PENAL CODE (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Chua Sian Chin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Rising Crime

From 1972 to 1978 the overall crime rate in Singapore has generally fluctuated within the narrow range of between 900 and 800 offences per 100,000 population. In 1978, the crime rate was 823 offences per 100,000 population. Since then, however, the crime rate has steadily increased and broken well clear of this range. It reached 1,635 offences per 100,000 in 1983. The crime trend suggests that unless drastic as well as comprehensive measures are instituted to arrest the uptrend, the rise will continue into the future. The crime statistics for 1978-1983 are given in Table 1 (Cols. 1957 - 1958) (Annex A). The Table has been distributed to Members of the House. Table 1 - CRIME STATISTICS 1978-1983 (Cols. 1957 - 1958)

Of particular concern are the offences of robbery and housebreaking and theft. These two offences are representative of common serious offences against persons and property. In 1978, there were 870 robbery cases, and the figure has since risen to 1,500 cases in 1983. Housebreaking and theft has also been rising significantly from 1,738 offences in 1978 to 2,948 offences in 1983. Among the other offences, motor vehicle thefts registered the most dramatic increase. There were 1,907 motor vehicle thefts in 1978, and the figure has risen to 4,178 cases in 1983. Other offences such as rape, outraging of modesty, and snatch thefts also show a similar upward trend since 1978.

Factors Contributing to Rising Crime

Many factors have contributed to this general increase in crime. The cumulative effect of the drug problem began to show up around 1977. The increasing number of housing units in our urban set-up and the rising affluence of its occupants have maximized the opportunity for crime. The increased number of foreign workers and tourists contributed to the increase in the number of potential criminals and victims. The relative affluence of Singapore has, in fact, attracted many foreign criminals, most of whom are hard-core and professional criminals. Foreigners account for an average of 13% of all offenders arrested, although they make up 7% to 8% of the population at any one time.

In today's Singapore, any person who is willing to work would be able to find employment and earn enough for himself and his family. The criminals therefore commit crime not out of necessity but by choice. They are a far greater menace to society because they are motivated purely by greed and lust.

Police Response

The Police has responded to the crime situation primarily in two ways. The first is to get the active co-operation of the public to deter and prevent crime by adopting the community-oriented approach to policing. Various schemes to involve the community in crime prevention such as the Neighbourhood Watch Scheme, the Boys' Clubs and a close working relationship with grassroots organizations such as the CCCs and RCs have all been positive steps in this direction. The launching of the Neighbourhood Police Post system in June, 1983 has further advanced this approach to involve the community in crime prevention and to increase the degree of social involvement of the Police in the community. The second is to constantly upgrade Police professionalism and streamline police procedures and improve their capacity and effectiveness in detecting and solving of criminal cases.

Distrust in the Criminal Justice system

However, by itself, the community approach to policing is not enough to check the upward trend in crime. Police efforts to win public trust and confidence have to be more than just an exercise in public relations. The Police must be able to show tangible results of whatever public cooperation they are getting to sustain the trust and cooperation of the community. Today, there are many members of the public coming forward to offer information on criminals or criminal activities to the Police who still insist on remaining anonymous. This is an indication that our criminal justice system still does not enjoy the complete confidence of the public. The constraint that a suspect can only be hold without charge for 24 hours, for example, reduces the chances of securing the conviction of an offender who has been arrested. The generally lenient sentences meted out to criminals mean that, even if a criminal is convicted, he would not remain behind bars for long and may soon come back to be a menace to the community, especially to the person who reponed an him. In order that community policing would have its desired effect, we must not allow public cynicism to develop on the effectiveness of the Police to protect them just because of lenient sentences.

Lenient Sentences

Let me now illustrate what I mean by the generally lenient sentences meted out to criminals with actual examples.

