CELL-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS FOR PRISON INMATES

CELL-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS FOR PRISON INMATES: 3.

Dr Lam Pin Min asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what is the incidence of prison abuse by cellmates and law enforcement personnel over the last five years; and (b) what measures have been put in place to minimise such occurrences in the prison.

4.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) if there are any plans to improve supervision at our prisons to reduce the incidents of violence and abuse by inmates against fellow inmates; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider inviting experienced external parties such as District Judges to provide advice on how to make the disciplinary process against prisoners more transparent and effective in lowering incidences of inmate abuse.

5.

Ms Sylvia Lim asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what criteria are used to decide cell-sharing arrangements for prison inmates; (b) how the three Changi Prison inmates convicted in July 2009 were able to inflict serious injury on their cellmate for over a week before it was discovered; and (c) whether the prison authorities are addressing any gaps in prisoner management arising from this incident.

The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, may I take Question Nos. 3, 4 and 5 together as they are related?

Mr Speaker: Yes.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, let me state upfront that our prison authorities will not tolerate any form of abuse or assaults on inmates in our prisons, committed either by other inmates or by its officers. When such an incident is detected or brought to the attention of any prison officer, immediate action is taken to protect the victim and provide him with appropriate medical care. The incident is then thoroughly investigated and the perpetrators brought to task.

The prison environment is a unique and challenging one. About 12,600 inmates, some with violent criminal backgrounds, live in close proximity to one another. They are there not by choice, but because they have to serve out their sentences imposed by the courts. Realistically, when such inmates live in close confinements with each other, we must expect that there will be friction and conflict, resulting in some occurrence of bullying and threats and the occasional assault, particularly amongst younger inmates. The role of the prison authorities is to put in place processes to minimise such occurrence of violence, facilitate reporting by a victimised inmate of any abuse and take firm disciplinary action against those who breach prison regulations. In serious cases, prison authorities will not hesitate to have the perpetrator charged in court.

Dr Lam Pin Min, Mr Christopher de Souza and Ms Sylvia Lim asked about measures taken to prevent abuse and assaults in prisons. Ms Lim has also asked about the criteria to determine cell-sharing arrangements. Sir, as I shared at the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year, Prisons has well-established procedures and safeguards for the safe and secure custody of inmates. These include body searches, regular patrols, muster checks and interviews by prison officers who act as personal supervisors. The cells also have distress intercoms which inmates can activate when in need of assistance. These measures have also enabled prison officers to detect assaults in our prisons.

In addition, Prisons assesses the inmate’s security risk when he is incarcerated. It takes into account various factors when determining cell-sharing arrangements of inmates, so as to minimise the incidence of abuse or assaults. They include the inmate’s age, his antecedents, if any, the nature of the offence for which he is in prison and the risk of him committing violence and harming himself.

Inmates with a high security risk are housed alone in a cell and closely supervised for security reasons. For medium and low risk inmates, they will be housed with other inmates in cells. In the current case of interest, the inmate and the three assailants were all young offenders, with similar types of antecedents and were assessed to be of medium security risk. They were housed together in a standard cell installed with a distress intercom system.

Let me emphasise, however, that despite all these measures, no system is foolproof. Whilst Prisons will do its best to prevent and detect such incidents, inmates must also take responsibility for their personal safety, for example, by complying with prison rules and regulations themselves. They should not try to conceal any abuse or incidence of violence and try to resolve disputes on their own. Inmates who are threatened by fellow inmates or are assaulted should report the matter immediately.

Prisons provides ample avenues of reporting. Besides any prison officer on duty and their personal supervisor, they can also raise any request or complaint with the volunteers, with the Superintendent of the prison or indeed with the Visiting Justices during their regular visits.

An inmate who informs of imminent harm or bullying is immediately sent for medical examination and treatment. He is also segregated for his personal safety and may be transferred to a another institution, if necessary.

The facts of the recent High Court case where an inmate suffered serious injuries as a result of being assaulted by his cellmates in Changi Prison Complex have been amply aired in court. I will not go into the details but we should see this incident in perspective.

This incident is an isolated one in terms of the seriousness of the injuries sustained and the intensity and duration of the assaults. What is of critical importance is that the victim had numerous opportunities over the period the assaults occurred, to report them to the many different prison officers he came into contact with each day, such as when he and his cellmates were unlocked for yard time and during the physical muster checks by staff which are conducted three times a day.

