Did 2LT Li commit an offence under the Official Secrets Act?
I'm sure all of you have read the email written by 2LT Li by now. It is all over the internet now, thanks to the new media. As I was reading the email, I was wondering, "Did he commit an offence under the Official Secrets Act?"
In the 2nd paragraph, 2LT Li provided some background of his duties in SAF. He mentioned that some XXX items are placed in YYY location instead of ZZZ location in order to maintain operational readiness of his unit.
Did 2LT Li commit an offence under the Official Secrets Act? Is this piece of information classified? Does everyone in the email list have security clearance to access this piece of information? If they don't, then 2LT Li might have broken the Official Secrets Act, Section 5.
I've highlighted the portion which I think applies to this case. I didn't study law back in school. If anyone who study law finds that my interpretation of the Official Secrets Act is wrong, please kindly correct me. Thanks.
Note that the punishment is a fine and imprisonment. Not fine or imprisonment.
So the question now is.... Did 2LT Li commit the offence?
PS: I'm not going to post the email on my blog because I believe that it is a restricted item. My advice to everyone is, don't post that email on your blog or forum. Even though the important names, items and locations are being censored from the email, it still reveal quite a lot of information.
You won't want to be invited to some coffee session.
In the 2nd paragraph, 2LT Li provided some background of his duties in SAF. He mentioned that some XXX items are placed in YYY location instead of ZZZ location in order to maintain operational readiness of his unit.
Did 2LT Li commit an offence under the Official Secrets Act? Is this piece of information classified? Does everyone in the email list have security clearance to access this piece of information? If they don't, then 2LT Li might have broken the Official Secrets Act, Section 5.
Wrongful communication, etc., of information
5. —(1) If any person having in his possession or control any secret official code word, countersign or password, or any photograph, drawing, plan, model, article, note, document or information which —
(a) relates to or is used in a prohibited place or anything in such a place;
(b) relates to munitions of war;
(c) has been made or obtained in contravention of this Act;
(d) has been entrusted in confidence to him by any person holding office under the Government; or
(e) he has obtained, or to which he has had access, owing to his position as a person who holds or has held office under the Government, or as a person who holds, or has held a contract made on behalf of the Government or any specified organisation, or as a person who is or has been employed under a person who holds or has held such an office or contract,
does any of the following:
(i) communicates directly or indirectly any such information or thing as aforesaid to any foreign Power other than a foreign Power to whom he is duly authorised to communicate it, or to any person other than a person to whom he is authorised to communicate it or to whom it is his duty to communicate it;
(ii) uses any such information or thing as aforesaid for the benefit of any foreign Power other than a foreign Power for whose benefit he is authorised to use it, or in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interests of Singapore;
(iii) retains in his possession or control any such thing as aforesaid when he has no right to retain it, or when it is contrary to his duty to retain it, or fails to comply with all lawful directions issued by lawful authority with regard to the return or disposal thereof; or
(iv) fails to take reasonable care of, or so conducts himself as to endanger the safety or secrecy of, any such information or thing as aforesaid,
that person shall be guilty of an offence.
I've highlighted the portion which I think applies to this case. I didn't study law back in school. If anyone who study law finds that my interpretation of the Official Secrets Act is wrong, please kindly correct me. Thanks.
Punishment
(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under this Act by reason of section 5, 6, 8 or 11 shall be liable on conviction before a District Court to a fine not exceeding $2,000 and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years. A person charged with an offence by reason of a section mentioned in this subsection may with the sanction of the Attorney-General be tried before a Magistrate’s Court, and such person shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000 and to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months.
Note that the punishment is a fine and imprisonment. Not fine or imprisonment.
So the question now is.... Did 2LT Li commit the offence?
PS: I'm not going to post the email on my blog because I believe that it is a restricted item. My advice to everyone is, don't post that email on your blog or forum. Even though the important names, items and locations are being censored from the email, it still reveal quite a lot of information.
You won't want to be invited to some coffee session.
Hi, actually that question did come to my mind after I posted it. Subsequently, it was removed and added and then removed again, until a point in time, there were at least 10 blogs with the said email in it, and I figured that... oh well, we'll all get invited then... may not be as good as ping.sg party, but will do anyway. :)
Posted by
Unknown |
7/14/2007 04:27:00 AM
well.. the fact that he cc to all the non-relevant ppl is good enough for OSA...I think!
'any person other than a person to whom he is authorised to communicate it or to whom it is his duty to communicate it'
Posted by
KeV's wAlKAbOuT |
7/14/2007 12:28:00 PM
Kim: Ah... so you guys wanted an gathering fully sponsored by ISD. IC. Errr... that will be one gathering I won't be interested in attending. Hahaha...
Kev: I guess so. Unless they argue that the info that send wasn't a secret at all. Oh well...
Posted by
DK |
7/14/2007 01:22:00 PM
hi, he did not commit the offence because the email was circulated within the organisation. it's leaking out has nothing directly to do with him.
Posted by
Anonymous |
7/14/2007 01:41:00 PM
Anon: I understand that the email was leaked out by others.
But he did emailed to a lot of people inside the organisation. Does everyone inside the distribution list has the security clearance?
Posted by
DK |
7/14/2007 01:46:00 PM
If he received the call at 1600 hrs on 20 April and left after that. I wonder what time did he actually left the camp? Was it before the end of the official hours?
When he left camp, was the CRO out yet? Can you leave camp before the CRO is out? Has the rules changed?
Did he AWOL himself?
Should any handling overof duty be a physical handling over regradless of who gave the permission?
A responsible commander will not leave the company line till another officer take over duty. What if an accident happen when no duty officer was around? He should be charge for AWOL himself too.
Posted by
Anonymous |
7/14/2007 02:36:00 PM
Anon: Good point!!
Posted by
DK |
7/14/2007 03:04:00 PM
The bottom line of consideration if it infringe an OSA would be who realease the info to the pubic ?
2LT sent a mail to internal corrspondance via SAF's intranet.
It was shared amonsgt SAF internal community, hence its for internal consumption only.
No OSA was infringe in this case unless HingYi himself release the email to the press or public source.
But he did broke the internal standing general Order of MINDEF of which he was being punished though doing the right thing but perhaps overdone it.
Posted by
Anonymous |
7/14/2007 11:12:00 PM
Anon: Well, the person who leak the email out confirm broke the OSA.
But even though the email is send inside SAF's intranet, are you sure that everyone in the list is allowed to have that piece of information?
Posted by
DK |
7/14/2007 11:40:00 PM
"If any person having in his possession or control any secret official code word, countersign or password, or any photograph, drawing, plan, model, article, note, document or information which has been made or obtained in contravention of this Act retains in his possession or control any such thing as aforesaid when he has no right to retain it, or when it is contrary to his duty to retain it, or fails to comply with all lawful directions issued by lawful authority with regard to the return or disposal thereof; that person shall be guilty of an offence."
...Anybody who read the letter previously might want to first clear your browser temporary folder and history etc before deliberating OSA... I did not study law but I thought one should not test its limits
Posted by
Anonymous |
7/14/2007 11:55:00 PM
Anon: Wah. Sound so serious now. Don't worry. We all die together. haha.
Posted by
DK |
7/14/2007 11:59:00 PM
Just to add, the military can in it's capacity conduct a summary trial and close the case or court martial the person involved.
in this case, they have deem appropriate to conduct a summary trail against the person involved only.
Law is not blindly apply. It takes into consideration mitigation factors. In this case, the content of letter is the mitigating factor.
Posted by
Gizmore |
7/16/2007 11:16:00 PM