The average sentences meted out for the individual categories of robberies and housebreakings are shown in Table 2 (Cols. 1959 - 1962) (Annex B), which has been distributed to Members. The Table shows clearly that a general downward trend prevails for each of these offences. The average sentence meted out to a robber in 1976 was 32.3 months. In 1983, on the average, a robber was sentenced to 14.9 months' imprisonment. The average sentence for a housebreaker in 1976 was 25 months. It dropped to only 9.4 months in 1983. For both robberies and housebreakings, the sentences on the average have gone down by more than half in the 8-year period. This downtrend prevails, in every major category of robbery and housebreaking regardless of the profile of the offenders, be they first offenders or repeat offenders, or offenders of one or two counts only or offenders of a series of such offences. This is shown in Table 2A (Cols. 1963 - 1966) (Annex B), which has also been distributed to Members. Similarly, the average sentence for motor vehicle thefts dropped from 5.8 months in 1976 to 1.8 months in 1983 while the average sentence for snatch thefts dropped from 17 months to 2.3 months. This is shown in Table 3 (Cols. 1967 - 1968) (Annex C), which has also been distributed to Members). In 1983, a robber actually received a lighter sentence on the average than a snatch thief would have got in 1976. Our study also indicates that statistically, there is a correlation between the average sentence meted out and the crime rate for these offences. They are almost inversely proportional to each other. Graphs A and B (Cols. 1971 - 1974) in Annex C (which has also been distributed to Members) show that the average sentences for robberies and housebreakings have generally been declining, while the crime rate for these offences has been rising. Other offences affected by the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill are not numerous enough for such analysis on sentences to be carried out meaningfully. However, the sentences imposed on offenders of these offences share one characteristic: they are generally inadequate. In fact for the offences of outraging of modesty, extortion, snatch thefts and vehicle thefts, the courts are generally averse to custodial sentences. Tables 2, 2A & 3 & Graphs A and B - AVERAGE SENTENCES FOR ROBBERY AND HOUSEBREAKING OFFENCES 1976 TO 1983, AVERAGE PRISON SENTENCES (IN MONTHS) 1976 TO 1983, AVERAGE SENTENCES FOR OUTRAGING OF MODESTY, SNATCH THEFT, MOTOR VEHICLE THEFT AND EXTORTION 1976 TO 1983, RATE OF COMMON ROBBERY AND AVERAGE SENTENCES IMPOSED ON ROBBERS (1976-1983), RATE OF HOUSEBREAKING AND THEFT AND AVERAGE SENTENCES IMPOSED ON HOUSEBREAKERS (1976-1983) (Cols. 1959 - 1974)

Consequences of Lenient Sentences

Punishment meted out by the courts to offenders serve two main purposes: It is a retribution on behalf of the community and the victim for the crime committed; it is also a deterrent against criminals and would-be criminals. In the context of the community approach to policing, it serves another purpose - that of assuring the community at large that the authority has the situation in hand and that members of the public who are willing to cooperate with the authority can do so without fear of reprisal from the criminals. For punishment to serve all these purposes, it has to hun the criminal where it matters most and it must be proportionate to the gravity of the offence. Unfortunately, the sentences meted out by our courts today appear neither to hurt the criminal nor are proportionate to the gravity of the offence. This is also the general view of the public. With our level of affluence today, a housebreaker or robber stands to gain very much more than before by his criminal activities. Police estimates show that in 1976 the average take per robbery case was $1,200 and for housebreaking $1,800. This went up to $4,000 and $4,600 respectively in 1983.

On the other hand, as shown earlier, these offences attracted far lower sentences in 1983 than in 1976. In fact, during this period there has been a steady decline in the sentences meted out to criminals. To a criminal, therefore, the risk now is much more worth taking than before. To a foreign criminal who will also be able to seek shelter in his own country after an offence, the temptation is almost irresistible. The message to foreign criminals must be: crime in Singapore does not pay.

Effects of Detention on Recidivism

A recent study of the rate of recidivism among prisoners indicates that offenders who serve shorter terms are more likely to relapse than those who have served a longer term of imprisonment. Table 4 (Cols. 1969 - 1970) (Annex D) which has also been distributed to Members shows that the relapse rate for offenders who served short terms of less than a year is 33.2%, compared to 27.9% for those who have served longer imprisonment. Table 4 - RELAPSE RATE BY LENGTH OF SENTENCE (Cols. 1969 - 1970)

Longer terms of imprisonment enable the offenders to benefit fully from the rehabilitation programme of the prisons. Within the prisons, work therapy, vocational training, educational pursuits and counselling form the main features of the rehabilitation programme. Nearly all inmates in our prisons who are eligible for work and training are so engaged. They are also paid for the work they do in prison and they put their money in a savings account with POSB. Those with aptitude for specialized work, such as electrical wiring and welding are selected to undergo recognized courses leading to the Certificate of Competency conducted by the VITB. Since the introduction of the VITB training scheme at the Reformative Training Centre in May 1982, a total of 107 inmates have undergone the training. 60 have since sat for the examination, with 38 passes or a success rate of 63%.

