Debated in Parliament on 11 Jan 2022.
Order for Second Reading read.
Mr Speaker, on behalf of the Minister for Home Affairs, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."
Sir, this Bill amends the Prisons Act to enhance community corrections by introducing the Employment Preparation Scheme, or EmPS and to facilitate the operations and administration of the Singapore Prison Service (SPS).
First, on enhancing community corrections. The period of incarceration is an opportunity to rehabilitate offenders, to minimise the possibility of re-offending after release. In my visits to the prisons and engagements with inmates and ex-offenders, I have come to see that rehabilitation, with strong community and family support, can be an effective means to prevent re-offending. This, in turn, enhances public safety.
SPS rehabilitates and prepares inmates for reintegration into society by providing programmes in prison to address their re-offending risks and needs, and equip them with relevant knowledge and skills. These programmes include psychology-based correctional programmes, family programmes, work programmes, skills training and religious programmes.
As Members may know, rehabilitation in prison alone is not enough. Research has shown that inmates will have better rehabilitation outcomes when rehabilitation in prison is complemented by community-based programmes. These programmes allow inmates to be closely supervised and supported while they apply the skills that they had learnt in prison.
Over the years, SPS has expanded community corrections. In 1985, the Prisons Act was amended to introduce the Work Release Scheme, or WRS. WRS allows inmates to work outside prison, under supervision, at the tail-end of their imprisonment sentence. In 2000, the Prisons Act was amended to provide for the Home Detention Scheme or HDS, which allows eligible inmates to serve the tail-end of their imprisonment sentence outside prison, such as at their residence. The intent is to facilitate their reintegration into society under strict conditions.
The Prisons Act was amended in 2014 to introduce the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme, or MAS. The MAS provides enhanced community support, counselling and case management, with tight supervision, to released inmates who are at a higher risk of re-offending or need more reintegration support. While on this scheme, supervisees need to comply with conditions such as curfew hours and electronic monitoring.
There have also been shifts in the drug rehabilitation regime. In 2019, a more calibrated approach was introduced for drug abusers to distinguish between abusers who have only consumed drugs and those who have concurrently committed other criminal offences. Prior to this policy change, drug abusers arrested for the third time onwards would be sentenced to imprisonment. Since 2019, such abusers who do not face any other concurrent criminal charge will instead undergo rehabilitation in the Drug Rehabilitation Centre, or DRC, run by SPS. As part of the DRC regime, suitable abusers can progress to be placed on community-based programmes.
With the implementation of these programmes, the number of inmates and ex-offenders on community corrections has increased over the years, from about 850 in 2011 to more than 3,400 in 2021.
The improvement in recidivism bears testimony to our rehabilitation and reintegration efforts. The two-year recidivism rate for inmates released in 2018 was 22%, down from 44% two decades ago. We have halved the recidivism rate. These results give us the confidence to introduce an improved work rehabilitation scheme, called the Employment Preparation Scheme, or EmPS, to enhance inmates' employability and reintegration.
The EmPS will replace the existing WRS. From 2016 to 2020, 997 inmates were emplaced on the WRS and 90% of them successfully completed the programme. The WRS only allows inmates to be released for work. Under the existing law, inmates on the WRS are unable to participate in educational or training activities. The new EmPS will allow inmates to undergo skills training and education in the community.
The EmPS will complement the work programmes and skills training provided by SPS and Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) in prison. To provide for the EmPS, clause 21 inserts a new part 6B in the Prisons Act. Section 59K of the new part 6B allows the Commissioner of Prisons to release eligible inmates on the EmPS. Clause 25 repeals section 81 of the Prisons Act, which provides for the WRS.
The EmPS will adopt a step-down approach to gradually ease inmates back into the society. Emplacement starts with the in-camp phase where eligible and suitable inmates serve the tail-end of their imprisonment sentence in a work release centre administered by SPS. The inmates may work, upskill themselves through training, or pursue their education, outside prison during the day. They will return to reside at the work release centre in the evening. Inmates who show good progress during the in-camp phase will be permitted to move on to the weekend home leave phase, during which they can return to their place of residence during the weekends. If inmates continue to demonstrate good progress during the weekend home leave phase, they can return to their place of residence daily after work, classes or training, under the long home leave phase.
Inmates are eligible for the EmPS if they have served at least 14 days of imprisonment, and the Commissioner considers them suitable for the EmPS. Factors such as their progress and response to rehabilitation, family support and risk of re-offending will be considered.
All eligible inmates will be assessed by SPS for their suitability. All suitable cases will then be surfaced to an independent advisory committee appointed by the Minister for Home Affairs, which will review the cases and make its recommendations to the Commissioner. Clause 26 of the Bill provides for the establishment, function and procedure of this committee via regulations made pursuant to the Prisons Act. The Commissioner, taking into consideration the committee’s recommendation, may then emplace an inmate on the EmPS.
Inmates on the EmPS will be under SPS's supervision and will receive support for their reintegration.
Besides requiring the inmates to be employed, undergo skills training or education, inmates will be subjected to conditions such as electronic monitoring, mandatory reporting and curfew hours. These EmPS conditions are similar to the existing conditions for the HDS and External Placement Scheme, or EPS.
We will also introduce additional conditions for the EmPS, HDS and EPS to better facilitate SPS' administration of the schemes.
First, clauses 12, 17 and 21 insert two new conditions for inmates on the HDS, EPS and home leave phase of the EmPS. Specifically, inmates are not to consume any controlled drug or alcoholic beverage or use or inhale any intoxicating substance or possess any controlled drugs.
Second, clause 26 allows the Minister for Home Affairs to prescribe via regulations for inmates on these schemes to pay for the costs of goods and services incurred by them outside prison, such as food, transport and medical treatment. The cost of electronic monitoring would continue to be borne by SPS.
Inmates on these schemes are required to abide by all stipulated conditions. Under clause 21, if an inmate on the EmPS is suspected to have violated any condition or committed any offence, he may be recalled to prison pending SPS' inquiry. If found to have breached any condition or committed any offence, the inmate may have his emplacement order revoked.
Clauses 13, 14, 18 and 19 expand the scope of recall to prison and revocation of an emplacement order to include the commission of any offence, not just prison offences, by inmates on the HDS or EPS. This is to deter inmates from re-offending and allow SPS to take swift action against inmates who commit any offence.
If an inmate on the EmPS commits a prison offence and he is punished with confinement in a punishment cell or with forfeiture of his period of remission or both, SPS will have discretion in suspending the inmate's emplacement order. In contrast, it is mandatory under the current provisions for the HDS and EPS for SPS to suspend the inmate's emplacement order and recall him to prison. This could be disruptive to the inmate's reintegration, including his studies or work. Hence, clauses 15 and 20 align the provisions for all three schemes such that it is discretionary, not mandatory, to suspend the emplacement orders. This will allow a more calibrated approach to be taken based on the facts of the case.
Next, clauses 10, 12, 17 and 21 expand the means by which the Commissioner may notify persons on the MAS, HDS, EPS and EmPS of changes to the conditions that they are subject to. Presently, the law requires a written notification of changes to the conditions. To enhance administrative flexibility and efficiency, alternative means using SMS and other digital communications, will be introduced and these will be prescribed via regulations made pursuant to the Prisons Act.
Next, I will speak about the amendments facilitating SPS' operations and administration.
Today, inmates sentenced to imprisonment would generally be released after they have served two-thirds of their sentence, if they had displayed good conduct and behaviour in prison. When they are released, they will be issued with a Conditional Remission Order which will be valid until the end of their sentence. This period is also known as the "remission period".
Currently, section 50I(3) of the Prisons Act allows the Commissioner to delay the making of a remission order by up to two weeks. In other words, the inmate may be detained for up to two weeks into the remission period to carry out any outstanding Court-ordered punishment, typically caning. For avoidance of doubt, the Commissioner does not have the power to defer an inmate's release beyond the Court-imposed imprisonment sentence.
This two-week period may sometimes be insufficient as an inmate may file a Notice of Appeal within two weeks, or 14 days, after the date of the sentence.
Under section 327 of the Criminal Procedure Code, the caning ordered by the Court must not be carried out until after the expiration of the 14-day period for filing the Notice of Appeal. Hence, even if no Notice of Appeal is filed, the earliest that SPS will carry out the Court-ordered caning is after the 14-day period.
The Courts, at times, may backdate an imprisonment sentence with caning for an inmate who had served a period of remand as the remand period is counted towards the fulfilment of the sentence.
