Prisons (Amendment) Bill

Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Bill. Many of us view "crime and punishment" in black and white terms. From a retributive standpoint, if a person has done the crime, he should do the time. However, it is far more complicated than that. "Crime and punishment" is also about rehabilitation – we want those sent to jail to put the past behind them, reintegrate and become useful members of society. It is also about protecting the public by removing criminal elements from society. All these objectives sometimes conflict, and the real challenge is to find the right balance between them in relation to each and every inmate. Because the circumstances of each crime and of each offender are never identical. But we must try, because how we seek to treat those who have done wrong is a marker of a mature society. And this Bill seeks to strike that balance.

Let me first begin by commending the Bill for its nuanced and well-calibrated approach. It is an approach that ensures that our criminal sentencing system marries an effective increase in deterrent value with a reasonable dose of compassion.

Under our current remission system, inmates are granted early release for good conduct. Even those serving life sentences may be released after 20 years. Notably, such inmates are granted remission without any conditions imposed. The Bill gives the law and home affairs agencies more teeth. The release of inmates will no longer be unconditional. Instead, ex-inmates will be issued with a Conditional Release Order valid until the end of the remission period. Should they re-offend, the Court is empowered to sentence them for a term up to the remaining portion of the remission period, in addition to the sentence for the new offence committed. This enhanced sentence should serve as a deterrent

Page: 100

for ex-inmates and help keep them on the straight and narrow.

At the same time, the Bill recognises that those released from prison may find it difficult to journey and start a new life alone. If there is no support network after release, the prospects of returning to bad company and re-offending are higher. Recidivism is a real problem in many countries. In Singapore, more than 80% of Singapore's prison population are repeat offenders. The Bill reaffirms that ex-inmates are valuable members of society, and gives them a second chance by supporting their reintegration and rehabilitation. Under the Bill, ex-inmates falling into certain categories will be placed into Mandatory Aftercare Scheme. Through progressive step-down arrangements, supervision and counselling, they will be given structured and targeted assistance in their efforts to start anew. This Bill is a culmination of months of work and consultation with many stakeholders and it represents the Ministry's unwavering commitment to rehabilitating ex-inmates.

And I know that the Senior Minister of State has put in a lot of personal time and effort behind this particular Act. I would like to thank him for this. That being said, there are several points that I would like to raise today.

The first is a simple point of clarification. The proposed section 50E(2) states that "prisoners committed for debt" are precluded from Part VB regarding the remission of sentences. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify the scope of offences contemplated by this phrase. Also, the proposed section 50G states that Division 2 does not apply to prisoners serving default sentences. I would be grateful if the Minister could clarify why this is so.

Second, the distinction between "minor" and "serious" breaches of mandatory aftercare conditions in sections 50X and 50Y is unclear. What is a "serious" breach, as opposed to a "minor" breach? The distinction is important as a person who commits a "serious" breach shall be guilty of an offence and, if convicted, shall be sent back to prison for a term not exceeding the remaining duration of the remission order. In short, mandatory imprisonment. Further, what is "minor" is determined by the Commissioner and what is "serious" is determined by the Court. It would be better for clarity and consistency for all breaches to be dealt with by the same body, with the gravity of the breach determining the consequence. If, however, this distinction is retained, the Bill should give some guidance on what constitutes each type of breach. An apposite example of the degree of clarity sought can be found in sections 72 and 73 of the Prisons Act. These two provisions prevent any ambiguity from arising by listing the types of offences that constitute minor and aggravated

Page: 101

prison offences.

Thirdly, the First Schedule. Under the First Schedule, inmates convicted of the offences listed in the First Schedule will be placed on the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme. Broadly speaking, this includes (i) drug offences, (ii) property offences with drug antecedents, (iii) serious crimes and (iv) offences with sentences of more than 15 years. Given that the aim is to break the cycle of re-offending for ex-inmates, it is questionable if offences, for example, the Misuse of Drugs (Approved Institutions and Treatment and Rehabilitation) Regulations and the Misuse of Drugs (Controlled Equipment, Material and Substances) Regulations should be included in the First Schedule. These regulations are after all concerned with comparatively minor disciplinary issues. Furthermore, a breach of these regulations may not, by itself, suggest that the inmate needs special help reintegrating into society. Could the Senior Minister of State explain the reasoning behind their inclusion in the First Schedule?

