Clause 9

Where in any proceedings in a subordinate military court against a person, subject to military law, for an offence, evidence is given that the accused on being officially informed that he may be prosecuted for the offence, failed to mention any fact, which in the circumstances existing at the time he could reasonably have been expected to mention when so informed, the subordinate military court, in determining whether there is a case to answer, and in determining whether the accused is guilty of the offence charged, may draw such inferences from the failure as appear proper; and the failure may, on the basis of such inferences, be treated as, or as capable of amounting to, corroboration of any evidence given against the accused in relation to which the failure is material.(2) In subsection (1) of this section,“officially informed” means informed by an investigating officer referred to in section 171, and empowered by section 172, of this Act to investigate into the offence referred to in subsection (1) of this section.(3) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) of this section shall in any proceedings in a subordinate military court —

prejudice the admissibility in evidence of the silence or other reaction of the accused in the face of anything said in his presence relating to the conduct in respect of which he is charged, in so far as evidence thereof would be admissible apart from those subsections; or

be taken to preclude the drawing of any inference from any such silence or other reaction of the accused which could be drawn apart from those subsections.(4) Subsections (1) and (2) of this section shall not apply as regards a failure to mention a fact if the failure occurred before the date of the commencement of the Singapore Armed Forces (Amendment) Act, 1978.”.