Debated in Parliament on 21 Jan 2014.
Resumption of Debate on Question (20 January 2014),
"That the Bill be now read a Second time." – [Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs].
Question again proposed.
Mrs Lina Chiam (Non-Constituency Member): Mdm Speaker, this Bill is recognition that the mere focus on retribution or deterrence is not enough to achieve the goals or crime-reduction in Singapore and that there also needs to be a greater focus on rehabilitating ex-offenders. While this is something that I welcome, I have several clarifications that I would like to make and certain concerns that I would wish to highlight.
Before going into the contents of the Bill, however, I would like to point out that in a debate on a policy such as this, it would be necessary for us to have access to independently-conducted criminological studies to ensure that we are dealing with the problem in a scientifically rigorous manner. It is only right that laws and policies that will have a severe impact on people's lives should not be made based merely on anecdotal evidence. Such studies will also allow us to be sufficiently certain that our laws are truly targeting the causes of crime, for the study of criminology has constantly proven to us that conventional ideas of crime can easily contain misconceptions that are not immediately obvious to the unfamiliar observer.
It is unfortunate, therefore, that there is a significant lack of criminological data and analysis conducted locally. Where debates are being conducted on criminal justice bills, such as the one before us without the benefit of such studies, it calls into question whether the decision is made on grounds which can survive the robust, but necessary, scientific scrutiny.
Will the Government, therefore, make available all the criminological studies that it has conducted for the purposes of this Bill and for all other criminal justice matters?
Will the Government also encourage and facilitate the conduct of such studies by independent bodies and academic institutions with a view to
Page: 43
enhancing the quality of public discourse on criminal justice in Singapore?
For the purposes of the debate on this Bill, I would also like to ask the Minister to provide this House with the following statistics.
First, can the Minister tell the House what is the recidivism rate of offenders who have been convicted of offences listed in the First Schedule during and after the terms of remission?
Secondly, can the Minister provide this House with the percentage of people who have been convicted of offences listed in the First Schedule per annum?
Mdm Speaker, MHA had, in the Budget debate last year, informed the House that the recidivism rate of our prison population has fallen by about half over the past 10 years. This is despite the fact that the current system of remissions imposes no conditions on inmates for the period of their release. While we should not relent on our effort to curb crime and re-offending, perhaps these figures might also be an indication that we do not need a radical alteration of the current system. Rather than restrictive measures, the focus should, instead, be on encouraging them to lead a meaningful and crime-free life by helping them acquire skills that will allow them to find employment.
Mdm Speaker, let me deal with certain concerns about the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme for inmates who have received a prison sentence of 20 years or less. Section 50U(1) seeks to impose aftercare conditions for persons who have committed offences which are listed under the First Schedule, and who are not liable to being deported after serving their sentences. These aftercare conditions will apply for the duration of the person's remission order.
I am not convinced, as it stands, that sections 50X and Y can be administered in a fair manner. Both provisions set out the consequences of a minor and major breach of the mandatory aftercare conditions respectively. The provisions do not, however, define when persons are deemed to have committed these breaches. This means that persons on remission are left in the dark as to how they should behave in order to prevent themselves from being in breach of the conditions, major or minor. Furthermore, this also means that the prosecutorial authority will have full discretion over the type of breach that an inmate has committed. Given that a major breach is listed as a criminal offence punishable with imprisonment under section 50Y, Parliament should provide a clear statutory definition of what would constitute minor or major
Page: 44
breaches of the conditions, so that both persons on remission, as well as enforcement and judicial authorities, can be clear on what the law requires of them.
Furthermore, in section 50X(1), it is stated that the Commissioner may, after due inquiry, administer a variety of punishments on a minor breach of a mandatory aftercare condition. There is, however, no indication of what steps the Commissioner must take before he can satisfy himself that a person has committed a minor breach. As a matter of fairness, the person being accused of a minor breach should be afforded the right to hear the charge and evidence against him/her, and to make his/her defence before the Commissioner makes a decision on the matter and this should be made clear in the statute.
Mdm Speaker, I now turn my attention to inmates who have been sentenced to a prison term of more than 20 years. Section 50J(1) of the Bill allows the Minister to direct the Commissioner to make a remission order where an inmate has served 20 years of his/her sentence. Section 50J(2) makes it obligatory for the Minister to review the decision every 12 months or less, should he decline to make a remission order under subsection 1.