Therefore, longer detention does not mean languishing meaninglessly for a longer period in prison. It means that the Prisons Department will have a longer period and a better chance to rehabilitate the prisoners. For the prisoners, it means that they would be better equipped to return to society and have a better chance of not returning to crime. Our prisons have sufficient capacity and rehabilitation facilities to cater for the enhanced punishments provided by the Bill.

Need for Guidelines in Law on Sentencing

As the notable English Magistrate and Social Scientist, Lady Barbara Wootton, pointed out in her celebrated Hamlyn lecture on sentencing policy delivered in 1963, and I quote:

'in the first place, sentencing decisions are always of importance - often of overwhelming importance - to the individuals concerned, and in the aggregate they are highly important also to the whole community: yet they are frequently made in a very few moments. Second, although in many cases the court has a very wide discretion in its choice of sentence, there are no explicit rules as to how the discretion should be exercised, nor indeed any explicit principles determining the object of the whole exercise. Third, in many cues decisions as to sentences fall to be made by amateurs, in as much as the subject of penology has no place in the training of a judge. Fourth, sentences may be possed by persons who have no first-hand knowledge of what they imply.'

So in a way, inadequate sentences meted out by the courts are understandable. Where there is inadequate guidance in law on sentencing, the temptation to play for safety will be strong.

To redress the situation, we have chosen to ask Parliament, which reflects the general views of the people of Singapore, to stipulate a minimum sentence to be imposed by law for certain offences which have caused the most concern and alarm to the public. I must, however, stress that the very wide discretion of the courts in sentencing those convicted of these offences still remains. Precedence on the Use of Minimum Sentence

There is no lack of precedence for using the minimum sentence to combat crime. The Misuse of Drugs Act enacted in July 1973 is one of the most successful pieces of legislation in the world in the control of the misuse of drugs. Apart from the death penalty for drug traffickers trafficking illicit drugs above a certain amount, an important feature of the Act was to provide for minimum sentences for all types of drug trafficking offences and for repeat offenders for unauthorized possession of drugs. This piece of legislation, which has been successfully enforced for nearly 10 years, has contributed in no small measure to the control of the drug situation.

To cite an example from overseas, Japan has a Penal Code that provides for minimum sentences for certain categories of offences among which are the offences of arson, rioting, counterfeiting, forgery, robbery and rape. There are other quite comprehensive guidelines on sentencing in the Japanese Penal Cods, especially on habitual offenders and offenders convicted of multiple crime. And Japan is one of the most successful industrialized countries in crime control. The various features of its criminal justice system have contributed in no small measure to this success.

The Penal Code (Amendment) Bill proposes to impose minimum sentences for all classes of robbery, housebreaking and theft, vehicle theft, snatch theft, extortion, raps and outraging of modesty. Let me now deal with each offence affected by the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill in turn.

Clause 2: Outraging of Modesty

Clause 2 of the Amendment Bill seeks to provide for aggravated form of outraging of modesty to cover the cases in which hun, wrongful restraint or fear is caused to the victim. Table 1 (Annex A) shows that the number of cases of, outraging of modesty has increased from 205 in 1978 to 460 in 1983. Outraging of modesty ranges from a simple touch of the body to an act which would otherwise qualify as rape had there been penetration. The existing law does not differentiate the various degrees of severity of the acts involved in commining an outrage of modesty. The existing punishment carries only a maximum of two years' imprisonment or caning or fine, or any two of such punishments. It is thus necessary to introduce this section to cover a range of aggravated instances of outraging of modesty. The proposed section also provides for enhanced punishment for committing an outrage of modesty in a lift or against young girls. A lift being a closely confined cubicle makes the offence even more hideous because the victims have no choice but to succumb. An offence committed in a lift raises great alarm in the neighbourhood and causes severe psychological trauma to the victim.

