SINGAPORE'S PENAL POLICY

Column: 1054

SINGAPORE'S PENAL POLICY:

(Review): 5.

Mr Lim Biow Chuan asked the Minister for Law whether there is any need to review Singapore's penal policy in

Column: 1055

view of the statement in the latest issue of the Law Gazette by the President of the Law Society of Singapore, Mr Michael Hwang, that Singapore is sadly lacking a principled and transparent penal policy.

The Minister for Law (Mr K Shanmugam): Sir, I thank Mr Lim for his question. Mr Hwang, the President of the Law Society, in his article in the Law Gazette asserts that detailed statistics on crime and punishment should be published and that not publishing such statistics has prevented social scientists from undertaking adequate research on the causes of crime and the effects of current penal policies on prisoners. And he says that this has resulted in our system being unprincipled, and rigorous regular research with full access to relevant information will help us decide on issues like the effectiveness of capital punishment.

I will deal with each of the three assertions.

About statistics not being published – this assertion is questionable for two reasons. First, Mr Hwang does not make clear what data (which would help in penal research) that he is referring to as not having been published. Second, law enforcement agencies such as the Singapore Police Force and Central Narcotics Bureau do publish crime and drug offence statistics regularly. Where there is public interest to be served, additional relevant information is collected and disseminated.

In addition, it should be noted that Home Team departments also undertake qualitative and quantitative research, often in collaboration with independent researchers, on topics relating to crime, punishment and criminal behaviour. Further, as a matter of practice, assistance is also given to researchers, including students, who wish to do

Column: 1056

serious research and such research has been done. To suggest to that, there are inadequate published statistics and that that has prevented proper research is therefore quite untenable.

I will now deal with the second of his assertions – has a lack of statistics led to our penal system being unprincipled?

Since the basis of his assertion – that we do not publish statistics – is itself not clear, this further conclusion is equally questionable. Further, any objective analysis of our penal system will show that the system is based on sound practical philosophy and principles, which have been made clear several times.

While we take a tough stand on crime, we also believe strongly in compassion and rehabilitation. These principles underpin our approach to:

(i) principles of prescribing punishment and sentencing;

(ii) treatment and rehabilitation of prisoners when they are in prison; and

(iii) reintegration of ex-offenders back into society.

Let me deal with punishment and sentencing. The Government's approach to prescribing punishments is a matter of public record. During the Second Reading (in 2007) of the amendments to the Penal Code, our approach was again restated clearly. In brief summary, these are:

(i) the type and quantum of punishment should provide sufficient flexibility to the Courts to mete out an appropriate sentence in a particular case;

(ii) the prevalence of the offence;

(iii) the proportionality of the penalty to an offence, taking into account its seriousness; and

Column: 1057

(iv) the relativity in punishment between related offences.

On sentencing, our Courts have set out the applicable principles. Our former Chief Justice, Mr Yong Pung How, had published over 882 judgments during his time on the Bench, several of which relate to criminal offences. Our current Chief Justice has been equally prolific. Subordinate Court judges publish Sentencing Practice in the Subordinate Courts, which is a sentencing guide, making accessible the sentencing approach for a wide range of offences. This approach is not based exclusively on either deterrence or retribution alone. Rather, the approach to sentencing an offender is to consider both these aspects, and also take into account other considerations such as potential for rehabilitation, suitability of the punishment for each individual offender and the nature of the offence committed.

Hence, both in prescribing punishments and sentencing offenders, much thought has been given to how justice can be best secured for each individual offender. The Government is also at present exploring Community Based Sentencing options, which will further equip our penal framework with the best tools to advance justice in each particular case.

Let me deal with treatment and rehabilitation of prisoners in prison. As stated earlier, we believe strongly in rehabilitation and we believe that that process should start even while the sentences are being served. Thus, during incarceration, inmates who are genuinely willing to change are given education, training and rehabilitative opportunities that will better help them reintegrate into society after their prison sentences.