While I welcome the Government's recognition that long-term prison sentences may be reduced where the offender has shown signs of rehabilitation, I am of the view that an independent review board, rather than the Minister himself, should make such decisions. The board should comprise eminent persons who possess certain expertise in relevant fields that will enable them to make better and more informed decisions on the rehabilitative progress of inmates. This is the position adopted in Hong Kong, where there is a "Long-term Prison Sentences Review Board" made up of at least two judges or former judges, one medical practitioner who is or was a specialist in psychiatry, as well as one member who has the expertise and experience in social work. The board determines whether long-term prisoners should be released early, as well the conditions which the inmates have to adhere to after their release. Furthermore, it also reviews the progress of the inmate after release to determine if new conditions should be imposed or old ones removed. The merits of having a similar panel of experts in Singapore is undeniable and should immediately be studied with a view towards implementing such a system as soon as possible. This decision-making body, driven by a collective wisdom, seems to me to be in a much better position to evaluate whether inmates are suitable for early release, instead of the Minister or the Commissioner, both of whom already bear the burden of other heavy duties and responsibilities.
Page: 45
Secondly, can the Minister also tell the House whether the Government has sought expert opinion on the average time it would take for long-term inmates to be fully rehabilitated into society, and whether these experts were of the opinion that the average period of time needed for rehabilitation is one-third of the inmate's sentence.
Mdm Speaker, we must not forget that in cases where inmates are sentenced to 20 years or more receive remission, their remission order will be at least six years long, perhaps even longer if they are released at the Minister's discretion before they are entitled to remission. The aftercare conditions may, therefore, be imposed for the full duration of the remission order regardless of the rehabilitative progress of the person. While it is understandable that measures are needed to support the reintegration of these long-term inmates back into society, there is the possibility that a person would have been fully rehabilitated well before the expiration of the remission order but is nevertheless unnecessarily subjected to the mandatory aftercare conditions. Will it not be better if the duration of the aftercare conditions for long-term inmates is set for a determinate term for all long-term offenders with the option given to an independent board to extend or reduce the period where it is necessary?
Before turning to the external placement scheme, allow me to turn my attention to the position on those who have been sentenced to life imprisonment. Section 50P(1) of the Bill allows the Minister to direct the Commissioner to make a remission order after the prisoner has served 20 years of his/her sentence. Section 50P(2) requires the Minister to review the decision every 12 months or less should he/she decline to make the direction to the Commissioner. My criticism of the position in relation to long-term prisoners applies equally in this instance. The discretion to allow for remission should be given to an independent board that also has the power to impose and remove conditions upon the inmate's release.
Mdm Speaker, in the case of inmates sentenced to life imprisonment, section 50(R) states that the remission order shall have effect until the end of the person's natural life. This means that the mandatory aftercare conditions will be applicable for such persons for the rest of their lives, even if the offender has been successfully rehabilitated within that period. Based on the provisions of the Bill, it is entirely possible for a person to be electronically tagged and be required to report to the Commissioner for the rest of his/her life. This, I am afraid, may not be the best method of rehabilitating an ex-offender. All that this measure does is to make it extremely difficult for a person to reintegrate back into society because of the person's loss of privacy, as well as having to carry
Page: 46
the stressful burden of meeting the mandatory aftercare conditions for an extraordinarily long period of time. These may also have an adverse impact on the person's ability to find stable employment, an important aspect of social reintegration. Again, there is a strong case to be made for a determinate term to be imposed, after which the conditions should expire, unless it is necessary to do otherwise. Within this stipulated term, the Board should also be given the discretion to change or remove the conditions should it be satisfied of the person's progress.
Lastly, in view of the possible surge in the number of ex-offenders going into the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme, could the Minister explain how are the capabilities and infrastructure, such as hiring of more counsellors in the field of ex-inmate rehabilitation and integration and halfway houses, to be achieved to cope with this new proposed change?
Dr Janil Puthucheary (Pasir Ris-Punggol): Mdm Speaker, allow me to begin by expressing my appreciation to the members of the Home Team and, in particular, those in the Prison Service.
We are well known as a safe city; one where there are very low levels of crime and violence. While a significant part of this is the result of a good environment as well as the many opportunities for success and a generally well-integrated society, we must recognise that the vigilance, the proactive approach and the hard work that characterise our Police and security services, are also very important in maintaining peace and harmony.
However, once an offender is in prison, the priority must shift to ensuring that he can one day reintegrate into society and to prevent him from re-offending. In many other societies, a significant proportion of crime, and, in particular, violent crime is carried out by offenders of prior history. The low recidivism rate we see in Singapore is testament to the good work of our prison officers, SCORE and the various organisations and VWOs that work with these ex-inmates.
