Safeguards to Protect Members of Public from Recalcitrant Sex Offenders

Mr Speaker, I thank the Member for the question. Members know that the law provides for stiff action to be taken and stiff action is taken against sex offenders. Recalcitrant sex offenders receive even heavier sentences. These include longer imprisonment terms and sentences under the Corrective Training (CT) and Preventive Detention (PD) regimes. Under both CT and PD regimes, repeat offenders can be sentenced to imprisonment terms which are longer than the maximum term prescribed for the offence. CT sentences can range from five to 14 years and PD sentences can range from seven to 14 years. Such offenders also undergo longer rehabilitation programmes and supervision. [Please refer to "Clarification by Minister for Home Affairs", Official Report, 9 May 2022, Vol 95, Issue 62, Clarification section.]

Members know that we have been extremely focused on this proactively, always looking to see what else we can do to try and protect members of the public, particularly vulnerable members of the public. I had asked the Minstry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry of Law (MinLaw) to study a new sentencing option, quite a novel approach, to give more protection to the public from dangerous first-time offenders as well as repeat offenders, who commit very serious hurt and sexual offences. The proposal is not quite fleshed out yet but the framework or the outline is that offenders will have to serve a minimum jail sentence, which could be anywhere between five and 20 years.

When the jail sentences end, when they have completed it, there will be no automatic release. At the point of release, they have to be assessed as to whether they pose a threat to the public. If they are assessed to continue to pose a threat, they will continue to be detained. This, as Members can see, would represent a major change in the way our sentencing regime works, because, today, the Court imposes a sentence and when it ends, the person is released.

The UK tried this approach, I have to say, with very mixed results. But I think we can make it work, and the rationale is very simple. A person commits an offence. It is a serious heinous offence, say, raping a young child or a rape followed by murder. The judge can express outrage, he can impose a very stiff sentence, assuming it is not capital punishment. But the judge will not know whether, in X number of years, the person will no longer remain a danger to society. And there have been enough cases around the world where the day after the person is released, literally, he goes out and commits another serious offence. We have had not many, but we have had one or two cases in Singapore, too.

So, really, we can only assess some of these cases at the point of release. We sought public feedback on these proposals in July of last year. We are considering our approach. Obviously, we will come back to the House because any such approach is going to require changes to the law. In addition to the above, agencies like the Ministry of Education (MOE) and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) work closely with the Police to screen those who apply for jobs when they have to work with children in licensed preschools and schools.

The Member suggested that MHA consider lifelong counselling and monitoring of recalcitrant sex offenders. Today, a sex offender is given psychological assistance by the Singapore Prison Service's (SPS) psychologists. Those who have committed serious sexual offences can also be put on the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS). The MAS provides community support, counselling, case management, with supervision for up to two years for inmates who were released and who are at a higher risk of re-offending, or who are in need of more reintegration and support.

SPS also works closely with the families of ex-offenders and community partners to support them after their release. We will refer the Member's suggestion to consider lifelong counselling and monitoring for recalcitrant sex offenders to the relevant agencies for them to consider.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. I thank the Minister for his reply. I have one supplementary question. May I know in scenarios where they are convicted paedophiles, are there any safeguards or precautions to prevent them from working with children?

The safeguards are in licensed vocations, regulated industries or institutions – I mentioned MOE-registered kindergartens and schools. So, employees at these licensed childhood centres, regulated by MSF or Early Childhood Development Agency (ECDA), must be screened. But those who work in enrichment centres or other commercial service providers for children do not need to be screened in today's framework. Even then, in licensed premises, the question is whether all employees need to be screened, for example, cleaners and so on. We know that MOE does a screening for all, including cleaners, but others may not.

I have asked my Ministries to look into the screening framework to see how the process can be strengthened. But we need to have a balance between making sure that people have a second chance, but, at the same time, protecting the vulnerable. There are some not so easy issues to consider; for example, what about freelance providers of services – piano teachers or swimming coaches? So, the regulatory framework for that is not so easy to consider, but we will look at it and we will come back before the House.

Thank you, Mr Speaker. Just a quick question for the Minister. I understand this is a review that is in progress and full details of the proposals are not before the House. For current offenders who are incarcerated – because they have committed serious sexual crimes, in the course of their custodial sentence – are there constant reviews done as to their re-integration later into the public after they have served their sentences? Is that being done currently?

And in terms of the numbers of individuals that we are looking at who are currently serving sentences, how many people would the Minister estimate to come under the regime, based on whatever existing data the Government has?

The first question, as I understand it, is whether we are assessing the current detainees, people who are in jail, for their re-integration back into society. As I have said many times in this House and outside, this is a matter of a very serious focus for the Home Team and the Singapore Prison Service, in that we focus a lot on rehabilitation. And in order to do rehabilitation, when someone who has been imposed with a custodial sentence comes into prison, he or she is assessed on a certain matrix of factors to see what sort of intervention is necessary to help the person. Without going into too much detail, they may be classified as low-risk, medium-risk or high-risk, for example.

And depending on the total set of factors, including the risk within prison and outside, they are given tailored interventions and assistance, job training, education – you name it – different things. Of course, some, based on our assessment, are not suitable for immediate job training, for example. They need other sorts of intervention first, to get them to be in a place where they can be better rehabilitated. So, there are a whole series of factors and approaches, and it is done through the period of detention. But, of course, if they are in there for three months or six months, then these approaches do not work. We are talking about detainees or people in jail for a longer period of time and assessed to be in need of such assistance.

So, when they come out, we no longer take the approach that "you are out and, therefore, you are no longer my obligation". The Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) takes a very detailed approach to try and get them jobs and place them on jobs when they leave and continues with other agencies to try and handhold and assist them thereafter.

I am not saying that it works for every releasee. Some do not want to know us and, obviously, this only works on the basis of consent. And some will not keep in touch. But for those who need assistance – and, again, we do not have the full set of resources to assist everyone – we try and do our best for as many as we can.

So, I think I am answering the question that was asked. If the Leader of Opposition's question is do we assess the risk of re-offending in the way that I have described, for the future, that is part of the assessment, but I am unable to give the numbers. The Leader of the Opposition can file a separate question on that, if he wishes.