Brunei

LEGAL SYSTEM

The legal system is based on English common law; for Muslims, Islamic Shari'a law
supersedes civil law in a number of areas, including divorce, inheritance, and some sexual
crimes. Shari'a law is not applied to non-Muslims. Shari'a law differs from Western law in
providing severe punishment for moral crimes, such as adultery, fornication, and consumption
of alcohol, as well as apostacy, or switching from Islam to another religion. These are included
in a category of punishment called "hudud" crimes, which are crimes against Allah. Hudud
crimes include stealing, robbing, fornication, consumption of alcohol, and apostacy. Robbery
is punished by cutting off the hand of the thief. Fornication by unmarried persons and alcohol
consumption are punished by flogging, but adultery by stoning to death. Other crimes, such
as murder and assault, are punished severely, as well. Murder is punishable by the death
penalty. Assault is punishable using the principle of "eye for eye, tooth for tooth." However, it
is possible through negotiation in an Islamic court to escape such punishment through
providing compensation, financial or otherwise.

POLICE

The Royal Brunei Police Force was established in 1921 with the passage of the Brunei Police
Force Enactment. In 1923, the police duties were expanded to include fire services, prisons,
immigration, motor-vehicle registration, issuing various licenses, and the registration of non-
citizens. As time elapsed, structural changes to the police force made it more efficient. In
1958, the Immigration Department was established. One year later, in 1959, a Commissioner
of Police was established by the Constitution. Brunei became a member of international
police commissions INTERPOL and ASEANAPOL in 1984. By 1993, an Internal Security
Branch was formed to replace the Special Branch. Most recently, in 1997, the Traffic Division
was upgraded into its own department, further maximizing police efficiency. The Royal Brunei
Police Force is organized into seven districts: the Brunei, Belait, Muara/Marine, Tutong,
Temburong, Jerudong, and Berakas Police Districts. These districs are managed by four
directors: Administration and Finance, Operation, Criminal Investigation and Intelligence, and
Logistics. The entire police operation is overseen by the Inspector General, Police
Commissioner, and Deputy Commissioner.

DETENTION

The law provides for a prompt judicial determination regarding the validity of an arrest.
However, those provisions, like the Constitution itself, may be superseded, either partially or
wholly, through invocation of the emergency powers. The Internal Security Act (ISA) permits
the Government to detain suspects without trial for renewable 2-year periods. The
Government occasionally has used the ISA to detain persons suspected of antigovernment
activity; however, information on the detainees is published only after they are released.
Muhamad Yasin Abdul Rahman, age 76, who played a pivotal role in the abortive 1962
rebellion, was detained without trial for 12 years from 1962 to 1973, when he escaped from
prison to live in exile in Malaysia. He returned to the country in 1997 and immediately was
arrested and detained once more without trial. In 1999 he was released from detention after
swearing an oath of loyalty to the Sultan and admitting his political "crimes." In 1998
authorities briefly detained several citizens under the ISA for distributing allegedly defamatory
letters containing allegations about the royal family and senior government officials connected
with the collapse of the Amedeo Group, a large holding company headed by the former
Finance Minister and Sultan's brother, Prince Jefri. The Government warned citizens that it
would take action against anyone involved in such activities. In late 2000 and early 2001, the
Government used the ISA to detain at least seven Christian citizens for alleged subversive
activities. All were released during the year, the last three in October. Government officials
maintain that the detentions were for security not religious reasons. Normally a magistrate
must endorse a warrant for arrest. Warrants are issued without this endorsement on rare
occasions, such as when police are unable to obtain the endorsement in time to prevent the
flight of a suspect. Police officers have broad powers to make arrests, without warrants, of
persons caught in the physical act of committing a crime. Under a colonial-era law, the Sultan
may forcibly exile either permanently or temporarily any person deemed to be a threat to the
safety, peace, or welfare of the country. Since independence there have been no cases of
banishment of citizens.

COURTS

The Constitution does not specifically provide for an independent judiciary. However, in 1996
in a landmark legal decision, the appellate-level High Court ruled that the court has powers
independent of the prosecution and ordered a discharge in a car theft case under review,
which amounted to an acquittal under the Criminal Procedure Code. The Government has not
yet challenged the court's finding that magistrates have the legal power to discharge and
acquit a defendant, even when the prosecution does not request the discharge. In general the
courts appear to act independently. The judicial system consists of five levels of courts, with
final recourse in civil cases available through the Privy Council in London. Procedural
safeguards include the right to defense counsel, the right to an interpreter, the right to a
speedy trial, and the right to confront accusers. There have been no known instances of
government interference with the judiciary and no trials of political opponents. The
Constitution of Brunei officially sets up the court system. The system is split up into the
Supreme Court and the Subordinate Court. The Supreme Court comprises the High Court
and the Court of Appeals. The High Court receives appeals from Magistrate's Courts and is
also the court of first instance for criminal and civil cases. The Subordinate Court consists of
the Magistrate's Courts. The appeal process in the courts goes from the Magistrate's Courts
to the High Court to the Court of Appeals. If the case is appealed any further, then the final
court of appeal for civil cases only is the Judicial Committee of the the Privy Council in
London. Other courts have arisen to make the judicial system more efficient. Syariah Courts
co-exists with the Supreme Court and deal with Islamic laws. The Intermediate Court,
established in 1991, possesses extensive civil and criminal jurisdiction, but does not deal with
capital offenses.
CORRECTIONS

In 1998, there were 285 persons incarcerated in Brunei. With a population of 313,000, the
rate of incarceration is 90 per 100,000, a low rate in the world, but a moderate rate for South
Eastern Asia. The law prohibits mistreatment of prisoners, and there were no reports of such
mistreatment. Caning is mandatory punishment for 42 drug-related and other criminal
offenses and for vandalism. Sentences of caning are carried out in the presence of a doctor
who monitors implementation and has the authority to interrupt and postpone the punishment
for medical reasons. Caning generally is included as part of the sentencing in 80 percent of
criminal convictions. Many convicted persons reportedly prefer caning to lengthy
incarceration. Prison conditions generally meet international standards. There is no
overcrowding; however, there is a growing prison population. Prisoners receive regular
medical checkups. Remand cells at police stations are Spartan.

Brunei has one prison, Jerudong Prison, established in 1954. Jerudong Prison
accommodates all categories of prisoners ranging from those on remand and sentenced to a
day jail to criminals serving life imprisonment and facing death sentences. The stated
purposes of the prison are to rehabilitate its occupants into useful law-abiding citizens and to
protect society by detaining and guarding prisoners. To re-integrate an offender back into
society, deliberate rehabilitation programs have been established. It is mandatory for
prisoners to work in order to build strong ethic and discipline. The programs include
psychological, moral, civic, physical, or social rehabilitation. These programs provide a wide
range of opportunities in religious and social counseling, physical training, and vocational
courses. The rehabilitation process is unique in Brunei because it utilizes the Progressive
Stage System, which breaks into five stages. In the first stage, prisoners' mail is limited to one
letter sent and received per month, plus one 15-minute visit every two months (for prisoners
with sentences of less than six months). In the second stage, the prisoners' mail is limited to
one letter sent and received per two months (for prisoners with sentences over six months).
With good behavior in the first three months in stage two, the prisoner can be promoted to
stage three where he can receive earnings, send and receive letters once every three weeks,
and receive twenty-minute visits every six weeks. Stage four promotion includes one letter
sent or received every two weeks and one-half hour visit every month, however, is only
rewarded with outstanding behavior. Last, in the "Special Stage," prisoners are "honored" with
a special blue uniform. They can write one letter each month, receive unlimited letters, and
have a thirty-minute visit every two weeks.
Cambodia

LEGAL SYSTEM

Is difficult to find a country with such a varied history of its legal system. Cambodia's legal
system is primarily a civil law mixture of French-influenced codes from the United Nations
Transitional Authority in Cambodia (UNTAC) period, royal decrees, and acts of the legislature,
with influences of customary law and remnants of Communist legal theory. There has also
been an increasing influence of common law in recent years.