Finally, I have some concerns on the practical implementation of the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme. With the institution of the Scheme, we can expect a surge in the number of inmates being placed in halfway houses and on home supervision. We can also expect a demand for counselling and case management services. To my knowledge, there are currently only eight halfway houses working with the Singapore Prisons, with a total housing capacity of about 450 ex-offenders. It is likely that more halfway houses will have to be established, and more counsellors trained. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, what steps his Ministry has taken to meet this demand, or this increase in demand, and whether it is ready to implement the Scheme. Also, what steps will be taken to ensure that it will continue to have sufficient infrastructure and resources to meet its needs?

Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, in our endeavour to make Singapore a more inclusive and caring society, the importance of rehabilitating and reintegrating ex-inmates cannot be overemphasised. Hence, this Bill's incorporation of not only the tough, embodied by the Conditional Remission System, but also the tender, manifested in the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme, represents a positive step forward in our efforts to help ex-inmates break the cycle of re-offending. Ultimately, this will benefit both the individual and our society. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Page: 102

Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill. Much as the recidivism rate of ex-offenders has seen a decline, as a society, we can always do more to reduce the likelihood of ex-offenders re-offending. As it stands, repeat offenders comprise in excess of 80% of the prison population, with drug offenders released from the Drug Rehabilitation Centres tending to show a higher susceptibility to re-offending.

Reducing re-offending and making it a core part of the imprisonment process has a dual benefit: (a) the rehabilitation of the offender; and (b) the protection of the public. The two are not mutually exclusive but are inherently inter-dependent. The less we are able to successfully rehabilitate the offenders, the less secure and safe will our society be.

That, of course, raises questions of what the Singaporean public expects from the Singapore Prison Service and what the Prison Service regards as its fundamental mission. The Prison Service's vision is that of being "Captains of Lives", with the aim of helping inmates "rehabilitate, renew, restart". These three broad principles guide the Prison Service in their noble aspiration to make a difference in the lives of inmates.

Is the prison, therefore, a place where inmates are simply imprisoned, albeit securely, as a just retribution for the crimes they committed? Or should we expect more from the incarceration process, given that significant resources are spent on the penal population?

I think the answer is that we do expect a custodial sentence to not only punish but also to rehabilitate and reform the inmate. If our penal system, in particular, the prison process, produces recalcitrant or hardened criminals, then we should question the resources placed and the system we have. Our prisons must aspire to provide a safe and controlled environment by which an inmate's behaviour and attitude can be challenged and, hopefully, reformed for his own good and that of our society.

The "clang of the prison gates" principle argues that if the utility of an immediate custodial sentence as an appropriate method of emphasising specific deterrence in the case of an offender of previous good character, the deterrent effect may be achieved by a short term of imprisonment. I would go further and add that the clang of the prison gates in our penal system must go further than mere deterrence, important as deterrence is, especially for inmates who have committed serious crimes.

Page: 103

Madam, with those broad considerations, I would like now to specifically address the Conditional Remission System (CRS) and the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS), the two pillars of this Amendment Bill.

On the CRS, it is timely to close the "loop hole" in the longstanding practice of granting inmates a one-third remission of their prison terms for good conduct and behaviour in prison. In essence, remission is an incentive for good behaviour.

However, remission cannot be an end in itself for the inmate and our administration of criminal justice. Remission must also be a means for the inmate to recognise that he can conduct himself well even in the austere and demanding conditions of prison. If an inmate is only interested in remission to get out of custody early but not genuinely interested in turning over a new leaf, then the remission process becomes a mere game to secure early release. Remission would then be a transactionary discount on time that is needed to serve – a mere quid pro quo for good conduct but with little internal change on the part of the inmate.

Hence, I welcome the move to impose conditions upon early release. Divisions 1 to 4 of the proposed Part VB of the Bill will help to add proper form and needed substance to the remission process. The Conditional Remission Order issued upon remission for good conduct and behaviour must help encourage continued good conduct and behaviour, especially when ex-offenders are most vulnerable in the first few months of release from prison.