In such a scenario, an inmate may be due for release within 14 days of sentencing. SPS would then need to seek a Court order under section 326 of the Criminal Procedure Code to authorise the detention of the inmate for as long as it is reasonably necessary for the caning to be carried out. This is because, as I mentioned earlier, the Prisons Act currently allows an inmate's release to be delayed by up to two weeks only.
From 2017 to 2021, on average, there were nine inmates per year whose release was deferred by the Commissioner under section 50I(3) of the Prisons Act and four inmates per year whose detention was extended by the Court under section 326 of the Criminal Procedure Code in order to carry out any outstanding Court-ordered punishment. All the cases were due to the backdating of sentences.
Clause 9 allows the Commissioner to defer an inmate's release by up to three weeks to allow SPS sufficient time to carry out any Court-ordered punishment, without having to seek an order from the Court to extend the inmate's detention. SPS will release the inmate as soon as the caning has been carried out and he is certified fit for release. Again, for avoidance of doubt, the Commissioner does not have the power to defer an inmate's release beyond the Court-imposed imprisonment sentence.
[Deputy Speaker (Ms Jessica Tan Soon Neo) in the Chair]
Next, clause 26 allows the Minister for Home Affairs to make additional regulations related to inmates' communications to uphold the security and good order of the prison.
Currently, there are no restrictions as to whether a person can publish or disseminate information obtained via any form of communication with an inmate. In addition, SPS can only withhold certain letters sent by or to inmates if they contain anything that affects the security or good order of the prison. From the security perspective, these are insufficient. We propose two amendments to improve the current security regime.
First, the Minister for Home Affairs may make regulations to require prescribed persons, or prescribed classes of persons to give an undertaking before they are permitted to communicate with an inmate. Persons who give this undertaking should not publish or disseminate, or cause to be published or disseminated, any information contained in any communication with an inmate that may firstly, affect the security or good order of the prison; or secondly, incite the commission of any offence.
Examples of information that may affect the security or good order of the prison include drawings of the prison layout, information related to the security installations of a prison and coded messages for starting a prison disturbance. An example of inciting the commission of any offence is instigating inmates to riot or harm another inmate or person.
Second, the Minister for Home Affairs may make regulations to redact or withhold any material in inmates' correspondence with any prescribed person, or prescribed classes of persons, that may: first, affect the security or good order of a prison; or second, incite the commission of any offence.
SPS has previously intercepted secret society-related messages in letters sent by or to inmates. Sometimes, the messages were sent in coded form. Such messages, if let through, could lead to clashes among inmates who are aligned to different secret societies and undermine the good order or security of the prison, or even incite acts of violence, such as causing hurt to another person outside prison.
The intent of allowing the Minister for Home Affairs to make such regulations is to maintain prison security and ensure the safe and secure custody of inmates. It is not the intent to curtail inmates' communication or prevent them from airing grievances. Bona fide communications will not be redacted or withheld.
For Members' information, there are various channels for inmates to provide feedback.
They can raise concerns to the Superintendent of the prison or any SPS officer. Inmates can also give feedback directly to members of the Board of Visiting Justices. Appointed by the Minister for Home Affairs, the Visiting Justices conduct unannounced inspections of the prisons and hear issues raised by inmates. These issues are documented, followed up by SPS and the outcomes will be reported back to the Board.
Next, clause 24 updates and provides clarity on prison offences by repealing and re-enacting sections 72 and 73 of the Prisons Act, which list minor and aggravated prison offences respectively.
For instance, clause 24 deletes two minor prison offences, "idling or refusing to work or showing negligence in the performance of his allotted task" and "refusing to undergo medical treatment". In practice, SPS does not enforce against these offences.
Work programmes in prison are voluntary in nature. If, after choosing to participate in a work programme, an inmate idles, refuses to work or is negligent in his work, he will simply be taken off the work programme, with no disciplinary action taken against him. Similarly, if an inmate refuses to undergo medical treatment and his medical condition or injury is serious, he will be conveyed to a hospital for further observation and treatment, with no disciplinary action taken against him.
With more inmates emplaced in the community over time, it is opportune to provide more clarity on applicable prison offences.
Clause 24 will specify that certain prison offences are not applicable when an inmate is serving his imprisonment sentence outside prison. An example of a prison offence that is not applicable to inmates who are not in prison would be tampering with prison locks.
Clause 24 will also specify prison offences for inmates who breach the conditions of the EmPS and EPS.
Currently, there are only prison offences prescribed in the Prisons Act for the HDS but not these two schemes. This amendment seeks to standardise the prison offences across these three community-based programmes.
Next, clause 25 provides prison officers with powers to compel the production of documents or information for investigating breaches of conditions and commission of prison offences.
Prison officers conduct inquiries to ascertain if a minor breach of a mandatory aftercare condition, a breach of any of the conditions of community-based programmes such as the HDS or EPS or a prison offence had been committed. There were instances where prison officers faced difficulties in obtaining pertinent information from external parties to ascertain if a breach had been committed – for example, CCTV footage to prove curfew breaches.
To bridge this gap, clause 25 empowers prison officers of and above the rank of Sergeant to require third parties to provide documents or information that are necessary for the inquiries into the breaches and prison offences. It is an offence if anyone, without reasonable excuse, fails to provide the required document or information.
Clause 27 inserts a related amendment to the Misuse of Drugs Act, to grant prison officers similar powers to assist them in conducting inquiries into breaches of conditions of community-based programmes by DRC and Community Rehabilitation Centre inmates.
Next, clause 25 protects prison officers and Auxiliary Police Officers, or APOs, from liability for acts and omissions done in good faith and with reasonable care, under the Prisons Act.
In their daily duties, prison officers sometimes have to take calculated risks and make prompt decisions to maintain the safe and secure custody of inmates. For example, a prison officer escorting an inmate outside of prison, may use any weapon on any person or inmate who tries to force open a prison transport vehicle to facilitate an inmate's escape. In the course of preventing the escape, the prison officer's actions may cause injury to others or damage property.
Under the Prisons Act and Misuse of Drugs Act, APOs may also be employed by the Commissioner of Prisons to assist SPS in escorting and guarding inmates.
It is worth noting that it is explicitly stated that prison officers and APOs are protected from legal liability if they had acted in good faith and with reasonable care under the Misuse of Drugs Act. However, this is not the case for the Prisons Act, although they are protected under the common law defence of necessity.
To allow these officers to carry out their lawful duties with greater assurance, we will make this protection from liability explicit in the Prisons Act. This is in line with what is provided for Police officers in the Police Force Act and SCDF officers in the Civil Defence Act. To be clear, officers are not exempt from the ordinary process of law if they have abused their powers or are criminally negligent.
Next, we will update the terminology used in the Prisons Act.
Clause 7 replaces all references to "leprosy" with "infectious disease" in section 45(2) of the Prisons Act. This will allow the Minister for Home Affairs to direct the removal of any inmate suffering from any infectious disease, not just leprosy, to any hospital or any specified place for treatment. In practice, SPS does not discriminate against inmates with leprosy. All inmates with or suspected of having infectious diseases, including leprosy, have ample access to healthcare and treatment services.
Clause 2 updates the definition of "juvenile" by raising the upper age limit from below 16 years to below 18 years, to align it with the updated definition that was passed under the Children and Young Persons (Amendment) Act 2019.
Next, the Bill will grant administrative flexibility to SPS.
Clause 4 allows the Minister for Home Affairs to appoint more than one Deputy Commissioner of Prisons who can exercise and perform the Commissioner's powers, duties and functions. Currently, only one Deputy Commissioner of Prisons can be appointed under the Prisons Act.
Clause 4 also allows the Commissioner of Prisons to delegate any of his or her powers, duties and functions under any written law, instead of those under the Prisons Act only, to any of the Deputy Commissioners, Divisional Directors and Cluster Commanders. An example of the Commissioner’s powers under any written law is the appointment of day reporting officers under section 341(7) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Lastly, clause 3 allows the Minister for Home Affairs to appoint places as temporary lock-ups.
Currently, the Minister for Home Affairs may appoint lock-ups only at Police stations and Court houses, for the confinement of persons arrested, awaiting trial, remanded, or sentenced to an imprisonment term of up to a month.
In the event where there is a mass arrest, such as during a public order incident, it would be operationally expedient to hold all of the arrested persons in a centralised lock-up, rather than across multiple lock-ups. This would facilitate security, investigations and post-event actions, including prosecution. To ensure that we can call up additional capacity when needed, clause 3 allows the Minister for Home Affairs to appoint other places that are not Police stations or Court houses as temporary lock-ups for the confinement of persons.
The amendments in the Bill will help to improve inmates’ rehabilitation and reintegration outcomes and enable SPS to be more effective in carrying out its work. Mdm Deputy Speaker, I beg to move.
Question proposed.