Our focus on reintegration of ex-offenders back into society continues

Column: 1058

after the prisoners are released. The Yellow Ribbon Project (YRP), set up to create awareness on giving second chances to deserving ex-offenders and generate acceptance of ex-offenders back into the community, has been widely lauded by international experts, and has received an honourable mention at the 2007 United Nations Grand Award. Coupled with the YRP was the setting up of a Yellow Ribbon Fund which contributes to the development and implementation of reintegration programmes for ex-offenders.

A key measure of the success of our rehabilitation and reintegration programmes is our recidivism rate, which is now one of the lowest in the world.

Another example of the successful rehabilitation and reintegration programmes for offenders is the Home Detention Scheme. Deserving inmates are released earlier, at the tail-end of their sentences and placed on electronic monitoring to work or study. Prisoners on Home Detention have lower recidivism rates compared to the general population.

Thus, far from being unprincipled, our penal philosophy has been carefully thought through and has been articulated publicly several times. Theoretical arguments on our penal policy, bereft of any reference to these key aspects in our system, may make for good sound bites. But they do not have any real merit. In evolving our policies, we take into account the views of parties involved in the administration of justice, including the courts, law enforcement agencies, civic interest groups, the legal profession, academia and the Law Society.

I will now deal with Mr Hwang's final assertion relating to capital punishment. His suggestion is that publication of detailed statistics will lead us to a possibly conclusive answer to the debate on capital punishment.

Column: 1059

The debate on capital punishment, Sir, is not going to be settled on the basis of statistics. Leaving aside the fact that it is not clear, from what Mr Hwang says, as to what statistics are said to be lacking, I should point out that all capital punishment cases are matters of public record in Singapore and the media usually widely covers such cases. Each criminal case heard before a court is also a matter of public record.

On the issue of capital punishment itself, the reality is that there is no universal consensus on such punishment, and there is unlikely to be any such consensus, anytime soon. Serious and bitter debate on capital punishment has raged on in many countries. The philosophical and ideological chasms that separate the proponents and opponents of capital punishment are quite unbridgeable. Both sides marshal powerful arguments.

On an issue like this, the Government has to take a stand. And the Government believes that death penalty should be retained. A Straits Times survey conducted a few years ago reported that 95% of Singaporeans supported the retention of the death penalty.

Our firm position on crimes and the considerable benefits of such a stand to our society can be illustrated by reference to the drug situation. In a region where drug is a very serious problem, Singapore has kept the problem very much under control and is in fact almost unique in battling it successfully so far. Members know that in the last 15 years, the drug situation has been getting from bad to worse in many countries, both in this region, and in the world.

Why have we succeeded so far, when so many others have not? It is because we took a practical, hard headed approach to the problem and tackled it

Column: 1060

decisively. In this context, the introduction of the death penalty for drug trafficking has, we believe, had the deterrent effect. There are no widely prevalent syndicated drug activities linked to organised crimes in Singapore, in contrast to the hierarchical and organised drug syndicates and cartels in various countries. As a result of our policies, thousands of young people have been saved from the drug menace.

Singaporeans appreciate the safe environment here. And the international community has taken note of our success in maintaining law and order. In 2008, the Institute for Management Development (IMD) World Competitiveness Yearbook ranked Singapore first in personal security and private property.

Sir, in closing, let me assure Members that our approach to penal policy is both principled and transparent. And, quite fundamentally, the approach has been shown to work, ensuring the safety and security of our citizens. We will continue to review our approach and ensure that it remains relevant and effective.

Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Sir, two supplementary questions for the Minister. Sir, I believe that in Mr Hwang's article regarding the statistics which he feels could be useful for our crime debate, he did allude to the fact that the Government was quite opaque when it comes to, for example, the ethnic composition of people in our penal institutions. In fact, in 2007, I filed a parliamentary question asking for this data, and I was told by the Ministry of Home Affairs that the data is kept but they are unable to reveal it publicly. This is actually very different from the practice in the UK where such statistics on the ethnic composition of people in the penal population are published. So, would the Minister not agree that actually we are not that transparent when it comes to data like this?

Column: 1061

Secondly, in actual fact, we do not really know how much crime there is in Singapore because all our statistics gathered are based on reported crime. I wonder whether the Minister would agree that we could actually gather more statistics on victimisation in the population rather than just to rely on reported crime statistics which may not tell us the dark figure of crime.