Madam, my reading of clause 7 of the Bill as they relate to the CRS gives me the impression that the Commissioner of Prisons shall be required, by default, to make a remission order at a specified time of a prisoner's imprisonment term. If so, does this amount to an automatic discount of the imprisonment term, barring the President directing that a remission order not be made in respect of a prisoner? Does this not devalue the meaning of good conduct and behaviour in prison since the basic condition attached to the remission order is not too high a bar for the majority of inmates?

I would like now to address the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS) provided for in the proposed Division 5 of Part V of the Prisons Act. I hope the MAS will significantly help reduce the recidivism rate.

Madam, a structured aftercare regime must play a critical role in the rehabilitation and reintegration of an ex-offender. We cannot assume that the

Page: 104

imprisonment term and other punishments received by an offender would be sufficient to reform him.

Instead, we should "hand hold" the ex-offender by guiding and providing a structured environment to help him adapt to the post-imprisonment realities. The prison environment is very much a controlled environment, while the post-prison environment is very much an "uncontrolled" one where it can be all too easy to slip back to a criminal lifestyle, given the challenges of adapting to the "ex-offender" label.

The proposed throughcare system is necessary in this regard to help reintegrate an ex-offender into society through progressive step-down arrangements. To some, the MAS might be too interventionist on the part of the state. However, it is a big undertaking that the state is taking on. But for difficult ex-offenders or those who have committed serious offences, this could be a lifeline to help ensure that whatever progress made during the period of imprisonment will not go to waste. I hope the MAS will help these inmates avoid the revolving door back into prison.

Madam, many of the ex-offenders to whom the proposed MAS would apply are likely to have long-standing problems, such as drug and alcohol addiction, poor educational attainments, family dysfunctionality and a society still somewhat wary of ex-offenders' antecedents.

Offender management, therefore, requires the careful and customised assessment, planning and implementation of work with offenders in the community and, while the offender is in custody, to address the factors, such as his attitude, behaviour and lifestyle, that could contribute to the ex-offender re-offending.

The MAS seeks to enhance offender management. As such, the transition from a prison environment to a non-prison environment must be treated as an integral whole, a seamless one. In turn, this requires aftercare staff to be more involved and proactive in their work with offenders even while they are under imprisonment. At the same time, prison officers will also have to recognise the vital role they play in changing behaviours and attitudes of the offenders under their custody even as they need to maintain security and discipline in prison. For the MAS to succeed, behavioural and attitudinal change cannot be regarded as the function of the aftercare regime. It has to be integral even during the period of imprisonment.

Page: 105

There must be the alignment of goals and processes of the custodial and the aftercare regimes if the MAS is to succeed. As such, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State whether the system is able to allow aftercare officers to work closely with prison officers while the offender is still serving his custodial sentence. Can the Senior Minister of State elaborate on how the Prison Service is gearing up for the MAS? The Bill before us provides a legislative framework but I also like to hear about the "software" that would be the operating system of the MAS.

Furthermore, if we are to reduce re-offending, great care has to be given to working with the offender to change his behaviour, attitude and lifestyle. In this regard, how does the Ministry ensure that privately-run aftercare establishments, while having the best of intentions in seeking to rehabilitate and reintegrate ex-offenders, are really up to the important task? Can the Ministry and the Prison Service do more to build up and enhance the capacity and competency of these important institutions in our community involved in the external placement scheme?

We should continue to embed "co-production" of aftercare as the proposed amendments recognise. The rehabilitation and reintegration of ex-offenders may well be a life-long journey. Hence, a multi-stakeholder approach is necessary. Even after an ex-offender completes the MAS uneventfully, there is still the re-integration challenge.

Co-production in aftercare requires that we recognise that the effort to reduce recidivism will be successful through the ex-offenders' relationships with stakeholders, such as their families, employers, friends and the community. The ex-offender's relationship with the aftercare services, while important, is grossly inadequate. Other stakeholders can provide the conducive structure and setting to promote healthy relationships for an ex-offender. These are the ties that bind, and the MAS must seek to embrace the network of relationships for each and every offender. The Yellow Ribbon campaign has gained traction among Singaporeans and more can be done to ensure that the community truly gives ex-offenders a second chance at life, and to inspire concerted community action to support ex-offenders and their families.