Mr Murali Pillai.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, Singapore is well-known for its no-nonsense attitude towards crime.
All Singaporeans expect that if one were to commit a crime, he or she will have to pay the price irrespective of one’s individual background. The force of deterrence is high because the application of justice is swift and sure. But the arm of the law is also one that reaches beyond the prison sentence. It aims to rehabilitate and welcome ex-prisoners back to society. It is a strong signal that we do not give up on those who have made mistakes.
The excellent work that Singapore Prison Service (SPS) officers do as "Captains of Lives" is perhaps not as well-known. In collaboration with its partners, SPS works to: enforce the safe and secure custody of prisoners; deliver evidence-informed rehabilitation programmes; and carry out effective community supervision of released offenders.
All these are to help prisoners find their way back to society, into families, friendship and work.
A testimony to the good work that SPS does lies with the fact, as said by the hon Minister of State just now, recidivism reported in SPS’ 2020 Annual Report stands at 22.1% and he mentioned that this is half the recidivism that was the case in the early 2000s. This is an all-time low!
These hard-earned results are due, in part, to a number of innovative steps that SPS has implemented over the years to help rehabilitate and reintegrate ex-offenders into our society. The hon Minister of State has outlined these steps which were taken over two decades, in particular. I will not repeat the steps that the hon Minister of State had said.
But what is clear is that prison is not mere punishment for wrongdoing. It is also the first step towards education, reconciliation and the acquisition of requisite skills and knowledge. This is to enable ex-offenders to become financially independent and confident of their abilities and then have fulfilling lives and careers. They will be able to re-assume their responsibilities for themselves and their families. They will have a chance to leave their chequered past behind, be reintegrated back with their families, society and make positive contributions to our country. With our help, they can rebuild their lives, step by courageous step.
This is a mission that requires stout-hearted support from everyone.
I am proud of my alma mater, NUS, whose professors interviewed a prison inmate, as part of its rigorous admission process and offered him a spot in its Law School. Today, that man is a litigation lawyer and both of us are fellow members of the same profession serving our country.
Employers must be open-minded in the same way. The main reason why I suggested in Parliament in 2020 that the $1 billion Jobs Growth Initiative (JGI), which sought to expand local hiring during the pandemic by providing wage support, be also extended to ex-offenders was because I was concerned that, with the shrinking economy then, employers may not offer our ex-offenders with fair chances of getting good employment. This, in turn, would have had a major impact on the rehabilitative process for our ex-offenders.
The Government adopted my suggestion and addressed the issue squarely. Between September 2020 and February 2021, a span of six months, almost 800 ex-offenders were employed through JGI. I am sure many more ex-offenders would have benefited since then from JGI, which was recently extended to March 2022. It is for the same reasons that I strongly support the Employment Preparation Scheme (EmPS) which is aimed at improving the employability of our prison inmates. I have studied the details of the scheme as set out in the Bill. They are well thought of.
Collectively, the measures provide a suite of levers to our SPS officers to ensure inmates stay the course so as to obtain skills and knowledge necessary to get good jobs while they are serving their sentences. It is by no means a simple matter, but the odds are good, so long as they put in the effort.
I have one question on the working of the EmPS. May I ask how the EmPS is proposed to be harmonised with existing schemes which are also targeted at inmates who are viewed to have good prospects for rehabilitation and reintegration back into our society? The schemes I have in mind are the Home Detention Scheme, Conditional Remission System and the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme. It seems likely that many inmates in these existing schemes will also want to benefit from the employability feature under EmPS.
Moving on to the other aspects of the Bill, I have a short query on clause 9 of the Bill which proposes to amend the existing section 50I of the Prisons Act such that the Commissioner is given three weeks, instead of the previous two weeks, to defer the making of the remission order. The hon Minister of State took some pains to explain the reasons why this amendment is being proposed and he made it clear that it is not suggested that the Commissioner would be able to extend the imprisonment term of the inmate beyond what is ordered by the Courts. I appreciate that.
The point I am concerned about is slightly different. The way the Remission Orders System works, there is a legitimate expectation on the part of the inmates that they would be released so long as they do not behave badly. So, they would get a one-third remission of the sentence. Given that state of play, the concern I have is whether there could be a possible conflict of interest that may arise when a Commissioner extends the period of time to issue the remission order such that there is, in a sense, a delay. I appreciate that the reason for this is because there is a need to carry out the corporal punishment. Under the Prisons Act, SPS has the ability to actually forfeit a period of remission of up to 180 days.
The Prisons Act also vests with SPS the power to restore any period of forfeited remission. We could, therefore, potentially have a situation where the Commissioner is asked to consider deferring the issuance of a remission order because there is insufficient time for the carrying out of corporal punishment on an inmate because of, amongst other reasons, SPS’ own decisions in relation to the remission period for the inmate.
Let me disabuse anybody of any notion that I am concerned about any abuse of power. That is not my point. My point is, structurally, we need to ensure that the Commissioner is not unwittingly put in a position of conflict of interest. So, that is my concern.
I do appreciate, in a sense, this is an inherited issue because Parliament passed the amendment giving the Commissioner the power to defer issuing the remission order by 14 days in 2014. I looked at the Hansard, I could not find the reason. Therefore, I would be indebted to the hon Minister of State if he could explain the matter.
Madam, please allow me to conclude. In 2014, the hon Member Mr Christopher de Souza, on the occasion of the Second Reading of the Prisons (Amendment) Bill then, recounted the lyrics of the well-known song, "Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Oak Tree" as being the inspiration for the Yellow Ribbon Project.
His speech has inspired me to, not to sing the song, but to recount the lyrics of a local song, “I Ain’t Giving Up” written by Mr Steven Joseph and performed by Mr Zulkifli Rahman, Mr Razif Haron and Mr Affandi Meskam. They were prison inmates. Talented musicians, they took the opportunity to learn music formally when they were serving sentence and pursued their dreams upon release. The chorus goes like this:
I ain't giving up up up
I'm gonna find my way
I ain't giving up up up
No matter what they say
For the love you've given
Won't need another reason
To ride on, fight on
And lead on, hey!
Their music is their story, and the stories and hopes of many more. I have a suggestion for the hon Minister for Defence. Please allow our talented ex-offenders to perform at NDP 2022. I know they will give any professional musician a run for their money. I also know that they will make Singaporeans rise to their feet.
Most importantly, this will be our nation’s signal to our prison inmates who have served their time that, as a community, we will do what it takes to support them in their rehabilitation and reintegration journey. So long as they do not give up, we too, do not give up, we too, will help each other to find our way back. I support the Bill.
Mr Leon Perera.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Prisons (Amendment) Bill seeks to empower the Government to designate places as temporary prison lockups, introduces an employment preparation scheme, introduces restrictions on prisoners' correspondence and empowers the Government to require the cooperation of relevant persons for the investigation of prison offences among other things. I do not oppose the Bill but will raise some questions for clarification as well as a few suggestions.
Madam, I think most Singaporeans would agree that a prison regime is necessary for the deterrence of crime, among other purposes. Most of us would agree that prisoners should not be treated cruelly or inhumanely and that as a society, we should do our utmost to reintegrate ex-prisoners into the societal mainstream after they have paid their debt to society. My speech will be approaching this Bill from that perspective.
Firstly, I would like to speak on this Bill's introduction of an employment preparation scheme (EMPS), allowing prisoners to work in the community and take part in education and training for part of their sentence time. This is something that has been tried in other jurisdictions and it is not unknown here, since we previously had a Work Release Scheme. This is a step in the right direction. It helps to reintegrate prisoners into society when they are ultimately released. It helps them to build up some relevant skills and some form of financial cushion for that time and also helps provide local workers for our economy, hopefully enabling us to reduce some dependence on foreign workers, which is a positive thing, for reasons I have articulated in past speeches in this House, notably during the debate on CECA.
Firstly, I shall speak on company partnerships forged by SPS to operate EMPS. Such company partnerships should have a skilling element whilst at the same time, incorporating fair wages similar to traineeships, where workers are developed rather than being treated solely as sources of cheap labour. I would like to ask the Government if the screening criteria for company partnerships will take into consideration the ability of the prisoner to develop a skill that will enhance his or her employability even if that skill is the sort of skill one needs to do a trades job, a subject I spoke about in September last year in this House.
Next, community reintegration involves not just the economic aspect of living in the community. Can we also provide support services for after prison life? There are pastoral care services, especially with volunteers. Some of these pastoral care services are now provided by prison officers on rotation from enforcement duties in addition to the rehabilitation officers who are clearly already involved in pastoral care service.