Mr Shanmugam: Let me take the second question first, which I am having some difficulty understanding. Ms Lim says our statistics are based on reported crime and that may not give the true picture. How would we assess unreported crime in the absence of the agencies knowing exactly what has happened? The agencies can only go on the basis of what is reported to them. And my assumption is that in a place like Singapore where people are well-educated and know their rights, if there is something that troubles them, they will go to the police. In fact, the position has been that they go to the police rather more than they should. So, really, I have difficulty answering that question beyond what Ms Lim has said.

As regards her first question as to whether we are quite opaque, I have read Mr Hwang's article and I did not get the impression that he was pointing to any particular statistic as being absent. Let me ask this question in the context of the thesis he put forward. He said that we do not publish adequate statistics and that has prevented a proper penological research. How in the world would publishing details on ethnic composition on aggregated basis help in such penological research? As a matter of common sense, if one wants to do any research, he needs to go down to the ground and get access to the specific prisoners which, obviously, as a matter of confidentiality, prisons cannot publish and make available to the whole world at

Column: 1062

large. So, it just does not make sense. People do ask to do serious research and that kind of research can only be done by getting access to the prisoners themselves, specific areas to be looked into, and that is usually allowed by the prisons. When a serious researcher makes a request, that request is allowed, and often the prisons do collaborative research with such researchers.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, in respect of the Minister's first response, I wonder if the Minister is aware of the crime victimisation surveys that are conducted in countries like the UK and the US where it is well established that members of the public do not report certain kinds of crimes, usually sexual crimes and offences against the person, and this is quite universally established data. I wonder whether he would comment on his assumption that people would seek help in all kinds of crime because the international data shows otherwise.

The second point about Mr Hwang's request for statistics – I have his article here actually – the paragraph in question, he says,

"One traditional justification for the lack of statistics is that these are sensitive figures which could be interpreted as indicating certain communities might be prone to commit certain crimes. But we cannot put our heads in the sand and hide important social facts which need serious study."

I believe what he is saying here is that there should be more transparency about the ethnic composition when it comes to certain kinds of offences.

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, may I answer the point on victimisation surveys first. As regards issues of victimisation in the context in which Ms Lim spoke about, we have agencies that intervene in these areas, for example, of minors and sexual

Column: 1063

offences directed against people who are particularly vulnerable. There are specific Government agencies and departments that deal with it. And even in the absence of reporting, these issues come to light insofar as the agencies have intervened effectively and know about it. But my personal belief, based on what I have read, is that both in Singapore and in other countries, if people keep certain matters away from the government authorities, it is very difficult to access them. That is the point that I was making.

Secondly, in a highly urbanised situation like in Singapore, both with our people knowing very substantially their rights and with a number of Ministries involved in actively intervening in the social sphere, from the context of schools and MCYS, we are more likely to know what is happening. And we are likely to have a pretty good idea of what is going on.

As regards the point about lack of statistics specifically directed on ethnicity, the point I was making is in the context of doing serious research, what is the topic of research that is being identified, and public availability of data will help. I had earlier made the point if anyone wanted to do a study, eg, on ethnicity and crime, it is not a very difficult issue at all. The number of prisoners by ethnicity would be made available and they can go down and they can do a research study, that is not a problem. That and other kinds of research have been done. These are not matters that are kept private but there is usually little sense in making this generally publicly available. The question here that Ms Lim would have to distinguish is, if she wants the data for purposes of study, it would be made available, and all she has to do is to make a request and go down and conduct her research.

But it is an entirely separate question whether these have to be published as a

Column: 1064

matter of general practice, for example, on the number of prisoners by ethnicity. It sometimes could lead to a misinterpretation of data. Let me give the Member an example. Amnesty International suggested that more foreigners are hung in Singapore compared with locals. A study over five years, if we aggregate the data, shows that about 101 Singaporeans were hung compared to 37 foreigners. But if we broke that down on an annual basis, we could get a misleading interpretation. So, aggregated data, any serious researcher would know, is often not very useful for proper serious research.