Clause 3: Snatch Theft

Clause 3 of the Bill re-enacts section 356 of the Penal Code which provides for the offence of Snatch Theft. This section has seldom been used because the existing maximum punishment of imprisonment is only two years which is lower than the maximum punishment of three years provided by the general section on theft. The clause enhances punishment for snatch theft. It sets the minimum punishment at one year. The maximum will be seven years. A snatch theft differs from an ordinary theft in that the victim is usually aware of the crime at the necessary time of its commission. It is closer in character to robbery because in many cases it turns into a robbery when confrontation or hun takes place. The number of snatch theft cases has increased from 490 in 1978 to 1,057 in 1983, as shown in Table 1 (Annex A).

Clause 4: Rape

Rape is a particularly vicious offence because the victim suffers mental anguish and trauma which is not easily healed. Rape is particularly despicable when it involves the use of threat of violence and where the victim is a child of tender age. Clause 4 of the Amendment Bill seeks to provide for enhanced punishment for such categories of rape. It is recommended that the punishment be made a minimum sentence of eight years' imprisonment and a minimum of 12 strokes of the cane. Under the existing law, if the court will no impose life imprisonment, it may only imprison the offender for 10 years or less. In other words, the court may not impose a sentence between 10 and 20 years. Clause 4 now removes this gap.

Clauses 5, 17 and 18: Motor Vehicle Thefts

Clause 5 provides for enhanced punishment for theft of a motor vehicle or any component part of a motor vehicle. As already mentioned, the increase in the number of this offence has been particularly dramatic. Stolen motor vehicles are frequently used for committing robbery, housebreaking and snatch theft. Hell-riders have also been known to steal vehicles for their parts and for hell-riding. Clauses 17 and 18 further provide for enhanced punishment for dishonestly receiving or retaining stolen motor vehicle or stolen motor vehicle parts and assisting in the concealment of such stolen property.

Clauses 6 to 9: Extortion

Clauses 6 to 9 seek enhanced punishment for the offence of extortion even though the number of extortion cases has not shown any significant increase since 1977. However, it is anticipated that with the heavier punishment prescribed for robbery, the number of extortions would increase if the sentence is not enhanced as many criminals would commit extortion instead of robbery. This is because extortion is similar in nature to robbery except that while the victim of the robbery is put in threat of visible harm, the threat of harm facing the victim of an extortion is a deferred one.

Clauses 70 to 16: Robbery

Clauses 10 to 16 seek to enhance the punishment for all types of robbery. When mandatory caning for robbery was introduced in 1974, the number of robberies decreased dramatically in the following five years. Over the last few years, however, the number of robberies has steadily risen. This does not necessarily disprove the effectiveness of the punishment introduced in 1974. Although the number of robberies has increased, the increase has not been as high as for housebreaking and motor vehicle thefts. Although caning is still dreaded among the criminals, it is no longer thought to be unbearable. The fact that sentences meted out for robbery offences has been declining has further diminished the effectiveness of the enhanced punishment introduced in 1974. It is therefore necessary to enhance the punishment for the various categories of robbery offences not just by the imposition of a minimum sentence but also by increasing the number of strokes given to convicted robbers.

Clauses 19 to 25: Housebreaking

Clauses 19 to 25 seek to enhance the punishment for the offence of housebreaking and theft. Housebreaking is a sinister offence because apart from losing one's property, there is always the possibility of the victim encountering the criminal which might lead to injury, assault, rape or even death. Such encounters had, in fact, occurred in housebreaking incidents in the past. The chances for such an encounter are greater at night than during the day when the occupants are more likely to be away. Such intrusions into a person's home leave an indelible mark which frequently result in him treating his house as a fortress. The quality of life of a housebreaking victim thus suffers in consequence. Many housebreakers are professionals and repeat offenders for whom an ordinary term of imprisonment will not be a sufficient deterrent. Clause 23 seeks to impose caning on such offenders as an additional deterrent.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr S. Chandra Das (Chong Boon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to make a few comments on the Penal Code (Amendment) Bill. At the outset, let me say that I am no lawyer. I have no pecuniary interest in this subject. Let me also say that I am not against any legislation that aims to provide more deterrent penalties. Sir, this Bill is necessary and vital for the peace and prosperity of Singapore. All that we have built over the years will be lost if Singapore is not a safe place for its citizens. In fact, I feel, Sir, that in certain cases, ,the penalties should even be enhanced.

