PROPOSED PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL

PROPOSED PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL

**

(Increase in maximum sentences): **

4.

Mr Siew Kum Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, in view of the proposed Penal Code (Amendment) Bill issued for public consultation in November 2006 which proposes to increase the maximum sentences for certain offences as set out in the Schedule to the Bill, for each of the last ten years, (a) how many convictions have there been for each of those offences; (b) how many involved sentences of imprisonment; and (d) how many sentences were at 80% or more of the maximum duration of imprisonment permitted.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: The overall aim of the punishment framework is to reduce crime, protect society and maintain law and order. Several factors are taken into account in proposals to increase the maximum imprisonment terms of offences in the Penal Code.

The number and trend of convictions for each offence are only one of these factors. Indeed, this number may fluctuate from year to year in line with the overall crime rates for any particular year.

Column: 971

Also, it is not meaningful to base our decision whether to increase the maximum imprisonment terms on the number of sentences in the past which have hit 80% or more of the maximum sentences. Taking such an approach would disregard the facts and circumstances of the case which the Judge would have taken into account in considering what is the appropriate sentence to be meted out.

Apart from the number and trend of convictions for each offence, the other considerations taken into account in deciding on the maximum sentences are:

a. Punishment should reflect the severity of the offence and serve as a deterrent;

b. The need to maintain proportionality between the offence and the punishment;

c. The type and quantum of punishment should provide sufficient flexibility to our Courts to mete out an appropriate sentence in a particular case, rather than to amend the law to adjust the punishment every now and then;

d. The need to maintain relativity in the punishment for related offences within the Penal Code;

e. The need to maintain relativity in the punishment for similar offences covered under different statutes;

f. The need to retain mandatory minimum punishment and to abolish it where it is no longer necessary to retain them; and

g. The need to reduce the gap between 10 years or life imprisonment for double-limb penalty provisions.

As for the specific details requested for, the Police does not have such ready statistics in the form requested.

Column: 971