It is assumed that in the absence of a family network, without social support and employment, the chance of recidivism is higher, much higher, as someone who is desperate, who has nothing to lose, is much more likely to do something foolish. The difficulties faced by these men on release are significant and need to be addressed in order to give them a fair chance at rebuilding their lives as
Page: 47
this would reduce the likelihood of a repeat offence. Helping them get back on their feet is a kindness but also serves the interest of society at large in enhancing our peace and security. The amendment to this Bill seeks to enhance the system of managing ex-offenders and to help them reduce the risks of re-offending.
Madam, while the recidivism rate has seen a decrease in recent years, a large proportion of the prison population are repeat offenders. I would like to ask what are the main reasons for the recidivism in Singapore. One of the measures introduced under this amendment is the Conditional Remission System. As the majority of the prison population are repeat offenders, it appears that the risk of spending more time in jail had not deterred them from re-offending. So, to what extent would these measures be effective with respect to recidivism? Is it likely that there would need to be a different effect for the 20% of first-time offenders, rather than the majority of the prison population who are repeat offenders? Does this imply that a different application of the process is needed for inmates who are already repeat offenders?
Madam, the amendment also seeks to introduce the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme to facilitate the reintegration of ex-inmates upon release from Prisons through enhanced community support, counselling and case management. This is likely to involve several community partners outside of the Prison Service.
I am well acquainted with a number of halfway houses in my constituency, and I am consistently impressed by both the staff as well as the residents of these institutions. The staff are caring and have a deep understanding of the self-discovery and rehabilitation needed for the residents, the personal journey that these ex-inmates have to go through to become reintegrated into society. The residents themselves want a fair chance to get themselves back onto their feet and they do work hard to make that happen.
Given the important role that these aftercare institutions and organisations play, I would like to ask for an assurance that measures would be taken to ensure a degree of consistency is applied across the board in dealing with ex-inmates, especially given the wide variety of partners involved. How would the Ministry ensure that the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme is applied in a consistent way by the various organisations? Has the Ministry been able to help these aftercare services develop their skills and capabilities so that they can increase their effectiveness, and will these efforts continue? For some ex-offenders, a degree of psychological rehabilitation may be important, and how would the
Page: 48
aftercare services be supported in providing this?
As a society, we could do more to treat these ex-offenders with dignity and provide them with the opportunities to take care of themselves. A job is often the key to providing a structured life, a sense of financial security and a set of useful skills. The time spent in these aftercare institutions is very important in the journey of rehabilitation and reintegration for the ex-offenders, and is also an opportunity for the residents to actively seek work. How successful has SCORE been in finding employment for these ex-inmates and how will such efforts be enhanced by the introduction of this Bill?
Madam, as a society, we have faced the priority on pragmatism, especially in order to achieve a positive social outcome. In this case, the enhancement of social peace and harmony is aligned with an opportunity to show kindness and to help some unfortunate members of our society who have been rehabilitated following an offence and an appropriate prison term. Stronger efforts and social integration will be more effective in helping ex-inmates turn over a new leaf. With that, I support the Bill.
Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Prisons (Amendment) Bill that is before Parliament today. In recent years, the rate of recidivism for released persons has decreased consistently. However, a significant majority of released persons who return to prison are repeat offenders. Once a person is caught in the vicious cycle of re-offending and imprisonment, it is often difficult for that person to break out of the cycle easily. This is especially so for released persons who do not have any support from their families, loved ones or from the community at large.
Therefore, in this amendment to the Prisons Act, MHA seeks to introduce two programmes, namely, the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme and Conditional Remission System, that they hope will allow released persons to break out of the cycle of re-offending, and to rehabilitate and reintegrate back into cycle of re-offending, and to rehabilitate and reintegrate back into society after their release from imprisonment.
I support this Bill for two reasons: first, the amendments introduced in this Bill are timely, as they seek to introduce programmes that address real problems that repeat offenders face in trying to escape the vicious cycle of re-offending and imprisonment; secondly, these initiatives provide released
Page: 49
persons with an incentive to turn over a new leaf and to be rehabilitated and reintegrated back into the wider Singapore fold.
After all, everyone makes mistakes, and deserving individuals should be allowed and encouraged by the community to return back into the Singapore community fold, as equal members, and should be given the opportunity to excel and overcome.
I think it is important that we refer to such individuals as released persons rather than ex-offenders or ex-inmates. In recognising them as released persons, we are acknowledging that these individuals are deserving of being conditionally released and reintegrated back into society, based on good behaviour and discipline during their time in prison.
First, the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS) assists in the rehabilitation of released persons back into society by providing enhanced community support, mandatory counselling and case management in the crucial period immediately after their release from imprisonment.
The progressive step-down approach envisioned under the MAS facilitates the gradual rehabilitation and reintegration of a released person back into the community fold, and reduces the public stigma that these released persons often face. Furthermore, this initiative provides a released person with the opportunity to be gainfully employed, to be reconciled with his family and loved ones, and to make a go for himself in society.