Madam, can we take steps to ensure as far as feasible, that as many prison officers as possible, including junior ones, have opportunities to rotate out periodically from enforcement duties to do pastoral care? This could help build restorative relationships between inmates and officers, but may also help and I quote, "may also help officers avoid the damage they experience by performing purely punitive functions", to quote from a report on ex-prisoner reintegration around the world.
Madam, I am moving on to my next topic, ex-offenders may find it difficult to set up bank accounts and this may hinder their ability to find stable jobs. Anecdotally, it appears that they may still be issues being faced here, notwithstanding the collaboration between the SPS and POSB that was started in 2015 to facilitate the setting up of bank accounts by ex-offenders upon release from prison. Can similar collaborations be made with other banks?
Also, may I confirm if there are any legal impediments for ex-prisoners who have successfully established bank accounts to obtaining access to electronic payment platforms on their account, such as for example, NETS or PayNow, which are pretty much a ubiquitous feature of modern life for most of us?
Next, Madam, I would like to clarify some points relating to the EMPS. Work release schemes have been in existence since 1985. Since that time, so as to quantify and assess the link between these employment schemes and the welfare of prisoners, as well as recidivism rates post-release, has the Ministry been monitoring the following things.
Firstly, average per hour wages paid to inmates and how much of the wages are they allowed to take home. Some ex-inmates report that they are only able to use their work income to buy things within the prison, but I am not sure if this is indeed the case now.
Secondly, the impact of prison work programmes on inmates' finances after release.
Thirdly, the proportion of inmates who have participated in such schemes.
And fourthly, the impact of prison work programmes on recidivism.
There may be an argument for not paying our workers on such schemes a full salary as they would earn outside prison, which is part of the punitive aspect of imprisonment, but work programmes like the EMPS should be structured to ensure that: firstly, companies using prison labour are not unfairly benefiting from the low costs. We should recall that some of these inmates may have worked far higher paid jobs and already have skills that are highly valued outside the prison environment; and secondly, labour should come at a cost that is in some way, benchmarked to minimum wage equivalence, so that inmates have some sort of savings buffer when they leave.
They should not re-enter society at a huge financial disadvantage because this is a reason why many inmates commit crimes in the first place. In the US, a government-owned manufacturer using inmate labour, reportedly paid between $0.23 to $1.15 per hour, with its facilities operating 24 hours a day. We should avoid such extreme scenarios.
I would also like to ask the Minister of State, whether such prison work is covered under the Employment Act. And if not, would the Government consider introducing such protections by way of subsidiary legislation or by some other means? Such inmate workers may be at the risk of exploitation, given that they do not sign contracts of service.
Next, Madam, I would like to seek some clarifications regarding the eligibility criteria for employment under the new section 59 of the Act and this is something that the hon Minister of State, Dr Faishal Ibrahim, spoke about at some length.
Madam, it is unclear what the process for considering whether an inmate is illegible for the EMPS is like. Does an inmate apply or are all eligible inmates, that is, those who have served at least 14 days of imprisonment, automatically considered for this? MHA's press release, and I believe the hon Minister of State repeated this in his Second Reading speech, suggests the latter and specifies that the SPS will assess all eligible inmates and refers them to an independent advisory committee if they are assessed to be eligible. But there does not appear to be any appeal mechanism or review mechanism if the SPS decides that an inmate is not eligible for such a scheme and hence is not referred to the independent committee. Any decision by the SPS appears to be final.
What safeguards are there to ensure that these decisions are impartial and fair? Would the Ministry consider an alternative approach whereby all eligible cases, provided there is no prohibitive circumstance that can be clearly spelled out and filtered for, are automatically referred to the independent advisory committee for consideration for EMPS without the need for the SPS to refer prisoners to the committee as it were.
Next, one of the factors considered by the commissioner is the degree to which the inmate enjoys family support and this was reiterated earlier by the Minister of State. This factor is referred to in the first footnote of MHA's press release on this Bill. Does this prejudice inmates who unfortunately do not have sufficient family support in respect of being able to participate in employment preparation? Could more be done in ensuring that those who enjoy less family support be included in the EMPS as well?
For example, being allowed to stay in special shelters while participating in employment preparation and to be assigned mentors. It may be that inmates with less family support are, other things being equal, more at risk of unsuccessfully reintegrating into society than those with ample family support.
Madam, before I leave the subject of post-release reintegration, let me speak about training. Inmates currently have access to "N", "O" and "A" level courses alongside the Ngee Ann Polytechnic Diploma in Business Practice for International Supply Chain Management. Recently, I understand that SUSS has launched a part-time degree programme the prison inmates can participate in and there could be other educational and training programmes that they have access to as well.
I would like to ask the Government if we can expand this to other educational opportunities that are important for today's economy. For example, can prisoners be allowed to take part in Polytechnic diploma courses related to future-ready economic sectors, or to entrepreneurship and innovation? I would suggest that this could include courses offered by private companies to obtain certification in very specific types of skills, like coding, for example.
I would also like to ask the Government if inmates are able to take up these courses at subsidised rates.
Also, if they were to complete their studies and after release, secure a job and do not demonstrate recidivism for certain period of time, would the Government consider a scheme whereby their student debts or part of your student debts can be forgiven? Such a scheme would incentivise inmates to take up courses of study while in prison and may also play some role in reducing recidivism, given the substantial literature that suggests a link between criminal activity and financial distress.
And on that note, I would also like to suggest that financial literacy training should also be included in the training provided to ex-offenders before release to ensure better personal financial management, which I suspect could help lower recidivism rates. Perhaps MoneySense, the national financial education programme, could be brought in to play a role here.
All these measures are important in tackling recidivism.
Based on the reply to a Parliamentary Question for MHA that I filed in August last year, the five-year recidivism rate and – before I continue I should state that I think the hon Minister of State and the hon Member Mr Murali Pillai did refer to the two-year recidivism rate. But the five-year recidivism rate for the 2011 to 2015 release cohorts, were 43.1%, 43.2%, 41%, 41.3% and 41.7% respectively. Madam, these rates are far higher than the two-year recidivism rate, which was around 22% in 2018. As a society, there is still much to do to tackle the risk of recidivism.
Next, Madam, let me move on to some concerns and clarifications related to the new powers in this Bill enabling SPS to redact or withhold inmates' correspondence and curtailing what visitors can say publicly about their visits to the prison.
Section 84(2) gives the Minister for Home Affairs power to make regulations to impose a condition on prescribed persons to give an undertaking that it will not publish or disseminate or cause to be published or disseminated any information contained in any communication with an inmate that may affect the security or good order of the prison or incite the commission of any offence before they are allowed to visit or communicate with an inmate.
I would like to ask the Government how any visitor would know whether such information falls within the categories that I so specified until this information is published and they are found by the Minister to have published information that falls foul of these categories. Of course, they can take guidance from the examples of information listed in footnote 5 to the MHA press release and reiterated by Minister of State Dr Faishal Ibrahim, but that does not appear to be exhaustive.
Could the Minister of State provide more details of the kinds of information that would run afoul of this provision? Would the Minister of State also confirm that a visitor disseminating information that is factually correct and does not correspond to these categories of information, of which the examples have been given, would not run afoul of this provision? For example, factually correct information about a prisoner having suffered injuries. Can the Government also specify the penalties associated with such a prescribed person breaching the undertaking?
Madam, next, I shall touch on the new powers for the Minister to regulate and restrict correspondence between an inmate and any prescribed person. This provision gives the Minister for Home Affairs power to make regulations to redact or withhold inmates' correspondence that may affect the security or good order of prisons or incite the commission of any offence.
This provision appears to be in line with section 127A of the Prisons Regulations. Both this provision and section 127A provide that letters to prisoners may be withheld if they affect the security or good order of prisons. But this provision also goes further in providing for a new category of reasons whereby correspondence can be withheld, that is, withholding or redacting correspondence that could incite the commission of any offence.
Prima facie, this provision has implications for the freedom of speech of inmates. Freedom of speech is protected by Article 14 of the Singapore Constitution although as it stands, it is a qualified right. The Constitution provides that Parliament may by law impose such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, or in relation to the incitement to commit any offence. This provision confers on the Minister powers to make restrictions on inmates' correspondence that appears to be in line with the qualifications on the freedom of speech provided for in the Constitution, that is, security of the prison and incitement to commit offences.
But the question remains whether this provision is a proportionate response to the problem it seeks to solve. In this spirit, while I do not object to the provision in question, I would like to ask for more guidance as to how these powers will be used. Will actions under this provision target the kinds of information detailed in footnote 5 to the MHA press release, which seem very directly related to the commission of offences? Would the Ministry provide the assurance that information on genuine grievances a person may have that do not pose security risks would not be affected?