POLICE

The National Police, an agency of the Ministry of Interior, have primary responsibility for
internal security, but the Royal Cambodian Armed Forces (RCAF), including the military
police, also have domestic security responsibilities. Security forces are nominally under the
control of civilian authorities, but in practice answer to persons within the CPP. The
responsiveness of local police and military commanders to civilian authorities varies by
location. During the 1980s, law enforcement was the responsibility of the minister of interior,
who, as a member of the Council of Ministers, was charged by the Constitution "to protect the
interests of the people, preserve security and public order and protect the legal rights and
interests of the citizens." To carry out these functions, the ministry exercised control over its
own corps of plainclothes police and over the People's Security Service. In the late 1980s,
nothing was known publicly about the ministry's agents, except that they fulfilled
countersubversion responsibilities and that they may have been advised by Vietnamese and
by German Democratic Republic (East German) personnel. In 1987 the People's Security
Service consisted of a plainclothes branch and a uniformed police force called the Nokorbal
(civil police). Total personnel strength was undisclosed. Day-to-day administration of the
entire organization was carried out by the deputy minister of interior, under whom People's
Security Service staff functions were carried out by fifteen departments or bureaus. Some of
these subministerial offices, such as the traffic and the criminal police bureaus, performed
routine law-enforcement functions. Others rendered support services, such as internal
administration and supply, and still others fulfilled countersubversion responsibilities. Among
the latter were the political ideology bureau, which performed loyalty checks on party cadres;
the political security bureau, which arrested persons suspected of political offenses; and an
internal defense bureau, or unit, which investigated government ministries and offices.

DETENTION

The Constitution prohibits arbitrary arrest and detention; however, the Government continues
to arrest and detain citizens arbitrarily. A penal code drafted by the U.N. Transitional Authority
for Cambodia (UNTAC) in 1992 remains in effect, as does the 1993 Criminal Procedure Law.
The Criminal Procedure Law provides adequate protection for criminal suspects; however, in
practice the Government sometimes ignores these provisions. One NGO recorded 28
complaints of unlawful detention and arrest by police, military, or local government authorities
between March and August 2000. The Government initiated a crackdown on the CFF in
September during the course of which it arrested over 70 suspects, including dozens without
arrest warrants, and detained and subsequently released dozens more. The Government held
some suspects incommunicado and denied them access to lawyers for a period of time.

COURTS

The court system consists of lower courts, an appeals court, and a Supreme Court. The
Constitution also mandates a Constitutional Council, which is empowered to review the
constitutionality of laws, and a Supreme Council of the Magistracy, which appoints, oversees,
and disciplines judges. The composition of both of these bodies is viewed widely as biased
toward the CPP. There is a separate military court system. Trials are public. Defendants have
the right to be present and to consult with an attorney, to confront and question witnesses
against them, and to present witnesses and evidence on their own behalf. However, trials
typically are perfunctory, and extensive cross examination usually does not take place. In
1998 the introduction of newly trained lawyers, many of whom received supplemental training
by NGO's, resulted in significant improvements for those defendants provided with counsel,
including a reduced pretrial detention period and improved access to bail; however, there
remained a critical shortage of trained lawyers in most parts of the country--especially outside
Phnom Penh. Persons without the means to secure defense counsel often effectively are
denied the right to a fair trial. Defendants are entitled by law to the presumption of innocence
and the right of appeal. However, because of pervasive corruption, defendants often are
expected to bribe the judge for a favorable verdict, thereby effectively eliminating the
presumption of innocence. Citizens' rights to appeal sometimes are limited by the lack of
transportation and other logistical difficulties in transferring prisoners from provincial prisons
to the appeals court in Phnom Penh. Many appeals thus are heard in the absence of the
defendant.

CORRECTIONS

Individuals sentenced to imprisonment, as a result of administrative or judicial proceedings,

have been incarcerated in one of a nationwide network of about 200 prisons. These
installations have been administered by the Prison Directorate of the Ministry of Interior and
by the People's Security Service. They have constituted a many tiered system extending from
the national level to the local level. At the national level, the principal prison has been T-3,
located in Phnom Penh. This institution was built in the early twentieth century, and it has
served as a prison for every successive regime to hold power in Cambodia. The facilities
were enlarged 8/3/02in 1979. In the mid-1980s, it held about 1,000 prisoners. Administration
of T-3 was shared by the Ministry of Interior and by the Phnom Penh People's Security
Service, which used the facility to confine some its own prisoners apprehended in the capital
area. In addition to the T-3 central prison, two other national penal institutions, code-named T-
4 and T-5, have been reported. Both functioned as labor camps, and they appeared not to be
maximum security prisons. T-4, located on the outskirts of the capital, was administered by
the Phnom Penh People's Security Service; T-5, in Kampong Cham, administered by the
provincial People's Security Service. Overall responsibility for T-4 and for T-5 may have rested
with the Bureau of Reform Offices of the Prison Directorate.
Indonesia

LEGAL SYSTEM

The legal system of Indonesia is based on Roman-Dutch law, substantially modified by

indigenous concepts and by new criminal procedures code. Because of widespread
complaints about the penal code, which many regarded as a colonial legacy ill-adapted either
to Indonesian cultural norms or to modern criminal offenses, a committee began working in
the early 1980s on a complete revision. The committee was expected to finish its work in
early 1993. The draft would then have to be approved by the minister of justice and submitted
to the DPR for passage into law, a process not expected to be completed until mid-1993,
assuming no major controversy arose over the draft law.

POLICE

POLRI, the Indonesian National Police, was incorporated into the armed forces in 1964 during
the Sukarno era. Under Suharto steps were taken to militarise the

Police are empowered by means of the National Defence Law of 1982 and the Police Law of
1997. As part of ABRI, the Police Force assumed all aspects of military structure, including
ranks, budget, duties and even wage structure. The 1997 Law placed POLRI within the
integral command structure of ABRI. On 01 April 1999, POLRI was separated from ABRI, the
Indonesian armed forces. Although POLRI has been separated from ABRI, it remains under
the jurisdiction of the Defence Minister, General Wiranto.

By 1993 POLRI was responsible for arresting and interrogating suspects, while a special
POLRI force was responsible for dealing with street demonstrations. The BRIMOB (Brigade
Mobil, Mobile Brigade), the most militarised force in POLRI, was trained to deal with mass
demonstrations. Since the May 1998 upheaval, PHH (Pasukan Anti Huru-Hara, Anti Riot Unit)
have received special anti-riot training.

DETENTION

The Criminal Procedures Code contains provisions against arbitrary arrest and detention, but
it lacks adequate enforcement mechanisms, and authorities routinely violate it. The code
specifies that prisoners have the right to notify their families promptly and that warrants must
be produced during an arrest except under specified conditions, such as when a suspect is
caught in the act of committing a crime. The law authorizes investigators to issue warrants to
assist in their investigations or if sufficient evidence exists that a crime has been committed.
However, authorities at times made arrests without warrants.

The law presumes that defendants are innocent and permits bail. Defendants or their families
also may challenge the legality of their arrest and detention in a pretrial hearing and may sue
for compensation if wrongfully detained. However, it is virtually impossible for detainees to
invoke this procedure or to receive compensation after being released without charge. In both
military and civilian courts, appeals based on claims of improper arrest and detention rarely, if
ever, are accepted. The Criminal Procedures Code also contains specific limits on periods of
pretrial detention and specifies when the courts must approve extensions, usually after 60
days. The courts generally respect these limits.

COURTS

The Indonesian legal system is extraordinarily complex, the independent state having
inherited three sources of law: customary or adat law, traditionally the basis for resolving
interpersonal disputes in the traditional village environment; Islamic law (sharia, or, in
Indonesian, syariah), often applied to disputes between Muslims; and Dutch colonial law. Adat
courts were abolished in 1951, although customary means of dispute resolution were still
used in villages in 1992. The return to the 1945 constitution in 1959 meant that Dutch laws
remained in force except as subsequently altered or found to be inconsistent with the
constitution. An improved criminal code enacted in 1981 expanded the legal rights of criminal
defendants. The government in 1992 was still reviewing its legacy of Dutch civil and
commercial laws in an effort to codify them in Indonesian terms. The types of national law
recognized in MPR(S) Decree XX, (July 5, 1966), include, in addition to the constitution, MPR
decrees, statutes passed by the DPR and ratified by the president, government regulations
promulgated by the president to implement a statute, presidential decisions to implement the
constitution or government regulations, and other implementing regulations such as
ministerial regulations and instructions. Obviously, the executive enjoys enormous discretion
in determining what is law.