The song, "Tie a Yellow Ribbon Round the Old Oak Tree", describes the tale of a released person at the start of his journey of rehabilitation and forgiveness. The lyrics go,
"I'm coming home, I've done my time; and I have to know what is
or isn't mine. If you received my letter, telling you I'd soon be free;
then you'd know just what to do, if you still want me."
Prior to his release, that man in the song had written a message to his wife, asking her to show that she had forgiven him by tying a yellow ribbon around the oak tree. Much to his relief, more than a hundred yellow ribbons greeted him on his return, signifying his forgiveness and acceptance back into the family
Page: 50
and the community.
As you would probably have realised, this song serves as the inspiration for the Yellow Ribbon Project, which has become a key programme in the rehabilitation and reintegration of released persons back into our society. As the slogan for the project, "Help Unlock the Second Prison" suggests, many released persons in our midst might be free from the physical state of imprisonment, but yet, they still face the "second prison" of discrimination and being ostracised in society.
It is my hope that the MAS will work in conjunction and build upon existing community-driven projects like the Yellow Ribbon Project, which reconciles these released persons with their community and increases their acceptance as part of our society. Until and unless we increase efforts to rehabilitate and reintegrate released persons back into society, they will continue to be imprisoned and face discrimination from the wider community.
With this in mind, it is particularly beneficial that the MAS applies to persons who are convicted of drug offences, because the rehabilitation of drug offenders must focus both on the physical and mental aspects in order for it to be effective. The tighter supervision and more structured approach to rehabilitation envisioned under the MAS ensure that released drug offenders have all the necessary assistance and support that they might require to break out of the cycle of drug abuse and imprisonment. Under the MAS, the Prison Service can also closely supervise the progress of their rehabilitation and monitor their movements, through restrictions like curfew hours and electronic monitoring.
Essentially, the success of a released person's rehabilitation is dependent on the effort that they make as an individual to make amends for their mistakes, as well as the openness of the community to welcome them back into society. Hence, I am confident that the MAS will be effective as a stepping-stone for the eventual reintegration of the released person back into society.
Secondly, the Conditional Remission System (CRS) ensures that released persons are incentivised to turn over a new leaf, and to break out of the cycle of re-offending. By imposing the basic condition that persons released under the CRS should not be convicted of another offence during the remission period, these released persons will be more cautious and reluctant to re-offend. In the event that they do re-offend during the remission period, the courts will be empowered to sentence the released person for breaching the basic condition,
Page: 51
with an imprisonment term capped at the remaining portion of the remission period.
However, in sentencing the released person for breaching the basic condition of the Conditional Remission Order, the court may take into account the circumstances and reasons for the re-offence. With the introduction of the CRS, the courts now have flexibility and versatility to take such factors into account when sentencing released persons who breach the basic condition during their remission period. While we must correct the wrongdoing that has been committed by the released persons, we should try to understand the motivation behind their actions and to show them more compassion.
Therefore, taken together, the MAS and CRS will strengthen the Prison Service's system of throughcare for released persons in the crucial period immediately after their release. These two initiatives will reinforce and enhance existing programmes and resources that are already in place to assist in the rehabilitation and reintegration of released persons back into our Singaporean society, such as the Community-Based Programme (CBP), the CARE Network, and the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE).
Ultimately, while it is essential that we remain firm on those who commit crime, there is an equally important need to advocate the rehabilitation and reintegration of these people back into society. Some people have had harder roads in life than others, and we should not be so quick to point fingers and apportion blame or criticism on those who may have made mistakes in their lives.
MHA and the Prison Service must be commended for their continued and unwavering effort to encourage the rehabilitation and reintegration of released persons back into our society in Singapore. Ours must be a compassionate society that seeks to welcome back our brothers and sisters who are on that arduous journey of rehabilitation and reconciliation.
If these released persons are willing to make amends for their mistakes and are ready to turn over a new leaf, we, as a community, must be ready to support their rehabilitation, to assist in their reintegration into society, and to welcome them back into the community fold with open arms. I support the Bill.
Page: 52
The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M): Mdm Speaker, I thank all the Members who have spoken in support of the Bill and the two new policy initiatives: the Conditional Remission System (CRS) and the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS).
Members have raised a number of points on the CRS and MAS, and also the other amendments to the Prisons Act, and I will address each in turn.
I am glad that Members, such as Mr Christopher de Souza and Dr Janil Puthucheary, are just as concerned about the problem of re-offending and the vicious cycle that repeat offenders face. Dr Janil asked about the main reasons for recidivism. There is often no simple, single answer or even a solution to this. Rather, the underlying causes are typically multi-faceted.