What worries me, Sir, is the provision of minimum sentences in this Amendment Bill. I believe that the traditional role of the courts is basically twofold, first, to determine whether the accused is guilty or innocent and, secondly, an equally important role, that of sentencing or deciding on the level of punishment.

Sir, I feel that the provision of minimum sentences will tend to erode the second function of the courts and I am not really convinced by the reasons given by the Hon. Minister as to why we should have minimum sentences. I quite understand the necessity of mandatory punishment or minimum sentences for offences involving kidnapping, drug trafficking, possession of arms or using of arms. But, Sir, for general offences of the land like snatch-theft or removing a hub-cap from a motorcar, a minimum sentence of one year appears to be rather draconian. Sir, the punishment must fit the crime and it must also fit the offender. The minimum sentence ruling here seems to be a deviation from this principle. I would like to offer two hypothetical cases to the Minister for consideration.

First, a school boy, 16 years old plus two days, is caught for snatch-theft. He is charged in court and found guilty. I am afraid in this case, if this amendment is accepted, the magistrate or judge has no choice but to sentence him for a minimum of one year. The second instance could be another 17 year-old school boy caught removing a hub-cap from a motor car and is similarly charged and found guilty. Again, he must go to prison for one year.

Sir, for these first-time offenders, this will be altogether too heavy a penalty, especially to be thrown in the company of hard-core criminals. I find this very difficult to accept. I am sure the Minister will inform us later that discretion will be used when prosecuting such cases. Sir, if discretion is to be applied, why is it necessary to have such minimum sentences in the first place?

Sir, if crime rates are going up and the punishment meted out is not sufficient, as properly indicated in the various tables issued by the Minister, the proper course of action for this House is really to enhance the maximum penalty and, in this way, show our displeasure to the courts that they are not giving out the right sentences. I am told, Sir, that has worked out satisfactorily in many other countries. Maybe the Minister may want to enlighten us on the experiences of enhancement of sentences in other countries.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is also stated that this Bill will not involve the Government in any additional financial expenditure. Prima facie this may be true. But in practice I believe that as a result of the enactment of this amendment, it will definitely cost the Government more to administer these provisions. First, I believe more will be sentenced to jail, our jails will be full, and maybe even more jails need to be built. Meanwhile maybe some could be housed in some of our unfilled hotel rooms and the hotel industry might welcome this.

Secondly, the workload of the courts will definitely be increased because most offenders will immediately claim trial rather than plead guilty because of this minimum sentencing ruling. I am told that in practice, a good proportion of those charged normally plead guilty. This definitely will involve additional use of the taxpayers' fund byway of more courts and legal officers, not to mention the fact that legal profession itself would be fully occupied as a result of this amendment. 3.05 pm

Mr J.B. Jeyaretnam (Anson): Mr Speaker, Sir, perhaps I should likewise, as the previous Member has, first of all, declare my interest, if it can be deemed to be interest. I am an advocate and solicitor and I have defended criminals in the courts. But I have no personal pecuniary interest in this matter.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the Minister has said in his speech, the object of the Bill, and I am not quarrelling with it, is to deter persons who may be inclined to take up a life of crime. As I have said, I am not quarrelling with that, and I think it is an important duty of the Government to make it not worth the while for persons to take up a life of crime. But, as has been said, in our system of government, Mr Speaker, Sir, the administration of justice and the enforcement of the law is left to the courts and sentencing is a very important part in the administration of justice.

It is not right that the Legislature should take on for itself this important duty in the administration of justice. The Legislature is there to provide the laws and their administration should be left to the courts. It should not be the Legislature's object to encroach on what is the courts' domain in this respect. As I have said, the administration of justice is the courts' function and sentencing is a very important part. In fact, it has been said, quite rightly, that sentencing is perhaps more difficult than determining whether a person is guilty or not.

The Minister referred to a lecture given by Lady Wootton way back in 1963. We are now in 1984, 21 years on. She referred to magistrates who had not had any instruction in penology or education. Of course, she was referring to the lay justices. But in Singapore we do not have lay justices. We have trained lawyers. We have come away from the time when we had lay magistrates on the Bench. Now all our magistrates, right down to the lowest magistrate, are trained lawyers, having gone through a course at the University or elsewhere to qualify themselves for entry into the Legal service. So I do not think we need Worry too much about what Lady Wootton said in 1963 about the Judiciary not being well informed about penology and other sociological subjects relating to the need to deter criminals.