Next, this provision does not seem to provide an exception for letters written to a prisoner's legal advisor, unlike section 127A of the Regulations. I would like to ask if this provision is subject to the common law carve-out for legal advice privilege. My purpose in raising this point is not to argue that correspondence relating to, say, a planned prison breakout, for example, should be exempt from this provision if it is between a lawyer and his client. I do not think it should. But it would be useful if the Government can clarify the status of legal communication under this provision. For example, I think that if correspondence between an inmate and his lawyer is withheld, at the very least that fact should be conveyed to the prisoner and his/her lawyer.
And on that note, it is also unclear if prisoners will be notified if their letters are redacted or withheld and I would like to seek clarity on this point from MHA.
It is also unclear what is the review or appeal mechanism should the Minister exercise this power. Can a prisoner appeal against this decision? If so, what form would the appeals process take?
Lastly, I would also like to ask if, under this provision, the Government can intercept prisoner communication and convey part or all of the contents of the same to AGC to confer a legal advantage on the latter, even if it is unrelated to the commission of an offence as described in the language of the provision and in the MHA press release. I think the answer to my question must surely be no, as everything I have read about this Bill suggests, but I would like to have that answered all the same.
Ms Nadia Samdin.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. A few years ago, I was given the opportunity to engage with girls undergoing reformative training. A group of volunteers and I shared with them practical tips and life skills such as budgeting, how to go about applying for school or a job. And some of them shared how nobody had ever sat with them like that, listening to their thoughts, offering advice when appropriate and personalising next steps depending on what best suited them. When they came out, we would meet with our girls and all of them would express similar regrets and also new resolve – to change, to do better, both for themselves and their families. However, many feared that past decisions would continue to follow them like a stain caused by indelible ink throughout their lives.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the sentencing principles of deterrence, proportionate punishment, prevention and rehabilitation hold different weight in the context of specific facts of each case. Offenders serve time after committing their wrongdoings, but often their families – spouses, parents, young children – are punished too. And this punishment can continue unless we unlock the second prison in society.
The Prisons (Amendment) Bill proposes mainly two categories of amendments, including enhancing community corrections for better rehabilitation and reintegration outcomes. I would like to start by affirming my support for the Employment Preparation Scheme, or EmPS, which aims to better enable our inmates to reintegrate into society and the workplace. In 2021, I have spoken about similar issues, such as assistance for inmates’ families and support for youth offenders, and I am heartened that more steps are being taken to enhance the rehabilitative process as it is a critical step in helping inmates – and their families – to reintegrate and in time contribute to society.
The expansion of the Work Release Scheme to also include educational and upskilling opportunities is important. Studies consistently show that education while carrying out one’s sentence improves an inmate’s post-release employment outcomes and reduces recidivism rates. To give an example, a 2013 study showed how participation in educational programmes increased the chances of employment of American inmates upon their release by 13% compared to their peers and are 43% less likely to recidivate compared to those who did not undergo the programme.
Similarly, in Australia, a 2018 study found that inmates who successfully completed vocational education and training programmes were 2.5 times more likely to remain out of prison after two years. The EmPS takes things one step further by allowing inmates to access educational opportunities they would otherwise not have been able to take advantage of while serving their sentence.
Our two-year recidivism rate has almost halved in 20 years to reach approximately 22%, although the five-year recidivism rate is higher. Singapore Prison Services (SPS) has also been expanding its rehabilitation efforts in recent years. From 2019 to 2020, there was a 42% increase in the number of inmates who underwent community-based rehabilitation and the completion rates for these programmes were over 90%. The EmPS underscores SPS’ commitment towards rehabilitation as a sentencing principle and will complement these efforts.
That said, I hope to seek some clarifications on the Bill.
First is with regard to the available opportunities under the EmPS. What kinds of jobs, education and upskilling programmes will be available to inmates? Do the nature of these jobs differ from those offered under the Work Release Scheme? How do we ensure that work environments are conducive for rehabilitation and minimise the chance of recidivism? Beyond just jobs, would these educational opportunities only be limited to vocational training, or will they also include academic programmes for those who may desire to do so? I hope that a broader scope of upskilling opportunities to keep pace with the workforce of the future would be considered.
Second is on eligibility and progression through the scheme. I note that the EmPS consists of three phases: the in-camp phase, the weekend home leave phase and the long home leave phase. What is the intended duration of each phase? If progress to the next phase is decided on a case-by-case basis, what are some of the criteria used in this decision?
With respect to the in-camp phase and work release centre, I understand that Institution S2 at the Selarang Park Complex, which is run by SPS, is currently the only facility designated as a work release centre. Will there be sufficient space for suitable offenders to participate in the programme, or will other spaces be created in due course?
In addition, one of the criteria mentioned in the Bill for eligibility of the programme is the level of family support an inmate has. Unfortunately, not all offenders have family support. And in fact, it could be poor familial ties which had caused them to offend in the first place. However, that does not mean that they do not have the heart, nor the will, to complete the programme. I hope that some flexibility, on a carefully considered case-by-case basis where deserving and appropriate, can be granted in the long home leave phase or other appropriate accommodation be considered.
Next, while enhancing the employment opportunities is important, staying employed, retaining employment and being relevant are just as important. I understand that the Yellow Ribbon Project does have career coaching, career guidance and job facilitation programmes but not all offenders may be aware of or know how to take up these support schemes meaningfully. Would the Government consider allocating resources for coaches, for example, for the medium-term to support these ex-offenders for an appropriate period of time after release? They can also help them with administrative and logistical matters such as registering for lost ICs or setting up bank accounts. This would increase the chances of job retention after placement and employment in the long run to provide stability for ex-offenders and their families.
In addition, some face financial difficulties or even debt from the day of release. Would there be any educational support stipends considered to support them as they take up opportunities under EmPS?
Lastly, while the EmPS might better equip inmates with workforce-ready skillsets, on its own, it cannot change employers and colleagues' perceptions of and sometimes prejudice against, ex-offenders. Unfortunately, stigma against ex-offenders remains prevalent.
The Singapore After-Care Association (SACA) published a study on ex-offenders who had participated in their Education Support Programme and completed higher education post-release. Respondents noted that their criminal record hindered them in all stages of employment. Of those that secured a job, many found that their positions and pay grade were less than commensurate with their educational qualifications. The work to manage negative societal attitudes is endless, but I do hope and urge those in and out of the House today, to address any personal prejudices that we might come across to help unlock the second prison.
I am very blessed to have a mixed pool of volunteers on the ground, some of whom have served their time, some of whom we met through the Yellow Ribbon Project actually and then decided to spend their time volunteering. Many share that in the past, it was always someone else visiting them and their families and that helped them along in their journeys. Allowing them to cultivate stronger ties with their neighbours and own communities on the ground gives them a chance to see things from a different perspective, make amends and to feel like they too can have purpose and help others. I am very grateful when they choose to step forward despite curious glances at tagging bracelets, difficult conversations about where they have been for the past few months and even more grateful when they manage to stay the course. I hope that society and more community organisations will give them a chance to become volunteers and in time, community leaders, perhaps, when it is possible to do so safely.
My last point on the Bill is regarding the amendment on regulations to redact or withhold inmates’ correspondence to maintain prison security. It is without a doubt vitally important for SPS to ensure the integrity and security of prison systems. However, I would like to ask about possible unintended consequences of this amendment. Inmates’ correspondence with family members and friends are already subject to scrutiny and from my understanding, inmates are restricted to sending out two letters or up to four emails in a month.
In the context of COVID-19, when face-to-face visits have been suspended from volunteers and family members, letters have been all the more important as a form of personalised communication between inmates and their families and as a pillar of support. For example, a pregnant mom trying to reach out to her husband who is an inmate, or a daughter in prison trying to find out more about her elderly ill parents. Would the processing time of written correspondence between inmates and their families be affected? I will continue in Malay.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of this Bill which steps up efforts to rehabilitate and reintegrate ex-inmates back into society. Through the EmPS, ex-inmates can enhance their skills and education for their future after being released from prison. This will open up more opportunities to explore other sectors of employment or education.
However, apart from them undergoing upskilling courses or seeking employment through EmPS, I am also concerned whether they are burdened by the lack of savings or money for expenses. Although family support is very important, we also recognise that not all ex-convicts have family support or enough savings for their daily expenses or to continue their education. In addition to our support towards the rehabilitation and integration efforts of inmates, can the Government also look at how they can be given some form of financial assistance and receive guidance after their release so that they do not face any hardship in their daily expenses?
