Lessons from Benjamin Lim's case - the right to counsel & the right against self-incrimination

The 2016 case involving 14-year old student Benjamin Lim caused wide concern in Singapore, after he committed suicide after being interviewed by the police over an alleged molestation incident.

While questions and speculations were raised about why he had taken his own life - just hours after he was released from a police interview into the incident - one issue which should draw our attention is the right to counsel (lawyer) in Singapore.

Under Singapore law, the police have legal powers to hold you for as long as 17 days, without giving you access to any lawyer.

In Benjamin’s case, he was interviewed at the police station for 3 hours, without a lawyer. It was also later revealed that no other adult had accompanied him during the interview.

According to a Straits Times news article on the Coroner’s inquiry, it was reported that “State Coroner Marvin Bay said the police and his school had taken steps to engage him sensitively.”

“But an ‘additional refinement’ could be for a school counsellor to accompany the student to the police station,” the newspaper reported Mr Bay’s report as having said.

In January of 2017, a year after Benjamin’s death, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) announced a new “Appropriate Adult Scheme for Young Adults” (AAYS).

Under the scheme, from April 2017, young suspects below the age of 16 who are under criminal investigation will be accompanied by an “adult, independent, trained volunteer”, or “Appropriate Adults.”

“[Appropriate Adults] must remain neutral and not advocate for the young suspect, nor provide legal advice or disrupt the course of justice in any way,” the Straits Times reported.

In short, the “adult volunteer” is not a substitute for legal advice, or legal counsel.

Also, lawyers have highlighted possible gaps in the scheme, such as whether an “Appropriate Adult” will be allowed to accompany the minor while the latter is being transported in a police car.

Crucially, the AAYS may not include parents of the youth or minor, leaving them to be accompanied by strangers.

Also, the AAYS applies only to minors below 16; adult suspects have no such recourse, or access to lawyers during police interviews or interrogations.

Under Singapore’s Article 9(3) of the Constitution:

“Where a person is arrested, he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice.”

But, as the government’s own Factually website explains, “this does not mean that one would have access to a lawyer immediately (i.e. when the person is arrested).”

“The Constitution itself does not stipulate when an accused is entitled to consult a legal practitioner, and how the Constitution should be interpreted is established in court cases,” the website says.

But how does this tie-in with the equally substantive right not to incriminate yourself, a right which is also guaranteed under the Constitution?

How would you know what you are going to say to the police during police interview or interrogation would be incriminating, if you do not have a legal counsel to advise you?

This website, Singapore Legal Advice, explains:

“[You] have to tell the police everything you know about the case except anything that might suggest that you did it. If you did commit the offence, then that means there is a lot you don’t have to say. But figuring out which parts you have to tell and which parts you don’t can be difficult in practice – difficult enough that you should really have a lawyer advise you on it.”

“Furthermore, the police are under no obligation to inform you of your privilege against self-incrimination and therefore they don’t. The fact that you weren’t informed of this privilege does not affect the admissibility of anything you say either (i.e. your statement can still be used in trial).”

In fact, as M Ravi explains in the video, it could be a major disadvantage to you during your trial if you invoked and exercised your constitutional right not to incriminate yourself, such as keeping silent during police interviews.

The courts can make a negative inference from your silence, for example; and that is not advantageous to you.

To someone as young as Benjamin Lim was, having legal advice or expert legal assistance during police interviews could be crucial, and may have helped him when he was being interviewed for 3 hours, without any adult accompanying him.

While it is important that the police should not be obstructed in doing their work to bring criminals to justice, it is equally important that suspects - who have not been proved guilty in a court - must be accorded appropriate legal protection as well.

What are your thoughts on this?

Please watch the video, and then post your comments below for discussion.

Also, do visit:
RAVision website @
RAVision Facebook page @:
M Ravi law website @

benjamin lim,right to counsel,right against self-incrimination,singapore legal,m ravi,law ministry,singapore judicial system,