Mr Speaker, Sir, this Bill, besides enhancing the punishment, takes away the discretion that is, as has been said and I say it again, traditionally vested in the courts. It is, may I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, wrong to generalize about sentences because no two offences are committed in exactly the same way and no two offenders are ever the same. There are a variety of ways and a variety of individuals and, as has been said, the sentence must not only fit the crime but must fit the offender. So it is dangerous to generalize.

This Bill, which now asks the Legislature to fix minimum sentences for a number of offences, would suggest that we have no confidence in our courts and, I think, regrettably, that would be a wrong interpretation that we may give to the public. We should affirm our confidence in our courts to administer justice according to the needs of the society as they see it, and I am sure our courts are aware and alive to the needs of the society and the dangers to the society. We must not pretend that the Courts are not aware of that and only the Legislature alone is aware of it. The courts are, as I have said, one of the organs of government.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would be happier if there was a provision in this Bill which still gave the courts the power, the discretion, .not to pass the minimum sentence provided by the Legislature in any case where the court thought it fit, where the court considered that the minimum sentence was perhaps too excessive in the case of the particular offender or in the case of the offence which he is found to have commined. That might be a saving and I would ask the Minister to consider that because, as I said, you cannot generalize about sentencing and say "all and sundry" regardless of the age of the person, the circumstances in which the offence was committed and his temperamental background should receive the same punishment. He might have something wrong with him - temperamentally, psychologically. It is wrong to generalize and to say that a uniform sentence must be passed on all and sundry who is found to have committed the offence. I would ask the Minister to consider whether he would agree to include such a provision in this Bill now, giving the courts still the discretion in cases where they find it necessary not to impose the minimum sentence and, if necessary, requiring them to state the reasons. And if the Public Prosecutor is not satisfied with that, he can still take it up to a higher court. In this way, you bring the courts into the administration of justice and allow them to discharge their role and recognize their importance and their part in the administration of justice.

May I just refer to a matter that was raised by the last speaker, Sir? I do not want to usurp the Minister's reply to that. He was talking about youths of 16 and 17 years. We have the Probation of Offenders Act and I hope it is not the intention of the Government to take away the power of the courts to use the Probation of Offenders Act even where minimum sentences are provided by law. Because at the moment the courts can still resort to the Probation of Offenders Act and put an offender on probation where his age and the offence require it.

Mr Ng Kah Ting (Punggol): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in full support of the amendment Bill moved by the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs. First, at the outset, may I say that I am no lawyer, neither am I a student of law. But I cannot agree with the Member for Anson for what he has said pertaining to the right of Parliament to prescribe the necessary laws for the Judiciary to act upon.

The Legislature must in the interests of the people and the country prescribe the necessary forms of punishment for the gravity of crimes com mined in which the Judiciary would then decide. Until proven guilty, a person is innocent and when he is found guilty for whatever offences, this amendment is most timely and I give it my full support.

The mere fact that we have offences defined and very aptly described in the various Tables which I had the opportunity to take a cursory look, and then a serious look, frightens me, Sir. The sentences are inadequate. From the year 1978 to 1983 every type of offence that has been committed shows an increase. Please bear in mind that today we have more than 70% of our population living in high-rise buildings, in HDB flats, with no lift attendants. I am very alarmed, Sir, for example, in the case of outrage of modesty, 1978 to 1983, over a span of five years, it increased by more than 100%, from 205 to 460. Snatch thefts rose from 490 to 1,057. So I repeat, the mere fact that we have the offences defined by an Act of Parliament which also provides for punishment means that these are matters in which Parliament must lay down the policy for the courts. I grant that the Judiciary is independent of Parliament in this respect and it is with due respect that I make these remarks.