CORRECTIONS

Indonesia's 441 prisons were administered by the Department of Corrections within the
Department of Justice and included three categories of prisons based mainly on the number
of inmates they could hold. The nine largest, or Class I prisons, held prisoners sentenced to
life imprisonment or death.

A 1990 study of Indonesian prison conditions conducted by Asia Watch found conditions
harsh in most cases. Poor food, unsanitary conditions, and inadequate medical care were
common, as were mistreatment and corruption. Overcrowding in ancient and inadequate
facilities also occurred. The study noted the need for better training of prison personnel and
renovation of prison facilities.

Several specialized prisons for women and two for youths were located in Java. Where it was
not possible to confine such prisoners in separate institutions, as was usually the case
outside of Java, efforts were made to segregate juvenile from adult offenders and females
from males in separate sections of the same institution. Ordinarily, prisoners were permitted
visits by family members and could receive limited amounts of food and other articles to
supplement the minimal supplies they were issued. Under some circumstances, prisoners
were permitted to spend their nights at home. Most prisons tried to provide medical service of
some kind, although it was generally regarded as inadequate.
Laos

LEGAL SYSTEM

The criminal justice system, like every aspect of life in Laos, is controlled by the party and the
government. There are few legal restraints on the often arbitrary actions--including arrests--by
the government, and dissent is handled by suppressing basic civil rights. Although the
constitution provides for the freedoms of worship, speech, and press, as of the mid-1990s,
citizens did not feel free to exercise these rights fully. There are no legal safeguards, and
people are frequently arrested on vague charges. Although a penal code and a constitution
that guarantee certain civil liberties have been promulgated, implementation is another matter,
particularly where freedom of political expression is concerned. And, the media are state-
controlled.

Nonetheless, there is a system for prosecuting criminal behavior. Common crimes are
evaluated at the local village level. More serious cases, especially politically sensitive ones,
are referred to higher authorities. People's tribunals operate at district and provincial levels
with judges appointed by the government.

Both Laotian journalists and Western officials are critical of the limitations on personal
freedoms. In 1987 a Laotian journalist living in Thailand noted that there was little popular
support for the government, but that most Laotians accepted its authority because they had
little choice. In 1988 a Laotian journalist protested that open criticism of the government was
forbidden and that, as a result, one of his friends was imprisoned after he complained about
the continuing lack of a constitution. In 1988 Western diplomats reported that hundreds--
perhaps thousands--of individuals were being held in dention centers around the country and
that people still were being arrested and held for months without being charged.

POLICE

One of the first priorities for the LPDR was restructuring defense and security forces and
improving effectiveness in these new roles. After the major Mekong River towns were
liberated, soldiers were assigned police duties, although they lacked the necessary training.
As the pace of political change quickened and the government became increasingly
concerned about security, the public expressed dissatisfaction with heavy-handed military
controls, Pathet Lao arrogance, and the excesses committed by some guerrillas.

The emphasis on discipline, training, and reorganization reflected the difficulties encountered
by the former Pathet Lao cadre in converting from a guerrilla insurgency into a national
security force. Men taught to think of urban-dwelling lowland Lao as their bitter enemies found
it difficult at first to treat them as liberated brothers. Also, most young Pathet Lao guerrillas
brought in to keep order in the Mekong towns were members of upland minorities who had
never before been confronted with the temptations of city life. Consequently, there were
reports of abuses such as extortion and robbery by drunken Pathet Lao police officers.

By the end of 1976, an effective police force had been established. Its mission was simple: to
maintain basic law and order and strictly enforce government policies, often with little regard
for human rights. A police academy was established at the former United States-built police
school at Ban Donnoun, ten kilometers east of Vientiane, where Vietnamese and Soviet
instructors began teaching Laotian cadres basic police procedures. The crime rate reportedly
was very low.

DETENTION

The law provides for arrest warrants issued by the prosecutor, and the Constitution provides
for procedural safeguards; however, in practice the Government does not respect these
provisions, and arbitrary arrest and detention remain problems. Police sometimes use arrest
as a means of intimidation or to extract bribes. Police exercise wide latitude in making arrests,
relying on exceptions to the requirement for arrest warrants for those in the act of committing
a crime or for "urgent" cases. Incommunicado detention is a problem. There is a 1-year
statutory limit for detention without trial; the length of detention without a pretrial hearing or
formal charges by law also is limited to 1 year. However, these limits often are ignored in
practice. The Office of the Prosecutor General must authorize police to hold a suspect
pending investigation. Authorization is given in 3-month increments, and, after a maximum of
1 year, a suspect must be released if police do not have sufficient evidence to bring charges.
Access to family or a lawyer is not assured. There is a bail system, but its implementation is
arbitrary. A statute of limitations applies to most crimes. In practice, alleged violations of
security laws have led to lengthy pretrial detentions without charge and minimal due process
protection of those detained. Reports indicated that some students, teachers, and their
associates who had staged protests in 1999 remained in detention without trial at year's end
2001. These persons peacefully had advocated multiparty democracy and increased political
freedom and had expressed hostility to the regime. Their detention without trial, now in its 3rd
year, violates the 1-year statutory limit.

COURTS

The development of the legal and judicial system did not begin until almost fifteen years after
the state was proclaimed. In November 1989, a criminal code and laws establishing a judicial
system were adopted. In 1993 the government began publishing an official gazette to
disseminate laws, decrees, and regulations.

In 1990 the judicial branch was upgraded. New legislation provided a draft of a criminal code,
established procedures for criminal cases, set up a court system, and established a law
school. Moreover, the Ministry of Justice added a fourth year of studies to a law program for
training magistrates and judges.

Also in 1990, the functions of the Supreme People's Court were separated from those of the
office of the public prosecutor general. Until then, the minister of justice served as both
president of the court and director of public prosecutions.

Although the implementation of judicial reforms proceeded slowly and had not significantly
improved the administration of justice by mid-1994, the new legal framework offers the
possibility of moving away from the arbitrary use of power toward the rule of law. In late 1992,
however, the government suspended the bar until it formulates regulations for fees and
activities of (the few) private lawyers who are able to advise in civil cases. Lawyers are not
allowed to promote themselves as attorneys-at-law. Theoretically, the government provides
legal counsel to the accused, although in practice persons accused of crimes must defend
themselves, without outside legal counsel. However, the assessors (legal advisers)--who are
often untrained--and the party functionaries are being increasingly replaced by professional
personnel trained at the Institute of Law and Administration.

CORRECTIONS

There are four categories of persons held in confinement. Aside from common criminals,
there are political, social, and ideological deviants. The crimes of the three latter groups are
often vaguely defined, their arrests arbitrary, and their length of confinement ambiguous.

The LPDR established four different types of detention centers: prisons, reeducation centers
or seminar camps, rehabilitation camps, and remolding centers. Social deviants or common
criminals were considered less threatening to the regime than persons accused of political
crimes, who were considered potential counterrevolutionaries. Social deviants were confined
in rehabilitation camps. According to MacAlister Brown and Joseph J. Zasloff, prisons were
primarily for common criminals, but political prisoners also were held there for short periods,
usually six to twelve months. Ideologically suspect persons were sent to remolding centers.
Reeducation centers were for those deemed politically risky, usually former RLG officials.
Political prisoners usually served three- to five-year terms or longer. As at the prisons,
inmates worked hard under rugged conditions and had limited supplies of food. Oddly, there
was little political indoctrination. Bribery in order to secure food and medicine was reported.
Malaysia

LEGAL SYSTEM

The Malaysian legal system is based on English common law. The Federal Court reviews
decisions referred from the Court of Appeals; it has original jurisdiction in constitutional
matters and in disputes between states or between the federal government and a state.
Peninsular Malaysia and the East Malaysian states of Sabah and Sarawak each have a high
court.

The federal government has authority over external affairs, defense, internal security, justice
(except civil law cases among Malays or other Muslims and other indigenous peoples,
adjudicated under Islamic and traditional law), federal citizenship, finance, commerce,
industry, communications, transportation, and other matters.

POLICE

The Royal Malaysian Police have primary responsibility for internal security matters. The
police report to and are under the effective control of the Home Minister. Some members of
the police committed human rights abuses during the year 2001.

Police committed a number of extrajudicial killings, and authorities prosecuted the

perpetrators in some of these cases. Police on occasion tortured, beat, or otherwise abused
prisoners, detainees, and demonstrators.