(In English): Mdm Deputy Speaker, overall, I am heartened that this Bill equips inmates with more opportunities to upskill and seek meaningful employment. It also introduces practical measures to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of SPS’ operations. Notwithstanding the above clarifications, I believe that these amendments will bring about benefits to society as a whole. I support the Bill.
Mr Yip Hon Weng
Mdm Deputy Speaker, employment is a critical part of an ex-offender’s integration journey into society. As such, The Employment Preparation Scheme (EmPS) is a step in the right direction. Besides rehabilitating them, it also helps to raise inmates’ employability, in line with our national upskilling endeavours. This new pool of trained employees will help to alleviate manpower shortages. I would like to raise four suggestions.
First, Mdm Deputy Speaker, there is the need to ensure participation from genuine employers for the programme to succeed. Potential employers should meet certain conditions, or provide a specific training plan and remuneration schedule to the Singapore Prison Service, or SPS.
Will there also be an appropriate industry body that accredits and matches potential employers? Ideally, these employers should meet relevant criteria or have a track record for rehabilitating and hiring ex-offenders. On the other hand, if the demands and requirements imposed on potential employers are too onerous, employers are unlikely to take part. It is important to establish a balance between the interests of employers and the participating ex-offenders.
New Zealand’s Release to Work Programme requires potential employers to satisfy a set of criteria, before they can be considered for placement with inmates undergoing rehabilitation. A myriad of factors will be taken into account, to ensure a good match between the workplace and the employee. Briefings and ongoing support for employers and staff are provided before and during the placement.
Will the Ministry or SPS likewise conduct similar placement assessments? Besides the employers, are the employees aware that they will be working with an inmate? Can employers count on our programme administrators for clear regulations and reliable support?
Support can also come in the form of training for employers and managers on working with ex-offenders. Ex-offenders tend to carry emotional baggage and carry a stigma. Some believe that they are constantly being judged. Unpleasant events, like being criticised by their supervisor or customer, can trigger adverse reactions or discourage them. Employers should have timely access to support from prison counsellors to help with such situations.
Employers who abuse the system or refuse to abide by the regulations are a potential concern. There are always errant employers who exploit the schemes. They may join the programme to benefit from the grants or positive publicity. On the flip side, they may not have a proper training plan or work arrangement for the participant. A first poor employment experience can be disheartening for inmates. It deprives them of a valuable integration opportunity. So, there should be regulations and penalties for errant employers.
Can the Ministry also clarify whether remuneration for inmates will be managed by SPS? Or will remuneration be paid by the employers to the prisoner directly? Does SPS allocate the upskilling and training opportunities, or do the eligible participants have to source for the opportunities themselves? Are there plans to engage more employers to come onboard? With the expansion of the programme, how will the additional costs and resources be defrayed?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, my second point is to request that prohibitions for EmPS participants be clearly specified. For EmPS to be successful, exemplary discipline of the participant inmate is important. I am glad that the Bill has drawn up very detailed conditions of the employment preparation order. With regards to clause 59M (2), the prohibitions in the said clause do not expressly mention vice activities, aside from drugs and alcohol. As a matter of deterrence, besides including the residual discretion of the Commissioner of Prisons to include conditions as the Commissioner deemed fit, it should be explicitly stated what participants are prohibited from doing. This is because some employers worry about vice and problematic behaviour, such as gangsterism and gambling among ex-offenders. This is especially if the participant inmates were formerly convicted of the said crimes. Having this clause will help allay their concerns. This is not to stigmatise the inmates, but to provide clarity and assurance to all involved parties.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, my third point is about allaying concerns from the public and minimising stigma from EmPS participants. While Singaporeans in general approve of second chances for ex-offenders who are rehabilitated, the "Not in my back yard" syndrome, or NIMBY, can be apparent in this case. Whilst some agree on the need to train and rehabilitate ex-offenders into society, that does not necessarily translate into willingness of oneself to attend classes or work in the same workplace with them. So, I seek clarification on whether participating inmates will attend classes together with the public? If so, will there be ways to remove identifiers associated with the participating inmates, such as not requiring the wearing of prison attire, or wearing electronic tracking devices at a spot where it is not visible?
Can the Government also clarify on the types of inmates who are eligible for EmPS? Do they include serious offences already set out in the Second Schedule of the Prisons Act (Cap 247) like drug trafficking, culpable homicide not amounting to murder, or sexual offences and other violent crimes?
I understand that all eligible inmates will be assessed by SPS for their suitability for the programme. There will be an independent advisory committee appointed by MHA to review the cases and make recommendations to the Commissioner. I believe that the eligible candidates would have proven themselves worthy. Nonetheless, can the Ministry assure the public that there is no risk of the inmate offending or causing harm while on EmPS? What steps will the Ministry take to mitigate such risks?
Sometimes, a person’s discrimination against others can stem from past trauma. For example, a former victim of sexual assault with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) may feel unsafe to spend time in the same space as a convicted sex offender. This fear should be taken into consideration. This further drives the point of the difficulty and necessity to balance the needs of the public. De-identifying EmPS participants gives them a fair chance at rehabilitation, to prove themselves without societal stigma. Correspondingly, how will the Ministry seek to protect the needs of victims of crime and to navigate situations whereby halfway through the EmPS, a co-worker or classmate rejects the presence of the participating inmate?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, my last suggestion is to review the grace period for an inmate to receive punishment while servicing their sentence. Is it not better to adjust the grace period so the prisoner receives the punishment during his incarceration, rather than extend his sentence? It is understood that such prisoners often have a grace period and their sentences are backdated, so there is no time to deal the punishment while they serve their sentence. However, durations of appeal can prolong the process, such that 21 days may not even be adequate.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, in conclusion, I have met Yio Chu Kang residents at my Meet-the-People sessions who are ex-offenders. Employment and job search are top pain points for these residents. Wariness from employers, discrimination from the public and a lack of suitable skills are the key hurdles. The expanded EmPS would address some of these issues.
For it to be more effective and benefit more former inmates, it needs to attract genuine employers – employers who are keen to help ex-offenders and at the same time, employ them to grow their businesses. This can be done with a proper framework that formalises their obligations and access to support from SPS. It should clarify the prohibitions of participants under the EmPS, which would serve as deterrence and give employers added assurance of good behaviour. It should also take into consideration concerns from the public and minimise prejudice to give inmates a chance to prove themselves.
As we onboard more eligible employers and workplaces, I am hopeful that this will help increase the acceptance of ex-offenders into our society. I support the Bill.
Mr Melvin Yong.
Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. I stand in support of the Bill, which seeks to amend the Prisons Act to enhance community corrections and facilitate better operations and administration of the Singapore Prison Service (SPS).
Madam, let me begin by expressing my strong support for the introduction of the Employment Preparation Scheme, or EmPS for short, as it will help inmates gain the skills necessary to seek meaningful employment and, by extension, reduce our recidivism rates.
Currently, inmates at the tail-end of their sentence are allowed to work in the community under the Work Release Scheme (WRS), which helps to ease their transition into society under gainful employment. However, if these inmates have been in prison for a long period of time, they may find it hard to find a job as the job market would have evolved significantly. If this is left unaddressed, the skills mismatch would result in low employment rates. The proposed replacement of the WRS with the EmPS, will help reduce this skills mismatch and ease the transition of our ex-offenders into society through good employment.
However, despite our best efforts, there will still be those who re-offend, even if they are placed in proper jobs. I would like to know what is the recidivism rate among ex-offenders who were placed on WRS in the last five years and whether any analysis has been done on why they have re-offended? Are there any lessons that can be applied to EmPS to help further reduce recidivism rates?
Madam, we should also do more to help inmates reintegrate back to society, particularly those who have been in jail for some time. Technology has advanced by leaps and bounds. Ten years ago, the iPhone 5 has just gone into the market and its maximum storage of 64GB then felt more than sufficient. Today, we have the iPhone 13 with a whopping storage capacity of 1TB. Technologies such as mobile payments and 5G technology will seem foreign to inmates who have been incarcerated for a lengthy period.
Madam, we need to help inmates who will be returning to a – metaphorically speaking – completely new world than the one they knew before they entered prison. What are the efforts to help such prisoners reintegrate back into society? Can we have digital ambassadors to provide technology familiarisation sessions so that we can better prepare these inmates for the new environment outside of the prison?
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the economic disruptions brought about by COVID-19 has undoubtedly made the job market more challenging for ex-offenders, as industries transform with a fervent pace. The Labour Movement, through the Employment and Employability Institute (e2i) and our Job Security Council, has been actively partnering the Yellow Ribbon Singapore to match ex-offenders with available jobs in the market.