The determination of guilt or innocence of an accused person rests in the hands of the Judiciary. This is only a matter of sentences. So I have nothing to quarrel about. But I am very concerned, Sir, with Annex B of Table 2. One has only got to take a look at the average sentence, say, for robbery. On the one hand, the maximum prison sentence in law for robbery is 10 years; armed robbery also 10 years. But from 1976 to 1983, the average sentence for robbery is 32.3 months. And the proposed minimum prison sentence is two years. If committed between 7 pm and 7 am, it is three years. I think it is too lenient. We must rid the society of this menace and make a more deterrent sentence. I may be wrong. I stand corrected. When these criminals are sentenced, the Hon. Minister just now made mention that they undergo a period of corrective training or rehabilitation. But I take it that they would not serve the full sentence of two or three years if they behave well in prison. If that is the case, I would insist that if a person is sentenced to three years, he should serve three years and not be let off after 18 months for good conduct. And this is reflected, Mr Speaker, Sir, in Table 4, Annex D. Recidivism or the Relapse Rate by Length of Sentence. For the short-term - it is below 6 months and 6-12 months - the relapse rate is 33.2%. For the long-term - 1-10 years and above, 27.9%. In simple arithmetic, hon. Members of the House, the relapse rate is much too high.

I share the sentiments expressed by my good friend, the hon. Member for Chong Boon, when he posed the question on the explanatory note governing the expenditure of public money. It says:

This Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure.'

I have my doubts, Sir. Can the Hon. Minister clearly indicate that with the passing of the amendment Bill, will it not incur the Government in any extra financial expenditure? If it does, how much will it involve? Will there be a need to set up more prisons? With due respect, Sir, this will have to be the case. I hope the Hon. Minister will take note. If it is necessary, we will have to come back again to Parliament to further amend the Penal Code so that Singapore can be a more peaceful place to live in.

We have more than 2 1/2 million tourists coming here. We have got people all over the place looking at Singapore. We have got so many people living in high-rise buildings and they make use of lifts with no lift attendants. I am quite sure the Police Force numbering, I suppose, less than 10,000 cannot be everywhere doing vertical policing, horizontal policing, on the beat, Koban footpatrol or radio patrol. The number will be hardly sufficient. So what else? Use the big stick.

I fully subscribe to what the Minister says. Crime does not pay and it must be seen that crime does not pay. For example, some years back when we were debating on the misuse of drugs when we introduced capital punishment, some so-called liberal Westernized countries said that Singapore was very harsh. We pressed on. A few got hanged. I think Singapore is no more a place for drug traffickers because they know that it does not pay. When caught, their life is gone. Even that, it took us some while. I raised this matter before, Mr Speaker, Sir, asking the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs how many have been convicted and how many have been hanged. He explained to this House that it took a few years: because our legal system is hinged to the British legal system. There are avenues of appeal and that is where I suppose, without casting aspersions, Sir, and with due respect to members of the legal profession, they make good money because appeals one after another means more money for them. But are we here to discuss a serious business? We have got a problem in hand. Do we go about tackling this business in the right way? We must not be emotional. He said, "Look, we are tampering with the courts." I do not see anything wrong. Parliament is supreme and Parliament has the right to lay down the necessary prescription if it cures.

On that note, Sir, I thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I would like to thank the Member for Punggol for his very ardent support of the Bill, particularly his sentiments regarding criminals and how they should be dealt with.

Also, I would like to thank the Member for Chong Boon for his support. But may I also answer the queries that he has raised which are very relevant and which I should give an explanation.

He mentioned the case of a person who is 16 years old who has been arrested and convicted for snatch theft, the minimum sentence that he would receive would be one year. He also mentioned the case of another boy 17 years old who stole a hub-cap and been convicted, he also will receive at least one year's jail. May I say, first of all, when the AG's Chambers prosecute the cases, not only will they determine whether there is a prima facie case to prosecute but also they look into other circumstances, that is under what circumstances the person has committed the, offence, the age of the person. It is within the discretion of the AG's Chambers to prosecute the person under the appropriate section of the Penal Code. If they do not think that in the case of the boy who is a first offender who has only stolen a hub-cap out of mischief and not as a person who is a member of a syndicate to steal vehicles from Singapore and dismantle them and send them to other countries for sale, then that is a different situation. In the first case, most probably he can be charged for simple theft and not under this new amendment that is before the House. On the other hand, the new amendment is primarily to deal with syndicates and hard-core criminals who commit theft of motorcars and other types of motor vehicles like motor cycles, and they must be dealt with severely. So there is the safeguard that persons who commit such an offence because of youthfulness and so on will not be given a sentence which is mainly aimed at hard-core second offenders and those who are involved in such a syndicate.