Police increased their use of the Internal Security Act (ISA) to arrest and detain many
persons, including members of the political opposition, without charge or trial. In addition,
police continued to use several other statutes to arrest and detain many persons without
charge or trial.

DETENTION

Prolonged pretrial detention is a serious problem. In 2001, detained criminal suspects often
were denied access to legal counsel prior to being charged formally. Many observers
expressed serious doubts about the independence and impartiality of the judiciary, especially
in high-profile cases. The politically motivated convictions of former Deputy Prime Minister
Anwar on charges of corruption and sodomy in 1999 and 2000 demonstrated the judiciary's
lack of independence. However, while many observers continued to express doubts about the
independence and impartiality of the judiciary, reforms instituted by the new chief justice
appear to have led to some improvements in these areas. The remaining libel suits against a
U.N. Special Rapporteur on Judicial Independence were dropped during the year 2001.
Politically motivated, selective prosecution decreased during the year 2001; however, it
continued to be a concern as authorities continued to infringe on citizens' privacy rights in
some instances.
Police continued to use several statutes to arrest and detain many persons without charge or
trial. Suspects in some crimes (called "sizable offenses") may be arrested without warrants;
suspects in other crimes ("nonsizable offenses") may be arrested only based on a warrant
from a magistrate. Crimes characterized as bailable offenses permit suspects to present bail
at the police station according to a schedule. Bail is not available for nonbailable offenses and
sometimes also is denied in other circumstances, for example, great risk of flight. Police may
hold suspects for 24 hours without charge. Police may request a magistrate to extend the
period of remand without charge for up to 2 weeks. After this extension, the police, if they
wish to hold the suspect, must charge him and seek an order of detention from a magistrate.
In some cases, police have released suspects under remand and quickly rearrested them on
new but similar charges. However, in general police practice is in accord with legal provisions
concerning detention.

COURTS

The Constitution provides for an independent judiciary; however, Government action,

constitutional amendments, legislation restricting judicial review, and other factors steadily
have eroded judicial independence and strengthened executive influence over the judiciary. In
recent years, a number of high-profile cases cast doubts on judicial impartiality and
independence, and raised questions of arbitrary verdicts, selective prosecution, and
preferential treatment of some litigants and lawyers. Members of the bar, NGO's, and other
observers continued to express serious concern about these problems.

However, many observers believe judicial independence has improved since Tan Sri
Mohamed Dzaiddin Abdullah was appointed Chief Justice in December 2000. Immediately
following his appointment, Chief Justice Dzaiddin spoke publicly about the importance of
restoring public trust in the judiciary and instituted a rotational case-assignment system to
ensure the impartiality of judges hearing any given case. Dzaiddin also repeatedly has
stressed that a judge's loyalty must be to the law rather than to outside factors such as
politics. During the year 2001, some high-profile cases were decided according to the legal
merits of the case. However, some observers, including the Bar Council, expressed concern
about a series of high-level judicial appointments during the year 2001. Former Attorney
General Mohtar Abdullah was appointed to the Federal Court and Ahmad Fairuz was
appointed Chief Judge of the High Court of Malaya. It also was announced that Gani Patail,
the former lead prosecutor during Anwar trials in 1998 and 1999, would succeed Ainum Saaid
as Attorney General. These observers commented that these developments appeared to
indicate that executive encroachment on the judiciary could remain a serious concern.

CORRECTIONS

In 1999, an Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU) delegation found that prison conditions were not
in accord with international norms; the Government subsequently took some steps to improve
prison conditions. Conditions in the detention facilities of illegal aliens continued to pose a
threat to health, although marginal improvements in food and water rations were reported.

Prison conditions are poor. During the year 2001, the Human Rights Commission called for
prison authorities to provide standard medical treatment and food for prisoners. The
authorities in 1999 announced that changes would be made concerning prison conditions, in
the wake of a 1999 report by the Inter-Parliamentary Union on the treatment in prison of then
political prisoner Lim Guan Eng. The report found that the conditions of Lim's imprisonment
did not comply with the U.N. Standard Minimum Rules (Treatment of Prisoners) and the U.N.
Body of Principles for the Protection of All Persons under any Form of Detention or
Imprisonment. The report cited portions of the Minimum Rules that concern light, ventilation,
and proper bedding, and Principle 6 of the Body of Principles, which prohibits torture or cruel,
inhuman, or degrading treatment. However, the delegation that drafted this report did not visit
Lim in prison, and therefore was unable to make direct observations. The Government stated
that Lim was detained under the same conditions as other prisoners and in accordance with
the colonial-era 1952 Prison Rules and the 1995 Prisons Act, which, the Government
contended, met the standards of the U.N. Minimum Rules.
Myanmar (Burma)

BELIEFS

The Government has governed without a constitution since 1988. Constitutional support for
religious freedom does not exist. Most religious adherents registered with the authorities
generally were free to worship as they chose; however, the Government imposed restrictions
on certain religious activities and promoted Buddhism over other religions in some ethnic
minority areas. In practice, the Government also restricted efforts by Buddhist clergy to
promote human rights and political freedom.

POLICE

The Government reinforced its rule with a pervasive security apparatus. Until its dismantling
in October, the Office of Chief Military Intelligence (OCMI) exercised control through
surveillance, harassment of political activists, intimidation, arrest, detention, physical abuse,
and restrictions on citizens' contacts with foreigners. After October, the Government's new
Military Affairs Security (MAS) assumed a similar role, though apparently with less sweeping
powers. The Government justified its security measures as necessary to maintain order and
national unity. Members of the security forces committed numerous serious human rights
abuses

Unlike in previous years, there were no known instances of government-affiliated agents

killing pro-democracy activists. In March, the Shan Human Rights Foundation (SHRF)
reported a commander from Light Infantry Battalion 514 beat a civilian to death in front of a
military checkpoint in Mong Kung Township, Shan State for refusing to provide his vehicle for
forced labor.

DETENTION

During the year 2004, the Government continued to rule by decree and was not bound by any
constitutional provisions providing for fair public trials or any other rights. There is no provision
in the law for judicial determination of the legality of detention, and the Government routinely
used arbitrary arrest and incommunicado detention. The Penal Code allows authorities to
extend sentences after prisoners have completed their original sentence, and the
Government makes regular use of this provision.
The police are auxiliary forces of the military and are under direct command of military
officers. They primarily deal with common crimes and do not handle political crimes. The
Myanmar Police Force is administratively under the Ministry of Home Affairs. Corruption and
impunity were serious problems due to a governmentimposed system whereby police were
required to collect funds for their operations. Police typically required victims to pay
substantial sums for crime investigations, and police often extorted money from the civilian
population.
MAS (formerly OCMI) officers are responsible for arresting persons suspected of "political
crimes" that are perceived to threaten or undermine the Government. Upon arrest,
MAS/OCMI officers, or in some cases police officers, take prisoners to MAS/OCMI regional
interrogation centers where MAS/OCMI officers interrogate the arrested person for a period
ranging from hours to months and can charge the person with a crime at any time during the
interrogation. A hood frequently was placed on those accused or suspected of political crimes
upon arrest.

COURTS

The judiciary is not independent of the Government. The SPDC appoints justices to the
Supreme Court who, in turn, appoint lower court judges with the approval of the SPDC. These
courts then adjudicate cases under decrees promulgated by the SPDC that effectively have
the force of law. The court system includes courts at the township, district, state, and national
levels.

During the year, the Government continued to rule by decree and was not bound by any
constitutional provisions providing for fair public trials or any other rights. Although remnants
of the British-era legal system formally were in place, the court system and its operation
remained seriously flawed, particularly in regard to the handling of political cases. The misuse
of blanket laws--including the Emergency Provisions Act, the Unlawful Associations Act, the
Habitual Offenders Act, and the Law on Safeguarding the State from the Danger of
Subversive Elements--and the manipulation of the courts for political ends continued to
deprive citizens of the right to a fair trial. Pervasive corruption further served to undermine the
impartiality of the justice system.

There is a fundamental difference between criminal and political trial procedures. Some basic
due process rights, including the right to be represented by a defense attorney, generally
were respected in criminal cases, but not in political cases that the Government deemed
especially sensitive. In criminal cases, defense attorneys generally are permitted 15 days to
prepare for trial, are permitted to call and cross-examine witnesses, and can be granted a 15-
day delay for case preparation; however, their primary purpose is to bargain with the judge to
obtain the shortest possible sentence for their clients. Reliable reports indicate that senior
junta authorities dictate verdicts in political cases, regardless of the evidence or the law.
Political trials are not open to the public.