However, based on our research and interviews with inmates and ex-inmates, as well as findings from international literature, the presence of factors, such as employment, accommodation and family support, typically reduce the risk of reoffending, especially when inmates are most vulnerable in the initial years upon release. Yes, and to address Mrs Chiam's concerns, we do rely on academic literature as well as expert advice in charting our course ahead. I would also like to highlight that the individual's will to change is also very important, in determining whether the process of "desistance" occurs, as implied by Assoc Prof Eugene Tan yesterday.
Let me now touch on the issues relating to remission and the CRS. Dr Janil asked whether the CRS will be effective in deterrence. Given the complexity of the factors contributing to recidivism, it would be difficult indeed to determine for now whether the deterrent effect of the CRS will be different between first-timers and repeat offenders. However, we will continue to monitor the situation after the CRS is implemented.
I would also like to respond to Mr Hri Kumar's question on the application of the CRS to those committed for debt under the Debtors Act. Currently, the Prisons Regulations also provide that remission does not apply to inmates committed for debt. A debtor may be committed by the Courts to prison for not paying his debt in certain limited circumstances and not because he had committed a criminal offence. There is no change from the current position today.
Default sentences on the other hand are imposed on a person, should he be unable to pay a fine. Such a person will continue to be released at the two-
Page: 53
third mark and will not be subject to conditions upon release. Persons serving default sentences will not be subject to the CRS. This is for parity with those who were able to pay their fines.
Assoc Prof Eugene Tan asked about when inmates will be released. Inmates will continue to be released at the two-third mark. Upon release, they will then be issued with a Conditional Remission Order which will last till the end of their sentence. Inmates who breach prison discipline will still have their release delayed beyond the two-third mark. This is no different from the situation today. Remission continues to be an incentive for good behaviour and conduct. The relevant provisions are specified in section 50I of clause 7.
I would also like to reassure Ms Sylvia Lim that we are not changing the power of the President to grant remission under this Act. The power of the President to grant remission without limit is provided for under Article 22P of the Constitution. Hence, this obviates the need for such a provision in the Prisons Regulations, which predated the Constitution.
Next, I am glad that Ms Lim supports the provision to review inmates who have served more than 20 years in prison for release. As also raised by Mrs Chiam, we will be setting up an independent Review Board to review these cases and advise the Minister accordingly. The assessment will be based on a holistic set of factors that include his conduct and progress in prison and his risk of re-offending. This is similar to the arrangement for inmates who have been sentenced to life imprisonment.
Ms Lim also touched on the forfeiture and subsequent restoration of remission. Under the Prisons Regulations, an inmate may forfeit up to 180 days of remission for an offence committed in prison. Currently, the Superintendent may restore up to seven days of remission which had previously been forfeited by an inmate. The new section 77A empowers the Superintendent to restore remission that had previously been forfeited by an inmate, but does not impose a limit on the number of days that can be restored.
The intent of section 77A is not to reverse earlier decisions where remission was forfeited. Indeed, it creates the opportunity and incentive for good conduct and behaviour among inmates. Superintendents will not have unfettered discretion in restoring remission. The Commissioner of Prisons will set guidelines, which all Prison Superintendents must adhere to, in the exercise of these powers. For example, when an inmate remains offence-free for a certain time period, a number of his days of forfeited remission may be restored to him.
Page: 54
Therefore, it is the behaviour of the inmate that determines whether forfeited remission is restored, rather than the authority which ordered the forfeiture.
Let me move on to the MAS. The objective of the MAS is to help ex-inmates help themselves. We will do this by giving them structured support and assistance to stay crime-free and out of prison. All inmates convicted of offences specified in the First Schedule to the Act will be emplaced on the MAS. Mr Hri Kumar had asked why certain offences in the Misuse of Drugs Regulations were included. We took a comprehensive approach in listing the drug and property offences linked to the drug problem. The Commissioner of Prisons, however, will have the discretion to determine specific MAS conditions for the ex-inmate, depending on a holistic set of factors, such as the nature of offence, criminal antecedents, progress in prison, risk of re-offending and family support.
The MAS provides continuity to the incare rehabilitation programmes that inmates receive while in prison. It builds on, brings together, and improves upon existing aftercare programmes as part of Prisons' broader throughcare strategy. The intent is, as Assoc Prof Tan has mentioned, to provide a smooth transition for the inmate to reintegrate into society. I disagree with Mrs Chiam that we do not need to do more for inmates. Even though recidivism rates are falling and are currently about 25%, inmates to be emplaced on MAS are at higher risk of re-offending with recidivism rates of up to 40% to 50%. And we must give them more help. Each ex-inmate, or "released person" as Mr de Souza has said, and I like that term better than "ex-inmate", emplaced on the MAS will be assigned a case worker prior to his release.