In September 2021, there were 209 job openings for every 100 unemployed persons in Singapore, according to data from the MOM. There is certainly space for us to do more to help place ex-offenders into manpower-deficient sectors. However, certain jobs such as those in the security sector, or those that require approval from the Police to enter restricted areas such as our ports and the airport, are automatically excluded from ex-offenders due to their past convictions. I hope that the relevant authorities will continue to review such restrictions and exercise more flexibility so that we can help our ex-offenders access some of these jobs.
Ex-offenders have served their sentences. Let us reduce the stigma and not let their past actions continue to cast a shadow over their future.
In conclusion, the proposed amendments to the Prisons Act are timely as they will help to enhance community corrections and allow more inmates to gain meaningful employment upon their release. But I hope that more can be done to help ease ex-offenders’ transition into society and reduce the stigmatisation that they face, so that they will feel confident re-entering society and not fall back into a life of crime. Madam, I support the Bill.
Mr Raj Joshua Thomas.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, the Prisons (Amendment) Bill will introduce, amongst other things, the Employment Preparation Scheme, or EmPS, which would allow offenders in prison to be released for employment or to participate in educational or occupational training programmes. This will supplement the current Community-based Programmes framework or CBPs and help ex-offenders improve their employability and facilitate their reintegration into society.
Madam, the statistics show that CBPs and similar reintegration efforts have played a big part in lowering the likelihood of re-offending. As reported by The Straits Times, offenders placed on CBPs in the period 2016 to 2018 had a 16% recidivism rate as compared to 26% for offenders who were not on such programmes. Therefore, we can expect that the new EmPS, together with the CBPs, will lead to a further reduction in recidivism.
Of course, it also bears stating that – as mentioned by the Minister of State and several hon Members who spoke before me – Singapore already has one of the lowest recidivism rates in the world and the current two-year recidivism rate of 22% is one of the lowest we have ever had, although the five-year rates are higher. So, MHA and the Singapore Prisons Service really should be commended for not just sitting on their laurels but working to continually improve the system, including with this new EmPS, to try to further lower recidivism rates.
In particular, part 6B section 59K of the amended Act makes provision for inmates "to participate, in any place outside the limits of the prison in which the prisoner is detained, in any educational or occupational training programme, or any other activity for the purpose of facilitating the prisoner to be gainfully employed, that may be specified in the order" and follows with conditions stipulated in the Bill.
Madam, while recognising the relevance and the importance of the new EmPS, I have three points as regards the implementation of the programme.
First, section 59L of the amended Act sets out the Commissioner's considerations as regards whether an offender is suitable for employment preparation. On this, I hope that the SPS will adopt a liberal interpretation to the stipulations and that eventually, all but the most recalcitrant or unresponsive of offenders would be eligible for the EmPS and other reintegration schemes.
The reason for this is that incarceration terms inevitably end at some point and effort ought to be made for the rehabilitation and reintegration of offenders even if they have shown themselves to be unresponsive at first. In fact, it may well be that the offenders who need these schemes most are precisely those who appear less responsive as they may have the most difficulty reintegrating and the highest risk of re-offending.
Second, given our ageing population, the number of elderly ex-offenders returning to society will increase. Already, we can see based on data from the SPS that the number of convicted inmates aged 51 and above in the period 2012 to 2017 has increased by 70% and the number of inmates aged 60 years and above tripled over the same period.
Older offenders returning to society may face greater challenges trying to find employment. A study by the Singapore After-Care Association published in December 2018 found that elderly ex-offenders had difficulties finding employment upon their release. One of the reasons highlighted was their loss of motivation to go for courses or to upgrade their skills.
One of the study participants was quoted as saying and I read the quote verbatim, "I don't have any skills, no qualifications, no license. Now, most classes are in English." Another thought is that "I'm already at this age, just pass each day as it is, no motivation to upgrade."
In this connection, I urge the SPS and its partners to consider older inmates as a distinct group under the EmPS that may need to develop skills and have employment preparation specific to their age group. This could help avoid the sense of helplessness some of them feel once they are released, when they are faced with the real pressures of getting a job, being financially independent and, for some of them, having to support members of their family.
Finally, I would also like to suggest that another distinct group that ought to be administered in a differentiated manner – and this was also mentioned by the hon Member Melvin Yong – are offenders who have been in prison for an extended period of time. These inmates may need to be on such schemes for a longer period to catch up with skills and to be mentally prepared to return to the workplace.
Madam, to conclude, I am glad that MHA and SPS are taking further measures to assist offenders to rehabilitate and reintegrate. Our ex-offenders are also part of our Singapore core and we need to make this all-of-society effort to make sure none of us is left behind or left out.
Notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I support the Bill.
Mr Sharael Taha.
Thank you, Mdm Deputy Speaker. Singapore's two-year recidivism rate of 22.1% is one of the lowest in the world. We are second only to Norway and South Korea. This is an applaudable achievement and a testimony to the good work done by Singapore Prison Service.
Given our low penal recidivism rate, the Employment Preparation Scheme (EmPS) is a positive step in the right direction because it seeks to provide inmates better opportunities to reintegrate back to society as they will be allowed to undergo skills training and education as well as working within the community. With sufficient training and preparation at the tail-end of their sentences, inmates have better chances to be employed upon their release and ultimately, increasing the chances of successful reintegration back to society.
I stand in support of the Bill. However, I would like to seek clarification on a few matters.
Under the previous Work Release Scheme (WRS), inmates were given permission to leave prisons in order to work. What is the current number and percentage of inmates that are allowed to leave prisons under WRS and what is the absconder rate? How do we reduce it, keeping in mind the intent to have more inmates emplaced on the EmPS? What is the number and percentage of inmates that are expected to be on EmPS? Are there inmates with specific crimes that will not be allowed to be on EmPS? What are the guiding principles that help us ascertain which inmates are suitably ready to be emplaced on EmPS?
Given that we expect a larger number of inmates participating in this programme and that the administering is done on a case-by-case basis, we can expect that our prison officers will have an increased workload. Do we currently have sufficient resources to handle the increased load? What can we do now in order to ensure our rehabilitation officers are adequately supported as we take more steps towards our "prisons without walls" concept?
While we do want more of our inmates to be better prepared and ultimately reintegrate back to society, we must also be mindful not to tolerate any breaches of conditions by supervisees. Hence, the amendments also provide SPS officers with powers to obtain documents or information from third parties and this will be a required amendment to assist our SPS officers to investigate and make inquiries into breaches of conditions by supervisees.
The EmPS rests on the premise that inmates who are better prepared through training and upskilling can find meaningful employment once their sentence is over. Meaningful employment would help the ex-inmate reintegrate better and ultimately be accepted as a useful and contributing member of society.
How do we ensure the inmates experience good quality training that will lead to a higher chance of them landing a job after their sentences? Are the courses offered under EmPS limited and only available from specific training providers? If so, what are the types of training that will be made available to the supervisees and how do we choose our training provider partners for EmPS?
While we want to get suitable inmates prepared for their life post-sentence, we must also be mindful not to dishearten these individuals who are intending to change by exposing them to discrimination which will dampen their confidence to reintegrate through meaningful employment.
With that in mind, how do we ensure the staff and fellow trainees at the training centres are prepared to accept these individuals who are trying to turn over a new leaf? Are there counselling or career guidance sessions available to help our inmates deal with discrimination or stigmatisation?
With more and more training and jobs needing IT or digital skills, if the training or job emplacement requires the supervisees to have access to mobile devices, social media and access to computers, will these devices be provided for in prison? Is it a cause of concern if inmates have access to such devices? Will this affect the inmates' time they spend in prison?
Currently, many citizens can use their SkillsFuture Credit for training and upskilling. Can inmates placed on EmPS use their SkillsFuture Credit too?
Ultimately, we want relevant and updated training and reskilling for our inmates so that they will have a fair chance of landing a job post-sentence and hence increasing the likelihood that they will be meaningfully employed. We must ensure the quality of such training is of a suitable standard. Hence, it may also be useful if such training or reskilling is accredited or by the end of the training or reskilling programme, our inmates receive some form of certification to help them with future employability.
With the idea of future employability of our post-sentence inmates in mind, how can we get more employers to be part of the programme to work with the inmates? Ex-inmates face a tough time landing a job, even with proper skills and qualifications. Despite the best efforts of many inmates who want to turn over a new leaf, discrimination and stigmatisation remains a reality.
Can we better incentivise employers to consider employing ex-inmates? What can we do to encourage a more welcoming environment for ex-offenders in the workplace?
Can EmPS be used to address manpower shortages that we have in digital, manufacturing and engineering industry or even kickstart talent in a new industry, for example, the electric car repair industry? I believe this would certainly help our inmates be more future ready and hence, more likely to be meaningfully employed post-sentence. Mdm Deputy Speaker, in Malay, please.