CORRECTIONS

There are laws that prohibit torture; however, members of the security forces reportedly
tortured, beat, and otherwise abused prisoners, detainees, and other citizens. They routinely
subjected detainees to harsh interrogation techniques designed to intimidate and disorient. In
June, four members of the NLD were taken into custody, interrogated, and forced to stand on
stools for 3 days. The four were forced to sign false written confessions that led to prison
sentences of up to 15 years for violating the Emergency Provision Act of 1950, the Unlawful
Association Act of 1908, and the Immigration Act of 1947 (amended in 1950 and 1962). The
court ruled the three sentences would not have to be served consecutively, but rather the
defendants would serve the longest of the three counts (7 years). The son of the most
prominent member of this group also was taken into custody and beaten by OCMI agents
before being released.

Prison and labor camp conditions generally remained harsh and life threatening; however,
during the year, the ICRC reported the Government did a better job meeting standards set by
existing regulations. The Department of Prisons operated approximately 35 prisons and
approximately 70 labor camps throughout the country. In prisons, food, clothing, and medical
supplies reportedly were in very short supply. Bedding consisted of a single mat on the floor.
Prisoners were forced to rely on their families, who were allowed to visit once every 2 weeks
for 15 minutes per visit, for basic necessities. Prisoners were held without being charged for
weeks or months, and until a prisoner was officially charged with a crime, families could not
visit or send critical supplementary food. HIV/AIDS infection rates in prison reportedly were
high due to communal use of single syringes for injections and sexual abuse by other
prisoners. In March, unverified reports indicated that the Government revoked access by
prisoners to periodicals and television granted following a visit from the UNSRHR in 2003.
Philippines

LEGAL SYSTEM

The Philippine legal system was a hybrid, reflecting the country's cultural and colonial history.
The system combined elements of Roman civil law from Spain, Anglo-American common law
introduced by the United States, and the customary systems used by minorities. The
influence of Spanish law was slowly fading but was clearly evident in private law, including
family relations, property matters, and contracts. The influence of American law was most
visible in constitutional and corporate law, and taxation and banking. Evidentiary rules also
were adopted from the American system. In the Muslim areas of the south, Islamic law was
employed.

Philippine law dates to the nation's independence from Spain at the end of the nineteenth
century. Statutes were enacted by the colonial Philippine legislature (1900-35), the
commonwealth legislature (1935-46), and by the republic, beginning July 4, 1946. Many
modern laws were patterned after the United States, and United States case law was cited
and given persuasive effect in Philippine courts. As of the mid-1980s, there were twenty-six
codes in effect. These included the 1930 revised penal code, in effect since January 1, 1932,
and the civil code, which replaced the Spanish civil code on July 1, 1950. In addition,
numerous presidential decrees issued during and after the martial law period (1972-81) had
the effect of law. During this era, President Marcos issued more than 2,000 decrees. Although
some were rescinded by Aquino during her first year in office. Rule by presidential decree
ended in February 1987 with the ratification of the constitution.

Substantive criminal law was embodied in the revised penal code, as amended, and based
chiefly on the Spanish penal code of 1870, which took effect in 1887. The penal code set forth
the basic principles affecting criminal liability, established a system of penalties, and defined
classes of crimes. It also provided for aggravating and mitigating circumstances, stating, for
instance, that age, physical defect, or acting under "powerful impulse causing passion or
obfuscation" can affect criminal liability. Insanity or acting under irresistible force or
uncontrollable fear were regarded by law as exempting circumstances. Under the code,
penalties were classified as capital (requiring a death sentence), afflictive (six years to life
imprisonment), correctional (one month to six years), and light (up to thirty days). These
correspond to the classification of crimes as grave felonies, punishable by capital or afflictive
penalties; less grave felonies, punishable by correctional penalties; and light felonies,
punishable by light penalties. The 1987 constitution, however, outlaws the death penalty
unless provided for by subsequent legislation.

POLICE

The Department of National Defense (DND) directs the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP), and the Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) has authority over the
civilian Philippine National Police (PNP). The AFP, which has primary responsibility for
counterinsurgency operations, also is involved in traditional law enforcement efforts, including
the pursuit of kidnapers, whose actions are a chronic criminal problem. Some members of the
security forces, including police, soldiers, and local civilian militias, have committed human
rights abuses.

When Aquino assumed office in February 1986, she immediately began dismantling
repressive restrictions on civil and public liberties. Political prisoners, including top Communist
leaders, were released. Restrictions on the media's ability to report freely and to criticize the
nation's leaders were removed. Aquino also allowed far greater freedom of political
expression. Although she enjoyed broad public support, Aquino inherited a variety of internal
security threats from her predecessor. Chief among them was the insurgency inspired by the
CPP and its military arm, the NPA. After modest growth during the first two years of Aquino's
tenure, insurgent strength waned in the late 1980s. Although Communist guerrillas remained
active throughout most of the country, internal dissension and improved AFP tactics had
reduced their threat. Meanwhile, Muslim insurgents in the south threatened to resume their
armed struggle for independence or autonomy. A combination of political maneuvering within
the government, continued Moro factionalism, and decreased foreign support, however,
reduced prospects for open rebellion. By 1990 the Muslims, although locally active and still a
potent military force, showed little inclination to resume full-scale conflict. Repeated military
rebellions and coup attempts constituted the most pressing challenge to Aquino's authority.
The highly politicized military generally was seen as another legacy of the Marcos regime.
Military dissidents exploited widely shared grievances in order to recruit supporters for their
rebellions. These grievances were at the root of military restiveness. Many officers
complained that the Aquino government was insensitive to the military's concerns and that her
administration was corrupt and unable to lead. Aquino also faced a serious crime problem
within the Philippines. A variety of social and cultural factors contributed to the problem.
Widespread poverty and the growing urbanization of the nation's traditionally rural society
often were cited as contributors. The crime rate generally paralleled the state of the economy,
dramatically worsening during the mid-1980s before improving at decade's end. Violence,
long common in Philippine society, was aggravated by insurgency and the prevalence of
highpowered firearms. Drugs were a modest but growing problem, and CPP-inspired
terrorism against Philippine officials, and sometimes Americans, escalated in the late-1980s.
To deal with criminal activity, the government focused on improving the performance of the
police and the courts. Aquino took several steps to remedy widespread skepticism about the
fairness and effectiveness of the judicial system. She ended presidential political interference
in judicial affairs and took steps to speed the sluggish legal process and reduce the logjam of
court cases. Efforts to improve Integrated National Police discipline and professionalism
continued, with special attention given to the perception that police were excessively corrupt
and abusive.

DETENTION

The Constitution requires a judicial determination of probable cause before issuance of an

arrest warrant and prohibits holding prisoners incommunicado or in secret places of detention;
however, police in a number of cases arrested and detained citizens arbitrarily. The CHR
investigated 52 cases of illegal arrest and detention through June, compared with 132 for all
of 2000. The TFDP documented 174 politically motivated arrests by the Government, the
majority of which were carried out with warrants. The Government denies that there are any
political detentions or detainees.
Detainees have the right to a judicial review of the legality of their detention and, except for
offenses punishable by a life sentence or death (when evidence of guilt is strong), the right to
bail. Authorities are required to file charges within 12 to 36 hours of arrests made without
warrants, depending on the seriousness of the crime for which the arrest was made. Due to
the slow judicial process, the court system is unable to ensure expeditious trials for detained
persons. In the aftermath of the May 1, 2001 uprising against the Government and President
Macapagal-Arroyo's declaration of a state of rebellion, police made at least 100 warrantless
arrests; human rights NGO's accused the Government of arbitrarily rounding up young men in
poor urban areas of the capital. The Government also filed rebellion charges against key
opposition leaders for inciting the uprising. These included Senator Juan Ponce Enrile and
former Senator Ernesto Maceda, both of whom were permitted to post bail. At year's end, the
Government did not appear to be actively pursuing the cases against Enrile and Maceda.

COURTS

The legal system used in the early 1990s was derived for the most part from those of Spain
and the United States. Civil code procedures on family and property and the absence of jury
trial were attributable to Spanish influences, but most important statutes governing trade and
commerce, labor relations, taxation, banking and currency, and governmental operations
were of United States derivation, introduced at the beginning of the twentieth century.