As part of the casework process, the case worker will refer them to the various social assistance programmes available to address their needs. These include short-term financial assistance, shelter and housing, skills training and job matching.
The MAS is not a journey that the ex-inmate embarks on alone, but one undertaken with the support of his family and the community. I agree with Mr Zainal Bin Sapari, Mr Muhamad Faisal Bin Abdul Manap and Assoc Prof Tan that the community as a whole, including families and potential employers, play important roles in supporting the MAS. This is important even during the incare phase, and Prisons already actively involves inmates' families in the rehabilitation process. Prisons will also continue to engage families after inmates have been released from prison under the MAS. Similarly, SCORE provides inmates with vocational training and employment matching before their release. In answer to Dr Janil, SCORE also works with employers to match
Page: 55
inmates and ex-inmates to jobs after their release. In 2012, SCORE emplaced 5,840 offenders on its employment and reintegration programmes. This is almost double the number in 2008. Of those assisted by SCORE, almost 98% of them successfully secured employment in 2012.
We also recognise that religion can play a part in the reintegration process. We have a comprehensive support structure of community partners, including religious and grassroots organisations, community self-help groups, and Family Service Centres, that work with inmates in prison and are ready to provide a pro-social network of volunteers and befrienders to ex-inmates and assist them in their reintegration into society. Such engagements begin while the inmates are still in prison so that it is a smooth transition to the aftercare phase when they return to society. Prisons provides training for these community partners.
For example, Prisons works closely with community self-help groups, such as MENDAKI and SINDA, to provide incare and aftercare support for high-risk inmates and their families. This is known as wrap-around care, which provides support to both inmates and their families during this difficult time. Prisons is also working on a pilot project with the National Council of Social Services to leverage on localised Family Service Centres to provide even better wrap-around care for inmates and their families to meet their specific needs.
I agree, therefore, with Mr Faisal that support services provided by case workers during the MAS should be accessible to ex-inmates and that proximity is important. They should ideally be near where ex-inmates live or work. This is why the centres for MAS casework and counselling will be located across Singapore.
Our multi-stakeholder approach to throughcare has worked well and we will continue to work closely with the various stakeholders and community partners on our throughcare programmes.
Next, I would like to reassure Mr Zainal and Assoc Prof Tan that before an inmate is released on the MAS, Prisons will first make a holistic assessment of each individual based on factors, such as the nature of offence, criminal antecedents, progress in prison, risk of re-offending, and family support. Each inmate will then be emplaced on a suitable programme within the MAS. Not all individuals will have to go through all the three MAS phases of a halfway house stay, home supervision and community reintegration. Some may be placed on the halfway house phase while others may be placed directly on the home
Page: 56
supervision phase.
The time spent and the intensity of the programme at each phase depends on the ex-inmate's progress over the course of the MAS, which will last for up to two years, even for inmates sentenced to life imprisonment or who have long sentences, and not indefinitely as Mrs Chiam thought.
Let me describe the regime for an inmate under the MAS. Take the example of an inmate who is a repeat drug abuser and was sentenced to long-term imprisonment for six years. He is subsequently released from prison after serving four years, or at the two-third mark of his six-year sentence. He is then issued a CRO and subject to the basic condition for two years. As a drug offender, he is also emplaced on the MAS for up to two years.
Based on Prisons' assessment of this inmate's circumstances, he is emplaced in a halfway house upon his release. The halfway house programme is a residential programme that will last for at least six months. There, he undergoes regular counselling and casework sessions to address his rehabilitation and aftercare needs. These sessions are meant to address his criminogenic needs and risk factors of re-offending. He will be able to leave the halfway house during the day to work.
After several months in the halfway house, he is assessed to be coping well and making good progress in his rehabilitation and reintegration journey. Hence, he is allowed to return home and continues on the MAS while on home supervision.
When on home supervision, he is subject to curfew hours and electronic monitoring, and continues to attend counselling and casework sessions. After several months on home supervision, he is assessed to be progressing well. He will then be placed on the final phase of the MAS, the community reintegration phase. As part of community reintegration, he is no longer subject to curfew hours or electronic monitoring. However, he will still need to attend counselling and casework sessions. This will continue till the end of his time on the MAS, which will be for up to two years.
The example shows how the MAS is a structured programme with progressive step-down aftercare arrangements to help the individual reintegrate into society, build resilience to stay crime-free, and adapt to "post-imprisonment realities", as Assoc Prof Tan put it. However, I would like to emphasise again that it is just as important that ex-inmates be motivated to help
Page: 57
themselves.