As far as the snatch theft is concerned, there again, as I have explained, a snatch theft may appear to be a simple offence but, in fact, if a snatch theft involves injury or hun to the victim, it amounts to a robbery. That is the sort of circumstance in which we are aiming at to use this amendment. There again, if the circumstances merit it, the Attorney-General's Chambers have got the discretion to decide under what section the person is to be charged.

And also, before I could answer you on another point, the Member for Anson has been helpful in trying to answer for me. He mentioned the Probation of Offenders Act which allows the Magistrate the discretion with regard to young people aged 16 and below.

Mr Jeyaretnam: 21.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: And also those above 16 years old - he has such a discretion. But that is the existing law. I cannot say in the future whether we have to amend that law. I think it will depend on how this present legislation operates. If it operates well, that will be sufficient because the objective, as everybody agrees, is to deter criminals. From the tons of the Member for Anson, I think he also accepts the point that we must deter criminals.

Let me now turn to the Member for Anson. He was making a lot of play on the taking away of the fundamental principles of giving the courts discretion in sentencing. This is only a minimum sentence. There still remains a very wide discretion on the part of the courts to determine the appropriate sentence. But what we are doing here is just to provide certain guidelines which Parliament, as the legislative body representing the people of Singapore, has a duty if it thinks fit to provide such guidelines. And that in no way interferes with the administration of justice.

May I say that this has been done before under the Arms Offences Act. The provision of mandatory caning with regard to robbery has been in force for more than six, seven or eight years, and minimum sentences have also been provided under the Misuse of Drugs Act. So this is not something new. We have introduced this minimum sentence and it has proved effective, and we think that Parliament should enlarge the scope to other offences where the public regards that it should be done. This does not in any way take away the vast discretion of the courts in sentencing a person.

May I say that Singapore is not the only country that has introduced the minimum sentence. As I have explained in my address earlier, the Japanese also have done the same thing. I think we should not just look into precedents from members of the Commonwealth only; we do look into their practice. At the same time I think we should widen our horizon and look to other countries besides the Commonwealth. And Japan is a good example. They have practised such a system of minimum sentence and they have succeeded in being one of the developed countries with the lowest crime rate.

With regard to the point made by the Member for Chong Boon about specifying maximum penalties, I do not think we can take that seriously. If the Member for Chong Boon reads the Tables (unfortunately I think he might not have the time to look into the Tables carefully), he will find that the actual average sentences of these offences are very much far below the maximum sentence. So if you up the maximum sentence, I wonder whether it can work at all or not because some of the maximum sentences is about seven years and the actual sentence is about 27 months. So you can up it to 10 years, maybe proportionately it may go up to another three months, six months. Is that what we want?

The Member for Anson said Lady Barbara Wootton's lecture was with regard to lay justices. I think he is wrong. It covers all the magistracy in the UK. It does not only refer to lay justices.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Most of it is lay.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Whether most of it is lay or not, it is not true that she refers only to lay justices. She refers to the whole of the subordinate courts in the United Kingdom.

Mr Jeyaretnam: There is no such thing as subordinate courts there.

Mr Chua Sian Chin: Magistrate's courts, or whatever it is, I do not want to quarrel with him on the terminology. That will be wasting the time of the Members.

The other thing is that by laying down these minimum sentences we do not in any way indicate that we lack confidence in our courts to administer proper justice. What we are doing, as I said, it provides certain guidelines.

With regard to the point about the statement in the Bill which says, "This Bill will not involve the Government in any extra financial expenditure", I think that is a technical matter. It is good for making a debating point but, as you know, every measure that the Government makes will eventually involve Government expenditure. Even the printing of this Bill involves Government expenditure. So I do not think I need to elaborate further.

But I would like to emphasize again that whatever Government expenditure is incurred in this respect will be worthwhile. As I have said, with longer term imprisonment, they get better opportunities for rehabilitation. And if our rate of recidivism goes down, and more of the offenders are well rehabilitated, then I think the saving will be very enormous, not only on the part of Prisons but also on money having to be expended to maintain law enforcement agencies and also on the economy of Singapore. It can be quite disastrous if we have a crime-ridden Singapore.

Question put, and agreed to.

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 Chua Sian Chin].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.