Madam, ex-offenders often have multiple and complex needs, and re-offending often occurs in the first few months of an ex-offender's release from a custodial sentence. I hope that the MAS will not be seen as another sentence, albeit a less demanding one than incarceration.

Page: 106

The MAS cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach as this risks fitting no one. Research has shown the growing importance of "desistance". This is the change process involved in the rehabilitation of offenders that results in their desistance from re-offending. Desistance is a lengthy process, not an event, and where reversals and relapses are common. Here, the literature demonstrates that the ex-offenders' thinking, as well as their circumstances, would influence whether they re-offend in future or not. In this regard, I would appreciate it if the Senior Minister of State could elaborate on the modalities of the MAS, in particular, the personalised case management.

Furthermore, the MAS cannot be just about surveillance, control and discipline – one imposed, post-release from custody, by an external party on an ex-offender. The MAS regime must address the criminogenic needs of the ex-offender. These are the dynamic risk factors that predict re-offending and include anti-social attitudes and problematic peer associations, the lack of self-control and self-confidence, often flowing from low self-esteem, the lack of self-management skills and a variety of addictions.

The MAS must have cognitive-behavioural therapies and programmes that are designed to deal with the different aspects of an ex-offender's behaviour. The endeavour to help an ex-offender change cannot be simply about eliminating or modifying the various risk factors. Too often, these risk factors are external and systemic and beyond the control of the aftercare services.

As such, the MAS must also develop resilience among ex-offenders. Otherwise, the MAS can result in dependency by an ex-offender, in particular, on the aftercare services. The ex-offender's lack of resilience also results in his susceptibility to re-offending. In this regard, a personalised MAS regime can re-set and shift the narrative from an ex-offender's criminogenic needs and other deficits to a community dimension in which the key consideration is what the offender can do to contribute to his family, community and society. In short, the MAS should not be one where the ex-offender is seen as a mere beneficiary or someone deserving of our assistance. This requires, of course, interventions in community settings co-produced with the community. This can also increase inclusion and develop social capital. What it all amounts to is for the ex-offender to fully realise that he does not walk alone in his journey to be a useful citizen. Would the Senior Minister of State elaborate on how the MAS can build resilience in ex-offenders?

Madam, I see the MAS as a new and concerted strategy to break the cycle of re-offending. The MAS, like the CRS, will apply to those who commit offences after these amendments before us today come into effect. May I ask the Senior

Page: 107

Minister of State whether the Prison Service will be open to accepting ex-offenders who commit offences before these amendments take effect and who would voluntarily like to be on the MAS? There will be questions on the legal consequences for such an ex-offender if he were to commit a serious breach while on the scheme although the MAS does not technically apply to him. My larger point is whether the MAS framework can be offered to ex-offenders seeking to rebuild their lives even though the MAS does not apply to them.

Madam, the annual average number of penal releases for 2010 to 2012 was 14,137 while the annual average number of penal admissions was 13,612. Generally, the figures show slightly more releases than admissions between 2010 and 2012. The convicted penal inmate population stood at an annual average of 10,361 between 2010 and 2012. With more than 10,000 persons going through the prison system each year, the Prison Service have to go beyond managing custodial sentences and be given the material and non-material resources to succeed on the rehabilitation front. Madam, once again I reiterate my support for the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I support the main aims of the Bill. However, I wish to raise concerns about three areas. First, the expanded role of the Auxiliary Police; second, the provisions relating to remission of imprisonment; and thirdly, the external placement scheme.

First, expanded role of Auxiliary Police. Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill make changes to the role of the Auxiliary Police in escorting and securing prisoners. While the current Act allows the Auxiliary Police to be deployed to escort prisoners while in transit to and from Prison, for example to Court, and while they are outside Prison, the Bill effectively expands their role to include safeguarding prisoners while they are within prison premises.

The handling of prisoners within prison is a delicate matter entrusted to prison officers. Could the Government explain why this task is being outsourced to the Auxiliary Police? Is this due to any shortage of prison officers? As we know, the training requirements and mindsets of prison officers and Auxiliary Police are also quite different. Prison officers are trained in Rehabilitation and are recruited to be "Captains of Lives", while Auxiliary Police are generally focused on safeguarding property and some law and order functions. Given this fundamental difference, what additional jobs are to be assigned to the Auxiliary Police to do within the prison premises? How suitably trained are they for their

Page: 108

expanded roles?

