, the action taken against him will 'reinforce in some people a sense that natural justice had been violated'.
This is a strange argument. Surely, the ST is not suggesting that the CNB action would be fairer and more just if Yeo had been related to a person of high social standing?
This cannot be the way our criminal-justice system should work. Indeed, if the application of our criminal laws and the actions of our law-enforcement agencies were to be dictated by factors such as an offender's family connections, income and social status, it would be highly unjust and perverse, and no Singaporean will stand for it.
Finally, the ST editorial concluded by referring to the 'entrapment' case of insurance agent Teo Ya Ling as another illustration of unethical action by the authorities. This is wrong and without basis.
Teo was not an innocent law-abiding party tempted by CNB officers into committing an offence. She was a small-time drug dealer who had all along been supplying drugs to her clients in return for their buying insurance policies from her.
While a time-honoured tenet of natural justice is audi alteram partem - 'to hear the other side' - the ST reporter chose not to obtain and verify the facts of the case with any of the relevant enforcement agencies, other than to ask whether CNB polices chatlines and the Internet.
At no point did the reporter seek the views of any relevant enforcement agency on the issue of entrapment.
If the reporter and the person who wrote the editorial had done their research, your paper would have been able to present a more balanced perspective.
-
Ong-Chew Peck Wan (Mrs)DirectorCorporate CommunicationsDivision for Permanent Secretary (Home Affairs)
--