The national court system consists of four levels: Local and regional trial courts; a national
Court of Appeals divided into 17 divisions; a 15-member Supreme Court; and an informal
local system for arbitrating or mediating certain disputes outside the formal court system. The
Sandiganbayan, the Government's anticorruption court, hears criminal cases brought against
senior officials. A Shari'a (Islamic law) court system, with jurisdiction over domestic and
contractual relations among Muslim citizens, operates in some Mindanao provinces.

Judicial power is vested in a Supreme Court and in such lower courts as may be established
by law. The 1981 Judicial Reorganization Act provides for four main levels of courts and
several special courts. At the local level are metropolitan trial courts, municipal trial courts,
and municipal circuit trial courts. The next level consists of regional trial courts, one for each
of the nation's thirteen political regions, including Manila. Courts at the local level have
original jurisdiction over less serious criminal cases while more serious offenses are heard by
the regional level courts, which also have appellate jurisdiction. At the national level is the
Intermediate Appellate Court, also called the court of appeals. Special courts include Muslim
circuit and district courts in Moro (Muslim Filipino) areas, the court of tax appeals, and the
Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan tries government officers and employees charged with
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

The Supreme Court, at the apex of the judicial system, consists of a chief justice and fourteen
associate justices. It has original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public
ministers, and consuls, and over petitions for injunctions and writs of habeas corpus; it has
appellate jurisdiction over all cases in which the constitutionality of any treaty, law, presidential
decree, proclamation, order, or regulation is questioned. The Supreme Court also may hear
appeals in criminal cases involving a sentence of life in prison. Article 3 of the Constitution
forbids the death penalty "unless, for compelling reasons involving heinous crimes, the
Congress hereafter provides for it."
CORRECTIONS

In the late 1980s, institutions for the confinement of convicts and the detention of those
awaiting trial included a variety of national prisons and penal farms as well as numerous small
local jails and lockups. In general, the national prisons housed more serious offenders, and
those serving short-term sentences were held in local facilities. The prison system at the
national level was supervised by the Bureau of Prisons of the Department of Justice. The
bureau was responsible for the safekeeping of prisoners and their rehabilitation through
general and moral education and technical training in industry and agriculture. The bureau
also oversaw the operation of prison agro-industries and the production of food commodities.
In 1991 the newly formed Philippine National Police took over administration of local jails.

The government maintained six correctional institutions and penal farms. The nation's largest
prison was the National Penitentiary at Muntinlupa, Rizal Province, near Manila, which also
operated the Manila City Jail. The penitentiary served as the central facility for those
sentenced to life imprisonment or long-term incarceration. It was divided into two camps to
separate those serving maximum and minimum penalties. The Correctional Institution for
Women was located in Metropolitan Manila. Combination prison and penal farms also were
located in Zamboanga City, and in Palawan, Mindoro Occidental, and in several Mindanao
provinces. Prison conditions in the Philippines were generally poor, and prison life was harsh.

Some prison inmates were eligible for parole and probation. Before serving their sentence,
felons, who were not charged with subversion or insurgency, or had not been on probation
before, could apply for probation. Probationers were required to meet with their parole officers
monthly, to avoid any further offense, and to comply with all other court-imposed conditions.
After serving an established minimum sentence, certain prisoners could apply to their parole
board for release. The board could also recommend pardon to the president for prisoners it
believed to have reformed and who presented no menace to society.

In 1991 crime still was a serious, if somewhat reduced, threat to the general peace and
security of society and was aggravated by corruption in the police and court systems. The
politicization of the military was seen as a long-term problem and the threat of a military coup
remained significant. The threat of a CPP-led takeover seemed to be receding as NPA
guerrilla strength ebbed. The socioeconomic roots of the revolutionary movement remained
and promised to make the insurgency a problem for some time to come, despite its slow
decline. The government also recognized the continuing threat posed by well-armed Filipino
Muslim rebels, although few feared a near-term resurgent Moro uprising. External security
threats were not perceived.

Today, prison conditions are harsh in the Phillipines. Provincial jails and prisons are
overcrowded, have limited exercise and sanitary facilities, and provide prisoners with an
inadequate diet. The Government reported that jails in the metropolitan Manila area were
operating at 250 percent of capacity, and that 85 percent of the inmates were detainees
unable to post bail. Administrators budget a daily subsistence allowance of about $0.60 (30
pesos). Prison inmates often depend on their families for food because of the insufficient
subsistence allowance. In national prisons, male and female inmates are held in separate
facilities, overseen by guards of the same sex. In provincial and municipal prisons, male
guards may oversee female prisoners, directly or indirectly. In Bureau of Immigration and
Deportation (BID) detention facilities, male and female inmates are segregated by sex, but
male guards oversee both sexes. Children in some instances are held in facilities not fully
segregated from adult male inmates. There were reports that guards abused prisoners. In
March 2001, Amnesty International reported that women in police custody were particularly
vulnerable to sexual and physical assault by police and prison officials. Victims often were
afraid to report incidents. There were reports that detainees at the BID detention center were
released after making cash payments to guards.

Official corruption is a serious problem in the prison system. Jail administrators reportedly
delegate authority to maintain order to senior inmates. The CHR reported that beatings by
prison guards and other inmates were common, but prisoners, fearing retaliation, refused to
lodge complaints. Some prominent prisoners and jailed celebrities receive preferential
treatment. Favored inmates reportedly enjoy access to outside contacts, enabling them to
trade in prostitution and drugs.
Singapore

LEGAL SYSTEM

The legal system in Singapore is adversarial in nature. English common law was
superimposed on the existing Malay customary law and Muslim law. Consequently, the legal
system in Singapore can be characterized as pluralistic. While the dominant common law
which shaped the Singapore legal system applies to all segments of the population, Muslim
law governs the Muslim community in religious and matrimonial matters. Muslim law is
administered in accordance with the Administration of Muslim Law Act, Cap.42.

POLICE

In 1989 Singapore's police force had 7,000 constables and inspectors, 3,000 national service
conscripts, and 2,000 volunteers. The commissioner of police was responsible for law
enforcement in all civil jurisdictions of the country. He was assisted by deputy commissioners
for administration, civil defense, operations, and planning. Two auxiliary police organizations
employed an additional 2,300 persons trained to provide security for the Port of Singapore
and private businesses. The Port of Singapore police with 300 personnel in 1989, was
delegated responsibility for maintaining law and order on the docks, checking cargo
manifests, and inspecting vessels that were suspected of having contraband. The other
auxiliary police force was the Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation, which was
operated as a public service under the control of the minister for home affairs. The corporation
was established in 1972 to relieve regular police from routine security and escort duties for
private businesses. The 2,000 security personnel employed by the corporation were
delegated the same powers and immunities as police officers in the course of their duties. The
Commercial and Industrial Security Corporation was the only civilian security organization
whose personnel were authorized to carry firearms.

DETENTION

The law provides that, in most instances, arrests are to be carried out following the issuance
of an authorized warrant; however, some laws provide for arrests without warrants. Those
arrested must be charged before a magistrate within 48 hours. The great majority of those
arrested are charged expeditiously and brought to trial. Those who face criminal charges are
allowed counsel, and the Law Society of Singapore administers a criminal legal aid plan for
those who cannot afford to hire an attorney. A functioning system of bail exists for persons
who are charged. In death penalty cases, the Supreme Court appoints two attorneys for
defendants who are unable to afford their own counsel.

Some laws--the Internal Security Act (ISA), the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act
(CLA), the Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), and the Undesirable Publications Act (UPA)--have
provisions for arrest without a warrant. The ISA is employed primarily against suspected
security threats. Historically, these threats have been Communist-related, but the ISA was
employed against suspected terrorists during the year 2001. Opposition politicians have
called for the abolition of the ISA, but the Government has rejected these calls, claiming that
citizens accept the act as an element of the nation's security. The CLA historically has been
employed primarily against suspected organized crime and drug trafficking.

COURTS

Singapore's judicial power is vested in the Supreme Court, consisting of a chief justice and an
unspecified number of other judges. All are appointed by the president, acting on the advice
of the prime minister. The judiciary functions as the chief guardian of the Constitution through
its judicial review of the constitutionality of laws. The Supreme Court of Judicature Act of
1969, and various subsequent acts ensured judicial independence and integrity by providing
for the inviolability of judges in the exercise of their duties and for safeguards on their tenure.