He could also have activated the distress intercom in his cell to seek help any time. The incident would not have remained undetected over eight days, nor would it have escalated to the extent that it did if only the inmate had sought help earlier. Unfortunately, for reasons best known to him, he chose to remain silent.

After more than a week, the inmate finally decided to report sick to seek medical attention. He activated the distress intercom in his cell. Even then, he was not forthcoming in revealing to the prison officer and the staff nurse initially on what had happened and had told staff that he felt unwell because of a fall. It was only after persistent questioning that he informed the authorities that he had been assaulted by his cellmates. So, whilst we sympathise with him for the pain and suffering he went through, he did not help the situation at all by not reporting the assault to a prison officer earlier.

The Director of Prisons has carefully reviewed the circumstances of the case and has not found any of the prisons officers involved to have been professionally remiss. Indeed, they took swift action on discovering the assault and rendered prompt medical attention to the victim. Prisons also reported the matter to the Police to initiate criminal investigations against the assailants so that they would face the full brunt of the law in court.

More generally, Dr Lam asked about the incidence of prison abuse over the last five years. Prisons measures the level of physical violence in prison by tracking the number of major assaults on inmates and prison staff annually, which includes both fights between inmates where serious injuries are inflicted and also abuse cases where there are elements of bullying or threats used against the inmate leading to serious injury.

The rates of major assaults per 10,000 inmates from FY 2004 to FY 2008 are 13.5, 16.2, 15, 22.3 and 35.2 respectively. The increase in FY 2008 is largely due to a review of Prisons' institutional offence guidelines, leading to more cases being classified as major assaults. There is generally no decline in the level of institutional discipline. Most of the assaults in prisons are one-off assaults arising from arguments that take place at the spur of the moment. Only a small number of the cases have elements of bullying, threats and intimidation used against the victim. Indeed, our major assault rates are also low by international standards and are achieved despite a lean staff to inmate ratio. For example, the reported figures are 46 in New Zealand and 165 in England.

Dr Lam also asked for data on prison officers abusing inmates. Whilst we expect the highest level of professional conduct from our prison officers, sporadically, some fall prey to provocation and lapses of good judgment. In the past five years, there were 14 cases where inappropriate force was used on an inmate, or about three cases per year on average. None of the cases resulted in serious injuries to the inmates. All these officers were all duly punished according to civil service disciplinary rules.

Our prison authorities continually explore ways to improve the administration of our prisons. Even though there are already a slew of safeguards in place to address the issues of abuse and assaults, nevertheless, in light of the latest incident, a review was conducted and additional resources were deployed to enhance monitoring of inmates. However, I must reiterate the point that it is not possible to eliminate all forms of negative behaviour between inmates within a prison environment. What is important is that inmates must also take responsibility for their own well-being. If they do so, like I have given the assurance just now, there are effective processes and structures in place for their concerns to be addressed.

Mr de Souza asked if the prison authorities are willing to consider the advice of relevant external parties on prisons discipline. Prison authorities are indeed open to the valuable feedback and suggestions from the Board of Visiting Justices, the Board of Visitors and its large core of committed volunteers as to how our prisons’ security and rehabilitation processes can be further improved. Their suggestions are studied closely.

In fact, to render prison’s institutional discipline processes more transparent and rigorous, Prisons set up an Institutional Discipline Review Committee about a year ago. This Committee, comprising reputable members of the public, including quite a few with existing or previous legal and judicial backgrounds, advises the Director of Prisons as to whether the institutional caning awarded against a prisoner for an aggravated institutional offence is, in their view, excessive.

Sir, in summary, let me assure Members that, notwithstanding this case, our prison remains one of the safest in the world. Moreover, our prison authorities will not tolerate any form of abuse or assault by inmates or staff, sparing no effort to ensure that any perpetrator is immediately brought to task. Inmates, on their part, must exercise responsibility for their own safety by reporting such incidents early to the prison officers as there are ample opportunities for them to do so.

Dr Lam Pin Min: Sir, I would like to thank the Senior Minister of State for the very comprehensive answer and the reassurances. But I must admit that when I read the recent report, I was shocked to find that the victim was actually subjected to physical and sexual abuses over a period of eight days under the watchful eyes of the prison service in Changi. This only reminded me of the scenes in the Hong Kong blockbuster movie Prison on Fire –

Mr Speaker: Ask your question, Dr Lam.