There will be consequences when MAS ex-inmates breach their conditions. Mr Hri Kumar and Mrs Chiam asked about what constituted a minor and a serious breach. An ex-inmate would have committed a minor breach, for example, when he misses his counselling sessions or breaches his curfew hours. For such breaches, the Commissioner of Prisons may administer punishments, from tightening the ex-inmate's conditions to temporarily recalling him to prison. An ex-inmate would have committed a serious breach, for example, if he tampers with his electronic monitoring device, or if he has committed multiple minor breaches. For such breaches, the courts may sentence the ex-inmate to imprisonment for up to the remaining duration of his remission period at the time of the serious breach.
Minor and serious breaches will be stipulated in the Prisons Regulations. The body administering punishments for breaches is calibrated to the severity of the consequences of the breach.
Mrs Chiam asked what steps must the Commissioner take before he is satisfied that a minor breach has been committed. Yes, he will be given a chance to explain his actions and hear the evidence against him. The intent of the MAS is not to punish the ex-inmate but to assist him in his rehabilitation and reintegration journey. There will also be an independent Advisory Committee set up to advise the Director of Prisons on MAS-related matters. This can include appeals from inmates themselves.
As several Members noted, the CRS and MAS are significant undertakings for Prisons. I would like to reassure Members that Prisons has sufficient capacity should there be an increase in the prison population arising from breaches of the basic condition and MAS conditions.
At the same time, with the implementation of the MAS, Prisons will be building up its aftercare capabilities and strengthening the aftercare sector as a whole. Prisons will be developing a halfway house in the new Selarang Park Complex to provide a structured environment to supervise and rehabilitate ex-inmates emplaced on the MAS. It will cater to both male and female ex-inmates, and will complement the efforts of our current halfway house partners who work with lower-risk inmates. Prisons will also engage more counsellors and case workers. Furthermore, Prisons has recently developed a new training and development framework to raise the competencies and capabilities of personnel and volunteers in the aftercare sector to support ex-inmates in the
Page: 58
community.
We will continue to work closely with our community partners, including halfway houses, to raise the capabilities within the sector. These are worthwhile investments and initiatives. We hope to see improvements in recidivism rates over the longer term with fewer ex-inmates returning to prison and a lower prison population over time.
Next, I would like to clarify that the MAS will not replace but will build on current aftercare programmes that are already in place or aftercare programmes run by our community partners – the Singapore After-Care Association (SACA) and the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association (SANA) – which all ex-inmates may register for after their release from prison or after they have completed their MAS. Halfway houses that are operated by VWOs also accept walk-in from ex-inmates. Those who are not covered by the MAS will continue to be able to benefit from these programmes.
Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the amendments to the provision on the employment of auxiliary police officers (APOs) as escorts and guards. The objective of these proposed amendments is to facilitate the expanded deployment of APOs so that prison officers can focus on the rehabilitation and reintegration of inmates. APOs currently assist prison officers with escorting inmates of low and medium security risk to external locations, such as the Courts or hospitals, and guarding them while there. This amended provision will enable APOs to be deployed for functions, such as inmate escort within the prison complex and prison patrol. They will not be involved in rehabilitation functions. APOs deployed within the prison setting will continue to receive specialised training to deal with inmates and will be fully supervised by prison officers.
The amendments will neither compromise prison security nor the safe custody of inmates. Prisons remains fully accountable for the safe custody of inmates both within and outside of prison.
Finally, on the External Placement Scheme (EPS), I would like to clarify Assoc Prof Tan's point about the EPS, as well as address Ms Lim's queries on the need for and safeguards for the EPS. The EPS is distinct from the MAS. The EPS, unlike the MAS, is not meant to be a step-down arrangement to facilitate reintegration. The EPS is meant to right-site inmates in places more suited for their physical or mental conditions. The scheme will be tightly scoped. For a start, we will limit eligibility only to inmates who have been certified by Prisons-
Page: 59
appointed medical specialists as being at the end-stage of a terminal illness with a poor prognosis. In addition, the Minister will be advised by an independent committee that will include medical professionals. Finally, the inmate will be subject to conditions and restrictions and closely monitored. The placement can be cancelled at any time if the inmate's circumstances change and external placement is no longer deemed appropriate.
Mdm Speaker, I am glad that Members generally agree with me that there is a need to do more to deter offending and re-offending and help ex-inmates rehabilitate and reintegrate into society. The amendments which seek to introduce the CRS and MAS will strengthen Prisons' throughcare system, particularly in the aftercare phase. These two initiatives mark a paradigm shift in our rehabilitation of inmates. However, the inmate's motivation and will to change and his determination to turn over a new leaf for the sake of his family and himself is critical. Together with the support of the community and employers, we will help ex-inmates break the cycle of re-offending, return to their families, and reintegrate into society. I urge Members of the House to give support to the Prisons (Amendment) Bill.
Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.
Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Thank you, Madam. I just have one clarification for the Senior Minister of State concerning the MAS. It is stated in section 50V that MAS conditions are discretionary – that the conditions may be imposed on the released persons who qualify under the various criteria. I would like the Senior Minister of State to clarify if he anticipates that there would be qualified released persons who are not subject to any conditions under MAS or will everybody be subject to at least one of the conditions in MAS.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Thank you for the clarification. Every offender who has committed an offence under the Schedule will be subject to the MAS. But they will not always be emplaced on the first phase, which is the halfway house phase. They may be emplaced even at the last phase, depending on the assessment we make for them.
*Question put, and agreed to.*
Page: 60
*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*
*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M].*
*Bill considered in Committee.*
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
Clause 1 ‒
The Chairman: The citation year "2013" will be changed to "2014", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 2 ‒
The Chairman: Clause 2, Senior Minister of State.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Madam, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
*The amendment read as follows:
In page 2, line 30, leave out "of imprisonment".
The amendment clarifies that the External Placement Scheme applies to all judicial sentences involving detention in a prison, and not only a sentence of imprisonment in the strict sense.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 3 to 6 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 7 ‒
Page: 61
The Chairman: Clause 7 – there are six amendments. Senior Minister of State.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Madam, in respect of amendments (1) to (3), as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement, may I seek your permission to move all of them together as the amendments are related?
The Chairman: Please proceed.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Madam, I beg to move amendments* (1) to (3), as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
*The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 12, lines 17 and 23, to leave out "2038" and insert "2037";
(2) In page 12, lines 20, 22 and 27, to leave out "2034" and insert "2033"; and
(3) In page 12, line 27, to leave out "1 year and".
The amendments correct certain calculation errors in the Illustration to the new section 50K(4).
Amendments agreed to.
The Chairman: Amendments (4) and (5).
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Madam, in respect of amendments (4) and (5), as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement, may I seek your permission to move both of them together as the amendments are related?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Madam, I beg to move amendments* (4) and (5), as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
*The amendments read as follows:
Page: 62
(4) In page 19, lines 1 and 22, after "sentence", insert "(excluding a default sentence)"; and
(5) In page 19, lines 5 and 23, after "imprisonment", insert "(excluding a default sentence)".
The amendments clarify that default sentences are not relevant for the purposes of the MAS.
Amendments agreed to.
The Chairman: Amendment No (6).
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Madam, I beg to move amendment* (6), as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
*The amendment read as follows:
(6) In page 33, to leave out lines 20 to 23.
The amendment leaves out the Illustration to section 50ZF, which is unnecessary.
Amendment agreed to.
The Chairman: The citation year "2013" will be changed to "2014", as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
Clause 7, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 8 to 11 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 12 ‒
The Chairman: Clause 12 – there are five amendments. Senior Minister of State.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Madam, in respect of amendments (1), (2), (3) and (5), as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement, may I seek your
Page: 63
permission to move all of them together as the amendments are related?
The Chairman: Yes, please.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Madam, I beg to move amendments* (1), (2) , (3) and (5), as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
*The amendments read as follows:
(1) In page 36, line 19, to leave out "of imprisonment";
(2) In page 37, lines 11 and 26, to leave out "of imprisonment";
(3) In page 40, line 17, to leave out "of imprisonment"; and
(5) In page 41, line 10, to leave out "of imprisonment".
The amendments clarify that the External Placement Scheme applies to all judicial sentences involving detention in a prison, and not only a sentence of imprisonment in the strict sense.
Amendments agreed to.
The Chairman: Amendment No (4). Senior Minister of State.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Madam, I beg to move amendment* (4), as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
*The amendment read as follows:
(4) In page 40, line 19, to leave out "Subject to subsection (2), where" and insert "Where".
The amendment corrects a drafting error.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Page: 64
Clauses 13-18 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 19 ‒
The Chairman: Clause 19, Senior Minister of State Masagos.
Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M: Madam, I beg to move the amendment* standing in my name, as indicated in the Order Paper Supplement.
*The amendment read as follows:
In page 54, line 2, after "conviction", to insert "and sentence of imprisonment (excluding a default sentence), corrective training, preventive detention or reformative training".
The amendment tightens the definition of antecedent to exclude convictions for which only a default sentence was given.
Amendment agreed to.
Clause 19, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 20 to 22 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Bill reported with amendments, read a Third time and passed.
PAPERCUTS