Deterrents against Serious Crimes Committed by Young Persons

The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Mdm Speaker, persons who commit serious crimes, such as vandalism, hurt or other offences, that affect public well-being, safety and security should be severely punished. This also applies to young offenders. The law provides a range of punishments and rehabilitative options that the Courts can impose as appropriate. These include options, such as community-based rehabilitation, probation, placement in a juvenile rehabilitation centre, reformative training, fines, caning and imprisonment.

The penalties provided in the law for serious offences, including vandalism and hurt, are generally adequate. Vandalism is a serious offence, especially where it defaces public facilities or property, is designed to draw wide public attention to the act of lawlessness or involves indelible substances making removal difficult or costly. The maximum penalty for vandalism is three years' imprisonment or a fine of up to S$2,000. There is a mandatory minimum of three strokes of the cane but not more than eight, unless the act was committed with a delible substance. For the offence of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, the maximum penalty is 10 years' imprisonment and a fine or caning. This increases to life imprisonment or up to 15 years' imprisonment and a fine or caning if grievous hurt is caused by dangerous weapons and means.

In deciding on the appropriate sentence, the Courts will generally weigh the gravity of the offence committed, together with factors, such as proportionality and the individual circumstances of the offender. This includes the offender's age, antecedents, culpability, aggravating and mitigating factors. The Courts would also need to consider what is in the public interest. For example, it would not be in the public interest to have youth crimes take root in society or go out of control. While rehabilitative options are available for young offenders who are suitable, the Courts have also meted out more severe punishments if the offence was a serious one, including deterrent sentences to send a strong signal that such criminal behaviour will not be condoned nor taken lightly. In appropriate cases, the Public Prosecutor may appeal against the sentence if it is inadequate or does not reflect the

Page: 40

seriousness of the offence committed.

In recent years, young offenders have received stiff sentences and caning for committing vandalism and hurt. In 2014, three young men aged between 22 and 26 were sentenced to varying terms of imprisonment and three strokes of the cane each for vandalising public property with messages supporting the criminal activities of the hacking collective Anonymous. In 2013, three young men aged between 19 and 21 were sentenced to imprisonment terms of between two years six months and three years six months, and received between four and six strokes of the cane, for rioting and slashing a full-time National Serviceman in an attack at a shopping complex in Orchard Road. These sentences give the community the assurance that safety and security are being safeguarded.

Having said that, young offenders may also be sent for reformative training at Changi Prison Complex. The regime is strict, tough and has a strong emphasis on discipline. However, some younger offenders can benefit more from community-based rehabilitation, such as probation, which can include conditions, such as community service, curfew, electronic monitoring and hostel residency.

A key factor in reducing youth crime is high certainty of being caught and dealt with firmly. Prompt and effective enforcement by our law enforcement agencies, coupled with strict laws, are therefore, necessary. At the same time, it is also necessary to have crime prevention programmes jointly with schools and community partners to guide our youths and divert them from criminal activity.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) will continue to closely monitor the situation and regularly review the need to step up education, enforcement or impose additional legislative measures. MHA will also work with the Attorney-General's Chambers to press for deterrent sentences where these are warranted.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister a couple of supplementary questions, please. He has rightly pointed out the need for a significant deterrent effect. For youth offenders, the effectiveness of this may be reduced because of the lack of understanding and awareness. Are there further measures that the Ministry can take to work with at-risk individuals to try to prevent them from offending in the first place?

My second supplementary question is: of the youth offenders that he has identified, is there some sense how many of them were already previously identified as at-risk? Is that a

Page: 41

difficulty that we face when most of them are not knowingly identified as being at-risk of committing such an offence?

Mdm Speaker, generally, youth crime has been on the decline and the Police have implemented many measures to engage at-risk youths. For example, there is the Youth Engagement Programme (YEP) developed by Police psychologists with inputs from the Ministry of Education (MOE), Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) and the Police to have activities planned throughout the year to engage these youths, occupy them, especially during holidays, particularly to steer them away from crime. One good example is the Delta League Sports Challenge, which is carried out in June and December, where many youths who have been identified to be at-risk have been engaged by the Police, given mentoring programmes, as well as professional coaching by our S-League teams, to give them a sense of purpose and divert them away from crime.

The Police have also been notifying parents when we meet their children hanging out late – we call this programme Youths Hanging Out Late initiative – so that parents and schools know that these children have been out there, maybe not under supervision, and that they should take notice.

We have also launched what we call the Youth GO! programme by the Central Youth Guidance Office. It is a pilot in the Northeast and Northwest districts to look out for youths who hang out late, beyond 11.00 pm. These youth workers go out beyond 11.00 pm to identify youths who are regularly out there, not under supervision, so that they can have a person they are familiar with who can work with them should they have issues and prevent them falling into crime.

Mdm Speaker, I had a second supplementary question about whether most youth offenders were previously identified as being at-risk individuals.

The Central Youth Guidance Office brings together MHA, MSF and MOE to look at the spectrum of risks that our youths may be exposed to. Some of them may just have some form of severe discipline problems in school. This does not necessarily mean they will fall into crime. But it would be good if we can engage them early, get them on board programmes that will put them on productive purposes so that they do not come into bad company. We do not generally want to just address youths at-risk. We want to make it as broad as possible so that even those at the fringes should be involved. That is the hardest part because those youths who have already been arrested and given stern warnings, we know who they are and we are engaging them. But the biggest problem

Page: 42

is those who are at the fringes or suffering some form of problems at home or in school that we need to be aware of.

I am glad that the schools, together with MSF, MOE and MHA, are always working together to try and be inclusive and bring as many of them as possible on board; at the same time, not stigmatising them, to tell them that these are youths at-risk and we are working on them.