Next, remission. One of the key features of the Bill relates to remission of jail terms. Clause 7 introduces Part VB which will remove the remission rules from the Prisons Regulations to the parent Act. The Bill generally preserves the current default position of granting prisoners a one-third discount off imprisonment for good behaviour. However, the purpose of granting remission is changed from "facilitating reformative treatment" as stated in the Prisons Regulations to the more holistic aim of "facilitating the rehabilitation of prisoners and their reintegration into society" as stated in the new section 50E. Release at the two-third mark will no longer be unconditional but be subject to a condition that while the remission order is in force, the person should not commit an offence and be sentenced to incarceration. If he breaches the condition, he may lose his remission in addition to being sentenced for the new offence.

Apart from remission at the two-third mark, the Bill introduces a new provision for discretionary remission before the two-third mark for prisoners who have already served at least 20 years' imprisonment. This is a good amendment, as the new section 50J will put such long-term prisoners on par with those serving life imprisonment, who already can have their cases reviewed after serving 20 years' jail. This will give both groups the chance to re-build what remains of their lives and to reconnect with society once again. I have one clarification concerning section 50J. It is not stated how the Minister will conduct his review of the case to decide if earlier remission should be given. In life imprisonment cases, the Prisons Regulations currently provide for a Life Imprisonment Review Board to be appointed to make recommendations to the Minister on whether remission is appropriate. Will another Review Board be set up to make recommendations to the Minister regarding earlier remission for prisoners serving long sentences?

As regards the procedure for reviewing such cases, I note that in Hong Kong, there is a Long-Term Prison Sentences Review Board to review long-term prisoners for sentence remission. Under their procedures, there are some features of transparency worth noting. For instance, what factors are taken into account in reviewing cases is publicly gazetted, for example, the nature of the offence, criminal history, age, behaviour in prison, rehabilitation and employment prospects, and others. Another feature is that when the Board rejects remission, the affected prisoner can ask the Board for its reasons, so that he can work on those areas to increase his chances in future reviews. I hope the Government will continually look at such best practices and see how the

Page: 109

process can be improved.

Clause 7 of the Bill also introduces a Mandatory Aftercare Scheme for certain prisoners when released on remission. The new section 50U provides for the kinds of cases which qualify for Mandatory Aftercare. However, according to section 50V, mandatory aftercare is not an automatic condition once a prisoner qualifies but the Commissioner may make such an order. I would like to ask whether this means that mandatory aftercare will only be selectively imposed, or does the Government expect that most, if not all, qualifying cases will be subject to mandatory aftercare?

Madam, in relation to remission, I also wish to seek two clarifications regarding the cancellation, forfeiture and restoration of remission. The Bill makes changes to the Prisons Regulations, and there now appear to be two anomalies which require clarification.

The first concerns the powers of the President. Under the existing prison regulation 124, the President can take away a prisoner's right to remission if he commits a grave offence while serving sentence. Under the Bill, this power of the President is preserved under the new section 50 I (4). However, what is quite different is that under the current regulation 124, the President may also give "remission without limit for special services". This phrase is not found in section 50 I (4). Could Minister of State clarify whether we are indeed changing the authority being given to the President under the Act, to take away his right to grant remission without limit, and why this is being done?

The second clarification concerns clause 15 of the Bill. This relates to the Superintendent's powers when a prisoner has forfeited some of his remission due to disciplinary offences while in prison. Under the current Prisons Regulations, a prisoner's remission could be forfeited under the orders of three authorities – the Superintendent himself, who may forfeit up to 60 days of remission, or the Director of Prisons, who may forfeit up to 90 days, or by the Visiting Justices, who can forfeit up to 180 days. I assume that even after the Bill is passed, the Superintendent, the Commissioner of Prisons and the Visiting Justices will retain some powers to order forfeiture of remission.

In this regard, clause 15 appears to increase the powers of a Superintendent drastically. Under the existing Regulation 124, a Superintendent can only restore to the prisoner up to seven days of remission which was ordered by the Superintendent himself to be forfeited. However, under clause 15 of this Bill, the new section 77A will allow the Superintendent the "discretion" to restore to

Page: 110

the prisoner the entire period of remission which had been forfeited by such prisoner. This power under section 77A is much wider than regulation 124. It appears to allow the Superintendent to change not only his own decisions about forfeiture of remission but also the decisions of his superior, namely, the Commissioner of Prisons, and even the Visiting Justices. Can this be a correct reading of what is intended? The effect of the new section 77A needs to be clarified.