Dr Lam Pin Min: Sir, my question is that it is unimaginable that over eight days, the prison officers could not detect anything unusual about the abuse that this victim was subjected to. Surely there must be a way where prison officers can be trained to detect such abuses. I think we should not put most of the responsibility on the prison inmates themselves.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, as I have said, there are operational procedures which at least try to ensure that the inmates are safe, but no system is foolproof. For example, I mentioned that there are muster checks three times daily. Body searches are also carried out on inmates. Cells also have the distress intercom that will enable any inmate who feels threatened or unsafe and who is beaten up to actually make a report. That is the key point.

The key point is that we cannot think of every conceivable eventuality that may happen in prison. What Prisons must do is to provide a system which is generally safe and that is a point I want to reiterate. Our assault rates are low compared to many in the world and, indeed, many inmates come out from the prison gates rehabilitated.

But there are also inmates, because of their own backgrounds, because of their own attitudes, may themselves engage in risky behaviour. If we follow the case in the papers closely, this inmate was like that, because he himself had been disciplined in prison before for assaulting other people. So, when it happened, if he had reported it early through any officer on the first day, or on the second day, this would not have happened. That is the point that is best reminding. Otherwise, we think that for eight or nine days they were unreported, why did it happen?

The Director of Prisons, as I have said, has carried out a very careful review of the relevant officers who had come in contact with the inmate and he is satisfied that no officer has been professionally remiss. They did what they were supposed to do. But for reasons which, in fact, also came out in the court trial, one reason the inmate himself offered was that perhaps because he had a dark complexion, the injuries were not detected. The injuries remained undetected until finally, he disclosed them to the officers.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Supplementary questions. Sir, earlier the Senior Minister of State recited these figures of assault in our prisons and compared them internationally to other countries and said that they were low. But, Sir, during the trial, it was quite obvious from the testimony of the inmates in the cell as well as those in the neighbouring cells that, generally, they do not resort to reporting as a first recourse when they hear something suspicious or something has happened to them. Some of them said in the court that they did not want any trouble even though they heard something in the neighbouring cell, they did not want to report it for avoidance of trouble. So, does the Minister not agree with me that actually those figures that we have are only the figures that we know of and there is probably a significant under-reporting of such incidents in our prison?

On the second point, the Minister mentioned that the Director of Prisons has done a review of the case and found that no prison officer was wanting. I am not in a position to say that they are but the question is, there appears to be some gap in the procedure. If the inmates in the neighbouring cells can testify that they heard beatings and cries over quite a number of days from 6.20 pm in the evening to 2.00 am, how come the prison officers did not seem to detect that?

Also, with regard to the injuries on the victim, even if he had a dark complexion, they consisted of 10 fractured ribs, fractured chest bone, fractured spine vertebrate, lacerated kidney – would it not be reasonable to assume that he would not be behaving normally with such kind of injuries?

Thirdly, Sir, it was mentioned that the victim himself is to be blamed, in a way, because he had ample opportunity to raise this matter and he did not. In court, he testified that he felt he could not tell anyone because he still had to go and face his cell-mates. So, even though the Senior Minister of State earlier said that if there was an allegation of trouble in the cell, he would be removed immediately, that does not appear to be the perception of the victim who has been in and out of penal institutions before. So, would the Minister like to comment on whether there is a gap here in terms of the inmates' confidence in that procedure?

Mr Speaker: Ms Lim, your question is too long.

Ms Sylvia Lim: The final question, Sir, on cell-sharing, I would like the Senior Minister of State to clarify whether the cell-sharing arrangement is a deliberate policy. In other words, we would require our medium security prisoners to share cells and, arising from this incident, is there any thought of reconfiguring the numbers of people sharing the cell, say, instead of four people, would it be for example, three?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Ms Lim said she has two queries but ended up with having four. First, let me say that prison authorities are, of course, concerned that in prisons, they provide a safe and secure environment for its inmates. In fact, this is in the mission and vision statements – safe and secure custody of inmates. It is not just mouthing a slogan. In fact, from May 2006, the Prisons implemented a system where they take monthly random feedback from inmates. Forms are left in the common areas in four languages. The inmates can actually fill up the form. I have seen the form myself and there are important questions like: Do inmates generally feel safe? Do inmates have any problems talking to prison officers? And the feedback generally is that inmates do feel safe and they have no problems talking with the prison officers.