(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Although EmPs provides a golden opportunity for ex-offenders to seek employment and give back to society, we must not forget the important role of the family in reintegrating offenders back to society.
Families should encourage ex-offenders to participate in rehabilitation sessions so that they can use this opportunity to rebuild their lives. Indeed, EmPs is an opportunity that should be taken up because it will give ex-offenders time to upgrade themselves by acquiring new skills so that they have a better chance of getting a job after being released from prison.
Family support and encouragement are very important because many ex-offenders face a host of challenges as they try to reintegrate into society. Therefore, we should build a conducive environment for ex-offenders to better themselves and return as members of society who contribute to community and family.
Programmes such as FITRAH (Family and Inmates Through Care Assistance Haven) by the Islamic Religious Council of Singapore (MUIS) together with M3 aims to provide integrated and holistic support for offenders and their families – from in-care to aftercare.
Families will be connected to the necessary assistance network while their spouses who are in prison are given proper support with in-care services.
I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the volunteers from FITRAH and other related organisations for providing assistance to ex-offenders and their families.
(In English): In conclusion, Mdm Deputy Speaker, overall, I am in support of the amendments. However, for it to be effective, we need to ensure that SPS is adequately resourced; we have good quality training and trained training providers to enable the inmates to reintegrate through meaningful employment; we have strong support from employers in the right industries; we can ensure the inmate's family is supported, advised and counselled so that they can be the pillar of support for the inmates to reintegrate back to society; lastly and perhaps most crucially, we need to continue our efforts in getting society to accept these individuals who are intending to turn over a new leaf and be contributing members of our society.
That being said, Mdm Deputy Speaker, I am in support of the amendments to the Bill.
Mr Louis Ng.
Madam, the amendments in the Bill today will promote inmates’ rehabilitation and reintegration into society.
I previously shared in this House the inspirational stories I heard from ex-offenders and how “family” was the one word they used most frequently in their stories. I also spoke about how I strongly believe that strengthening family ties is important to improve the rehabilitation process for inmates. I am supportive of the amendments in this Bill, which not only sends a signal about the focus on rehabilitation, but also provides a concrete framework for achieving it.
I have three points of clarification.
My first point is about eligibility for employment preparation. The new section 59L provides that a prisoner is eligible to be released for employment preparation if the prisoner has served not less than 14 days. Can Minister clarify whether this 14-day period includes any time that has been spent in remand? Can Minister share at what stage of the imprisonment would the Commissioner assess a prisoner’s suitability for employment? Should a prisoner be initially assessed as unsuitable, when will the prisoner next be re-assessed?
My second point is about the categorisation of prison offences. The new sections 72 and 73 set out minor and aggravated prison offences. Each section includes broad, catch-all offences. For instance, it is a minor prison offence to carry out any “act, conduct, disorder or neglect to the prejudice of good order or discipline in the prison”. It is an aggravated prison offence to carry out any “gross act of misconduct or insubordination”.
But it is not clear that acts that are prejudicial to the good order or discipline in the prison are any less severe than acts of gross misconduct or insubordination. To help clarify the differences between minor and aggravated prison offences, can Minister provide examples of acts that would fall under the catch-all minor and aggravated prison offences? Can Minister also clarify if the Superintendent has final authority in determining whether the offences committed is a minor or aggravated prison offences and whether the Commissioner has the authority to disagree with the Superintendent’s categorisation of an offence as a minor or aggravated offence?
My third and final point is about exceptions to prison offences. The Ministry has said the new Employment Preparation Scheme will include an in-camp phase during which inmates may work or study outside prison during the day and return to reside at a “work release centre” in the evening.
Can Minister clarify if prison offences conducted at work, study and residence locations under the scheme would be deemed to be within prison? This is significant, as certain prison offences do not apply to prisoners serving their sentence outside prison.
Would it no longer be an aggravated prison offence for a prisoner to assault another prisoner while working together outside the prison under this scheme?
Can Minister also clarify why it is no longer a prison offence for a prisoner to carry out aggravated or repeated assault on any other prisoner, or wilfully causing themselves any illness, injury, or disability if a prisoner is outside of prison under the scheme?
In summary, I hope Minister can clarify my points on assessing a prisoner’s eligibility for employment preparation, determining the severity of prison offences and providing exceptions to prison offences. Madam, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.
Mr Desmond Choo.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. Every year, more than 10,000 ex-offenders complete their sentences and are released. Upon release, reintegration is the most crucial step and post-release employment is critical to the success of an ex-offender’s reintegration into society. The Employment Preparation Scheme can effectively facilitate this.
The proposed scheme is more comprehensive than the Work Release Scheme. Inmates will be able to equip themselves with relevant skillsets, enhancing their post-release employability. Retraining is especially crucial, especially considering the pandemic economy.
I will speak on two key areas: the structure of the scheme and the importance of a coordinated, holistic support framework.
On the scheme itself, I would like to highlight three points: the need to include as many inmates as possible under it, ensuring quality programmes and the provision of financial support for inmates under the scheme.
First, we must seek to include as many eligible inmates into the scheme as possible. Inmates are emplaced into the scheme through a two-tier selection process. SPS first surfaces suitable inmates. Thereafter, they are assessed by an independent advisory committee. I would like to ask what would be the tools used to assess the suitability of an inmate. For example, would the Singapore Prisons Short Risk Scale (SPSRS) be used? Would inmates be told of the assessment criteria so that they can work towards such a programme?
Could the Ministry also clarify at which stage are inmates eligible to be emplaced under this scheme? At section 59L(a) of the Bill, an inmate is eligible for the scheme when they have served at least 14 days of their sentence. However, it seems that inmates are generally emplaced on Community-based Programmes at the tail-end of their sentence.
Second, I believe that the long-term effectiveness of the scheme is dependent on the quality of preparation received by the inmates. The pandemic, coupled with the destruction of digitalisation, has accelerated growth and demise of many industries, jobs and skillsets. Upon release, some inmates may find themselves with skillsets that may not be practical or useful in this new economy. Skills audit and career counselling are then essential for successful training and placement. How can the Ministry work with organisations such as SSG and e2i to prepare inmates?
The success of training is very much dependent on placement. And a place-and-train scheme is often preferred because inmates would be training with a clear purpose. Could the Ministry develop pilot place-and-train sectors? The Labour Movement stands ready to work with tripartite partners to support such initiatives.
Thirdly, many ex-offenders need financial support upon release. Some would prefer to work rather than invest in training and education. However, the importance of reskilling must not be overlooked as it will place them in a better position to secure gainful employment. Could the Ministry provide training allowance to inmates who take up training and education programmes? This is especially important when the inmates can go home in phase two and three of the scheme.
Next, a coordinated, holistic support framework involving all stakeholders must be in place to ensure the long-term effectiveness of the scheme.
First, the success of the scheme is dependent on employers’ and workplace support. I would like to call on employers to maintain an open-mind and view ex-offenders as a potential pool of committed workers. Employers and the workplace must try to give a second chance to ex-offenders, accepting them as valued members of the workforce.
The number of employers registered with Yellow Ribbon Singapore (YRSG) has been steadily increasing over the years. However, research has reflected that some inmates who are considered as PMETs were unable to find suitable vacancies commensurate with their qualifications. There is thus a pressing need to rope in more employers in different industries to join as partners of the scheme. The unions will lend our support to do so.
Secondly, the support rendered to inmates by the Government should continue for some time post-release to ensure that reintegration is successful. There may be scope to investigate enhancing the Jobs Growth Initiative (JGI) for ex-offenders. Could the Ministry consider enhancing the JGI or offering a one-off bonus when an employer hires an inmate upon their completion of the EmPS with the company? The continuity in employment post-release will ensure a smoother reintegration into society for ex-offenders. Perhaps, the JGI can be restructured for hires of ex-offenders, with the provision of Government support running for a longer period of time.
Mdm Deputy Speaker, I also wish to highlight the efforts of YRSG. Every year, YRSG assists more than 2,000 inmates with employment before release. The Labour Movement will continue to provide our support to their initiatives, because ex-offenders are and can be productive and committed workers. For example, since 2018, e2i has worked with YRSG to assist approximately 1,000 ex-offenders by developing training programmes and providing job matching opportunities for this pool of workers.
The long-term effectiveness of the scheme is dependent on the existence of a coordinated, holistic support framework at all levels. As a nation, giving ex-offenders second chances is not just about providing them with employment, but also believing in them and wholeheartedly accepting them as part of the community. Notwithstanding my clarifications and suggestions, I support the Bill.
Leader.
PAPERCUTS