Finally, Madam, External Placement Scheme. Clause 12 introduces the new Part VIA concerning an External Placement Scheme. This Scheme allows a prisoner to serve his sentence in a place other than a prison, if the Minister directs the Commissioner to make an external placement order. This order can be for periods of up to 12 months at a time.

Under what circumstances will a prisoner have the privilege of serving his time outside prison? According to the new section 59B, the Minister is reminded that prisoners should ordinarily serve their time in prison and that external placement may cause a public safety risk. However, the Minister can take into account the physical and mental condition of the prisoner, and "any other relevant circumstances" in considering whether the prisoner should be externally placed. Earlier, I believe the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the Minister would be advised by a committee.

Now, I assume that certain prisoners may not be physically or mentally fit for prison, perhaps due to old age or some illness. I can understand why it may make practical sense to house the prisoner instead in some specialised care facility or even a hospice. Earlier, the Senior Minister of State mentioned that the section would be used for terminally ill patients as certified by prison-appointed doctors. What I am concerned about is whether, over time, some prisoners may try to "game" the system by getting their own medical experts to advise that they need to serve time outside prison for one medical condition or another, and thereby get away with serving their jail terms in more comfortable environments or even in their own homes. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to elaborate on what safeguards will be put in place to prevent such subversions.

Mdm Speaker, I rise to support the Prisons Amendment Bill, but I have some concerns with the Conditional Remission System (CRS) and the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS) targeted at selected groups of inmates.

The original intent of allowing remission is not only to encourage good behaviour but also to reduce overcrowding in prisons in some countries. Under the new amendment, breaches in CRA or MAS may possibly lead to longer prison sentences. Does the Singapore Prison Service have the capacity in terms of physical structure, manpower and facilities to cope with the possibility of a

Page: 113

higher prison population?

The MAS has the potential to help ex-offenders integrate into society. Thus, I would like to know whether enough resources would be devoted to improve and build the capacity of existing aftercare services specifically targeted at helping ex-convicts. The effectiveness of the MAS will largely depend on the quality of the aftercare services, which encompass halfway house stay, casework, counselling and many others. As such, I hope there is enough flexibility to allow the VWOs offering aftercare services to tailor their programmes to suit the various offenders, depending on their gender and religion.

Currently, there is a shortage of aftercare services for female ex-offenders and Malay/Muslim ex-offenders that are operated by Malay/Muslim voluntary welfare organisations. I hope there are plans to increase the capacity of aftercare services to look after the female ex-offender, and the aftercare programmes be allowed to have elements of religious education that have shown promising results in reducing recidivism.

Mdm Speaker, families and employers can be the support pillars to help ex-offenders reintegrate into society. I would like to suggest that the mandatory aftercare scheme should involve the families and potential employers of the ex-offenders by providing them with the necessary holistic support to help the ex-offenders. Many ex-offenders face multiple issues ranging from housing, accommodation, finance, employment, family relationship and many others. A holistic approach is required for the MAS to be effective.

The proposed amendments to introduce CRS and MAS are a step in the right direction. As we strive to be an inclusive society, let us help those amongst us that have strayed and help them feel that they do belong to our community and will always be welcome.

Mdm Speaker, please allow me to speak on the Bill in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I welcome the amendments to the Prisons Act which require ex-offenders to undergo rehabilitation to enable them to reintegrate into society.

I would like to urge MHA to ensure that the aftercare services that are run by the community organisations have high standards in terms of the staff and facilities and possess deep knowledge to help ex-offenders undergo

Page: 114

rehabilitation.

I would also like MHA to allow aftercare services to receive financial provisions or subsidies even for the type of rehabilitation that is largely based on a religious approach.

I feel that it is important that we render assistance sincerely to enable these ex-offenders to begin a new life outside the prison walls.

I hope that the community, in general, and the Malays and the families of ex-offenders will work together to give support and cooperation to achieve the Government's initiative to create an inclusive and a more compassionate society.