The Constitution establishes two levels of courts--the Supreme Court and the subordinate
courts. The subordinate courts are the magistrates' courts, trying civil and criminal offenses
with maximum penalties of three years' imprisonment or a fine of S$10,000 (for value of the
Singapore dollar--see Glossary); the district courts, trying cases with maximum penalties of
ten years' imprisonment or a fine of S$50,000; the juvenile courts, for offenders below the age
of sixteen; the coroners' courts; and the small claims courts, which hear civil and commercial
claims for sums of less than S$2,000. The Supreme Court consisted of the High Court, which
has unlimited original jurisdiction in all civil and criminal cases and which tries all cases
involving capital punishment; the Court of Appeal, which hears appeals from any judgment of
the High Court in civil matters; and the Court of Criminal Appeal, which hears appeals from
decisions of the High Court in criminal cases. The final appellate court is the Judicial
Committee of Her Majesty's Privy Council in London. According to Article 100 of the
Constitution, the president may make arrangements for appeals from the Supreme Court to
be heard by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. In May 1989, Parliament abolished
the right to appeal to the Privy Council except for criminal cases involving the death sentence
and civil cases in which the parties had agreed in writing to such an appeal at the outset. The
judicial system reflected British legal practice and traditions, except for trial by jury. Singapore
abolished jury trials except for capital offenses in 1959; all jury trials were abolished by the
1969 amendment of the code of criminal procedure.

CORRECTIONS

In 1989 there were six types of correctional institutions: two maximum security prisons for
males; three medium security prisons for males; one prison for females; four day-release
camps; one reformative training center for persons between the ages of sixteen and twenty-
one; and seven drug treatment centers. Queenstown Remand Prison, a short-term,
maximum-security facility, served two basic functions: receiving and classifying newly
convicted male offenders and holding persons awaiting trial or sentence. Changi Prison, a
maximum security prison for males, was used for hardened criminals considered to be
unlikely candidates for rehabilitation. Political prisoners detained under the Internal Security
Act usually were also placed in the Moon Crescent Center within the Changi complex.
Females convicted of crimes are thought to have been sent to separate maximum and
medium security complexes.
All adult prisoners spent the last six months of their sentence in day-release centers. These
prisoners were allowed to spend days at work and to visit their families without supervision.
The purpose of the reformative training center for young adults was to provide rehabilitation.
Sentences to this facility usually were for not less than eighteen months and not more than
three years. Juveniles fifteen years old and under convicted of crimes were sent either to
reform homes for girls or to reform schools for boys. Whereas persons convicted of importing
and selling drugs were prosecuted as criminals and served time in prison, drug abusers
usually did not go to jail. Singapore's Central Narcotics Bureau operated six rehabilitation
centers and one anti-inhalant abuse center. Individuals who tested positive for drugs were
required to spend up to six months in a rehabilitation center and possible additional time in
halfway houses operated by the Central Narcotics Bureau.
Thailand

CRIMINAL CODES

Until the nineteenth century the source of criminal law in the kingdom was ancient Thai law
based on the Indian Dharmashastra (a Hindu legal code attributed to Manu), which was
introduced into the country during the Ayutthaya era. Over the centuries this code was
augmented by numerous and sometimes conflicting royal laws and decrees, and there was
little uniformity in the interpretations and applications made by different judges. The resulting
tangle of legal concepts and arbitrary judicial decisions was strongly criticized by Western
countries whose nationals were brought in as advisers or engaged in commerce in the
kingdom during the nineteenth century. Objecting to the complexities, cruel punishments,
delays, and injustices of the legal system, each Western government insisted that its
nationals and others under its protection in the kingdom be subject only to the jurisdiction of
its own extraterritorial courts. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the system of
extraterritoriality was firmly established and had further complicated an already confusing
legal structure.

POLICE

The concept of public order founded on the supremacy of law has long been stressed in
Thailand as a necessary prerequisite to internal security and the achievement of national
development goals. For the most part, Thai governments, in accordance with constitutional
provisions, have dealt with matters of public order through a comprehensive system of
statutory law enforced by a professional police force. Some exceptions have occurred during
periods of martial law, which has been declared to control dissidence perceived as a threat to
public safety. In such times, summary justice at the hands of the police and the army has
stressed expediency in a way that has drawn criticism from human rights advocates
throughout the world.

DETENTION

With few exceptions, including crimes in progress, the law requires police officers making an
arrest to have judicial warrants, and authorities generally respect this provision in practice.
Under the Constitution, persons must be informed of likely charges against them immediately
after arrest and must be allowed to inform someone of their arrest. Detainees have a right to
have a lawyer present during questioning, and the police generally respect this right in
practice. Foreign prisoners sometimes are forced to sign confessions without benefit of a
competent translator.

Police also are required to submit criminal cases to prosecutors for the filing of court charges
within 48 hours of arrest; however, the law also allows an extension period of up to 3 days.
Police also may seek court permission to hold suspects for additional periods (up to a
maximum of 82 days for the most serious offenses) to conduct investigations. In addition laws
and regulations place any offense for which the maximum penalty is less than 3 years under
the jurisdiction of the district courts, which have different procedures. In these cases, police
are required to submit cases to public prosecutors within 72 hours of arrest. Lawyers report
that the police rarely bring their cases to court within the 48-hour period. There is a
functioning bail system.

COURTS

The legal system of Thailand is a civil law system, with influences of common law. The legal
system remained an amalgam of the traditional and the modern. In several southern
provinces, for example, Islamic law and custom were applicable to matrimonial and
inheritance matters among the Muslims. A large part of the modern legal system was made
up of criminal, civil, and commercial codes adopted from the British and other European legal
systems with some modifications borrowed from India, Japan, China, and the United States.
Also, an extensive body of administrative law consisted of royal decrees, executive orders,
and ministerial regulations.

The judiciary provided for three levels of courts: the courts of first instance, the Court of
Appeal, and the Supreme Court. The courts came under two separate jurisdictions. The
Ministry of Justice appointed and supervised the administrative personnel of the courts and
instituted reform in judicial procedures; the Judicial Service Commission, which was
responsible for the independence of the courts, appointed, promoted, and removed judges.
As a rule, judges retired at age sixty, but their service could be extended to age sixty-five.

The country was divided into nine judicial regions, which were coextensive with the nine
administrative regions (phag), in contrast to the four geographic regions (North, Northeast,
Center, and South). At the base of the judiciary system were the courts of first instance, most
of which were formally known as provincial courts with unlimited civil and criminal jurisdiction.
Petty civil and criminal offenses were handled by magistrates' courts, which were designed to
relieve the increasing burden on provincial courts. Offenses committed by Thai citizens on the
high seas and outside the country were tried before the Criminal Court in Bangkok. Labor
disputes were adjudicated by the Central Labor Court established in Bangkok in 1980.
Offenses by persons under eighteen years of age were referred to the Central Juvenile Court
and its counterparts in several regional centers.

CORRECTIONS

The penal system was administered by the Department of Corrections within the Ministry of
Interior. The government's stated policy in operating the system was to use its facilities to
reduce crime by correcting and rehabilitating offenders rather than only punishing them.
Rehabilitation of convicted offenders was a relatively recent penal concept in Thailand,
however, and proper facilities, programs, and specially trained penal staff were limited.

In the late 1980s, the system consisted of forty-six regular penal institutions, including seven
central prisons, five regional prisons, twenty-three prison camps, seven correctional
institutions, three reformatories, and one detention home. In addition, all metropolitan,
provincial, and district police stations had jails of varying adequacy for offenders whose
sentences did not exceed one year.