It is for this reason that Prisons instituted this system of a personal supervisor so that the inmates can feel comfortable with a particular prison officer with whom they develop a rapport. Like I have said, 10,000 inmates come out of the prison gates every year, and our recividism rate is now only 25%. It has come down a long, long way. So, many inmates have come through the prison system, feeling safe and, in fact, being rehabilitated. So, you really have to ask the inmate or the victim in question, why he did not report? In fact, all inmates will know this. Should there be a report, like I have said, the various steps are taken – send for medical attention, separate him from the perpetrators and maybe, like I have said, even to send him to another institution and firm action is taken against the perpetrators. And I believe for this case, because it is so serious, the circumstances and facts would be publicised to the other inmates currently in Changi Prison so that everybody knows this has happened and if this happens again, what the wrong-doers will face.

Of course, Ms Lim could be right, because we are talking about assaults that are reported and these are major assaults where there are serious injuries caused. There could be undetected fights and assaults that took place. I would not say significant – the term she used – but who is to say, there could be other fights, especially among the younger inmates, because I understand they are of that temperament. But the point is, should an incident take place, first, there is a reporting system and there are checks in place. In this case, like I have said, the prison officers did everything that was required of them but there was no detection of the injuries and also no suspicion aroused from the behaviour of this victim. That point is clear.

Cell-sharing – three to four is about a good arrangement. If you are alone, anything can happen to you. So, high-risk prisoners are housed alone, for example, death penalty inmates, or those who are subject to institutional discipline. Two also is no good because it is one to one. It is either three or four, in this case, four were in the cell. If an inmate wishes to change his cell, again, there is a system in place. Of course, not all requests can be entertained. But an inmate can ask for a change of cell. He will be interviewed by the housing inmate officers and if the request pertains to his safety, particularly if he feels threatened or intimidated, that will be acceded to.

One additional resource that has been put in arising from this incident is that an additional officer has now been deployed in the housing units so that more patrols can be carried out. Because, at night, especially after lights out, or even before lights out, after the muster check at 6.30 pm, there is skeletal manning and the prison is in locked-down mode; so you do not have that many prison officers around. So, perhaps, some of these wrong-doings can be prevented.

Amongst younger inmates, there could be very well be a code of honour where you do not report on other people. I think Ms Lim alluded to that, but I would say that if you feel threatened, if you are the affected victim, you have no cause not to report, and no fear in reporting. That is the key point because no one in prison wants to get into trouble by reporting on things that happened in other cells. With this extra officer who will patrol the cells at night, I think, such incidents will be reduced.

Mr Speaker: Mr de Souza, last question.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): I thank the Senior Minister of State for his comprehensive reply. He mentioned that there will be processes put in place to reduce abuse and that, in serious cases, the matter will be referred to the courts and to the CID. So, the assumption and hope is that most cases are not serious and, therefore, dealt with internally. And if that is the correct assumption, then the question is, why not lend the support from experts like district judges who have in their experience, precedence and institutionalised methods of dealing with disciplinary problems to come, not on an ad hoc basis through the visiting programme, but on an entrenched and regular basis so that, internally, where disciplinary processes are concerned, there is a database and there is precedent so that discipline can be inculcated among the population, thereby reducing the amount of prisoner abuse?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think Mr de Souza may not have heard me correctly just now. In fact, this new system instituted about a year ago, called the Institutional Discipline Review Committee System – there are about four or five committees empanelled – is part of the structure now. It is not just ad hoc visits by them or Visiting Justices. Every case that is adjudicated with caning will be put before this committee. Each committee will comprise, I understand, at least one lawyer, if not chaired by one, either a lawyer or someone with judicial experience. The full facts are put before the committee and the relevant officers are also there. For example, the investigating officers involved in the offence are there to answer any queries. The committee will then give its view as to whether the number of strokes given is excessive. So, this is part of the system which, in fact, to Prisons' credit, is something they instituted on their own, to involve members of the public to ensure that its processes are more transparent and, hopefully, fair.