The seven central and five regional prisons housed the majority of prisoners with long-term
sentences. Khlong Prem Central Prison in Bangkok, with a capacity of 6,000 inmates, was
one of the oldest and largest. A maximum security institution for habitual criminals was
operated at Nakhon Pathom. Twenty-three prison camps were located on Ko Tarutao, an
island in the Strait of Malacca. The camps accommodated an average of fifty good-conduct
prisoners, who worked principally in agriculture, preparing themselves for employment after
their release.
Vietnam

LEGAL SYSTEM

Vietnamese legal thought with regard to the treatment of criminals is the result of three major
influences: classic Confucianism, the Napoleonic Code, and Marxism-Leninism. The relevant
Confucian concept is that society is to be governed not by law but by moral men and that
crime is symptomatic of an absence of virtue that engenders conflict and disharmony. Most
important, the Confucian ethic provides no principle of judicial administration. In imperial
China, justice was an interpretation of the moment by the emperor and his mandarins,
meaning that in every instance imperial will was superior to the law. The spirit of the law the
French brought to Vietnam was that guilt should be determined by fair and impartial means
and should be assigned appropriate punishment. However, French colonialism inculcated a
view of the law as something to be manipulated and the courts as institutions to be bribed or
subverted. The result was a general lack of respect for the judicial process. Marxism-Leninism
added to this attitude the perspective that crime is a reflection of environmental factors that
victimize the individual by turning him into a criminal. The proper remedy for this condition is
to eliminate the causal factors while rehabilitating the criminal. The combination of the three
legacies has produced in Vietnamese society a legal philosophy that is inquisitional rather
than adversarial, seeking reform rather than punishment. The system imposes on the
individual and the state the responsibility of bringing all members of society to a condition of
self-imposed moral rectitude in which behavior is defined in terms of collective, rather than
individual, good. In contrast to the West, where law is the guarantee of rights that all may
claim, in Vietnam the law concerns duties that all must fulfill.

POLICE

Internal security was never much of a problem in North Vietnam; it was probably somewhat
more tenuous in unified Vietnam. Unification, understandably, introduced new internal threats,
which the regime in the 1980s was able to keep in check. As perceived in Hanoi theoretical
journals, the most significant internal threat was the danger of counterrevolution, a possibility
that had both internal and external implications. Hanoi feared that a resistance effort in
Vietnam would mount an effective guerrilla war aided by outsiders who sought either to roll
back communism in Indochina or to effect change in Hanoi's leadership. These outsiders
might include not only foreign governments but also emigre Vietnamese seeking to destroy
the ruling system.

There was widespread latent opposition to the regime, particularly in the South. In general it
was low-level, widely scattered, and poorly organized and led. Opposition activities ranged
from graffiti and similar token gestures to fairly largesized guerrilla attacks in the Central
Highlands. In the early 1980s, an active militant resistance force was estimated by observers
abroad to number about 25,000 combatants. That figure tended to dwindle later in the
decade. Given the extraordinary amount of social control in Vietnam, as in other Marxist-
Leninist societies, it would be difficult for a resistance force to achieve sufficient size, strength,
and cohesiveness to present a serious challenge to the existing system. The regime's
strategy, therefore, was to keep the opposition off balance and prevent it from organizing.

DETENTION

The Government continued to arrest and detains citizens arbitrarily, including arrest and
detention for the peaceful expression of their political and religious views. The Criminal
Procedure Code provides for various rights of detainees, including time limits on pretrial
detention and the right of the accused to have a lawyer present during interrogation; however,
in practice the authorities sometimes ignored these legal safeguards. Moreover, a directive on
administrative probation gives security officials broad powers if they believe that a suspect is
a threat to "national security."

A revised Criminal Code came into effect in July 2000. The revised Code places more strict
limits (12 months) on the time allowed for the procuracy (the office which investigates cases
and initiates public prosecutions) to end its investigation, and allows less time for the judge's
panel (a body consisting of at least one judge and one lay assessor to rule on a case. Prior to
being formally charged, a detainee has a statutory right to notify family members. However, in
most cases the police inform the family of the detainee's whereabouts. Prior to being charged
the detainee may contact a lawyer if permitted by the head of the investigating office;
following a formal charge the detainee has a statutory right to contact an attorney.

The Supreme People's Procuracy approves the issuance of arrest warrants. However, police
may make an arrest without a warrant on the basis of a complaint filed by any party alleging
the commission of a crime. The MPS may prohibit contact between a detainee and his lawyer
as long as the procurator's office is investigating a case, which may be up to 1 year and may
be without formal charges. In general, time spent in pretrial detention counts toward time
served upon conviction and sentencing.

COURTS

The court system was reorganized in 1981 into four basic levels: the Supreme People's
Court; the provincial municipal courts reporting to Hanoi; the local courts, chiefly at the district
precinct levels, reporting respectively to provincial or municipal governments; and military
courts. In addition, a number of specialized courts were created. In judicial procedure the
courts still owed much to the French example, particularly with respect to the role of the
procurator, who had much broader responsibilities than the prosecutor or district attorney
under the Anglo-Saxon system.

On January 1, 1986, a new Penal Code officially went into effect after nearly five years of
preparation. It contained 280 articles divided into 12 chapters or sections. Unlike earlier laws,
the new code included detailed sections on juvenile and military offenders. The first eight
chapters defined jurisdiction and judicial procedures; distinguished among infractions,
misdemeanors, and felonies; and outlined sentencing procedures. The last section, consisting
of four chapters, defined specific crimes and fixed penalties. The code identified seven
categories of legal punishment: warning, fine, reform without detention, house arrest,
imprisonment, life imprisonment, and death. There was no parole, but remission of
punishment was possible and the conditions for it appeared to be lenient (eligibility for
remission of a life-imprisonment sentence began after seven years). In general, definitions of
crime were broad, vague, and could be interpreted so that virtually any antisocial word or
deed was indictable. Penalties were stern and included capital punishment for a lengthy list of
crimes. In 1986 Minister of Justice Phan Hien defended in writings and interviews the new
code's long list of capital crimes, arguing that in general the code was liberal. He cited as
evidence that polygamy was a crime, whereas adultery was not. Most serious crimes (all
drawing the death penalty) were crimes endangering the national security, i.e., treason,
"taking action to overthrow the people's government," espionage, rebellion, sabotage,
terrorism, "undermining unity," spreading "antisocialist" propaganda, "disrupting security,"
obstructing or inciting to obstruct state agencies' activities, hijacking, destroying important
national security projects and property, and "crimes against humanity."

Upon arrest, an individual was taken first to a Ministry of Interior records office where he was
fingerprinted and interrogated, and where his record was checked. He was then remanded to
a detention cell to be held until his trial. Posting bail to obtain temporary release was not
practiced, although in some instances release on one's own recognizance was permitted.

CORRECTIONS

Under the Hanoi government, "control" was a legal term used both as a verb and a noun.
"Control" meant use of state power to deal with individuals who committed either civil or
political crimes judged not serious enough to warrant imprisonment, but serious enough to
deserve reform without detention. "Control" referred also to the status of an individual under
such sentence (also one released from prison but considered not fully reformed). Hence it
combined the condition of being on parole with that of being in the custody of the court or
under state surveillance. A person under "control" had to report periodically to local authorities
to account for his activities and detail his efforts to reform. He was proscribed from certain
occupations, including teaching, publishing, practicing medicine or pharmacy, and operating a
restaurant, hotel, or bookstore. Such restrictions were deemed legal because one under
"control" was considered to have already forfeited some of his civil rights, at least temporarily.

The mechanism of "control," called the People's Organ of Control, was hierarchically
organized and formally defined by the 1980 Constitution. At the top was the Supreme
People's Organ of Control, and at the bottom were the district and precinct organs of control.
These institutions functioned to "control the observance of the law by the ministries, armed
forces, state employees and citizens; to exercise the right of public prosecution; and to insure
strict and uniform observance of the law." Their purview was "any act encroaching upon the
interests of the State, the collective, or the lives, property, freedom, honor, and dignity of
citizens." The underlying justification for their existence was that major internal security
problems developed because of a breakdown in social discipline and that restoration of
discipline was best achieved with a system of self-control or self-discipline. The system was
composed of many activities: physical control; re-education and reform; indoctrination,
emulation, and motivation; and education. Its essence was organization and motivation, and
in the hands of skilled cadres it could harness social pressure to induce new attitudes and
ways of thinking.

Massive relocation of the population, blandly called the "state redistribution of labor" program,
began after reunification in 1976 and has been an integral part of the security effort. At least 5
million people have been uprooted in this process, known as "breaking the machine." While
partly economic in its motivation, the relocation's main purpose has been to break up the
existing social structure. In assigning individuals to new economic zones, for instance, care
has been taken to scatter those from a single urban area or village to separate locations. The
formation of new associations by these people was then supervised by the VCP, which used
various mass movements and proletarian social organizations--augmented by communication
and education programs intended to raise class consciousness--to help foster class struggle
and to turn the middle and upper classes into social pariahs. This social ostracism was one of
the reasons that many middle-class Vietnamese left the South after 1975 as "boat people."