PLIGHT OF CONVICTED PERSONS AFTER HAVING SERVED SENTENCES

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have claimed the right to speak on the Adjournment in order that I may bring into this House a cry for help that I get from time to time. But, first of all, may I assure you, Mr Deputy Speaker and Members, that this is not an appeal on behalf of myself or a cry for help from me because I would be thought to come into this category.

I am, of course, speaking on behalf of persons who have been convicted in the courts and served their sentences and then released. And I am speaking of the difficulties and problems that they encounter in our society after their release. Before I speak of their particular problems, may I say, Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, without attempting to deliver a long lecture on this, that rehabilitation of the offender into the society is the main object or, if that is not accepted, one of the main objects of an enlightened penal policy, quite apart from deterrent and other objects. It must be the rehabilitation of the offender back into the society. And the rehabilitation of the offender is best achieved by the offender made to feel that he is accepted as a member of the society and that he is not disbarred for life from any right or privilege that other members of the society may enjoy. After all, he has paid the penalty, the price, for his wrongdoing. And upon payment of that price or penalty, he should be accepted. To try and continue to deprive him would be continuing the punishment and would be completely unjust and harsh.

I asked the Minister for Home Affairs a Question for Written Answer on the 31st October 1985, and his answer was:

'The Government does not as a rule exclude persons with previous convictions from seeking employment in the Civil Service or Statutory Boards. Generally, an enlightened policy is adopted towards convicted persons who apply for jobs in the public sector. Each case will be considered on its own merit. The seriousness and nature of the offence as well as evidence of rehabilitation and likelihood of recidivism and the nature of the job applied for need to be considered.' That as a statement of principle is perfectly acceptable. But it does not do enough for this class of persons. I do not know what the number is and it would be useful if we could have some idea (I don't suppose we will get it this evening) of the number of persons who are in this category. The answer given to that question seems to adopt or take a negative line - We do not as a rule exclude persons from seeking employment in the Civil Service or Statutory Boards.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I have had people coming to see me who want to make amends, who want to get back into the society and who find themselves completely shut out at every effort they make to get back into the society. The only way they can get back into the society is if they can find gainful employment. I have had people who say that the moment they apply, they are told they would be considered and then later on they are told, "We can't take you on because of your previous convictions." It does not matter how many years past, these previous convictions were sustained. And so the man is under a lifelong disability, it would appear, from ever seeking any employment.

I think it is to this that we must address ourselves and see whether it is right, and whether we should now take some positive steps to see that these persons are rehabilitated and accepted into the society. I do not know what the policy is. But perhaps the Minister can tell us, or whoever is replying to this, as to whether previous convictions are now released to every enquiry from a prospective employer. I can well understand that persons who are to be employed as cashiers or to have custody of money should not be persons who have previously had two or three convictions for embezzlement. But I cannot see why they cannot be employed in other occupations. So I would like to know whether the previous convictions of offenders are made known readily to all and sundry.

Secondly, I wonder whether the Ministry would consider, even in cases where they are made known, whether this should be limited to a period of time for a few years, say, where the persons have been convicted within the three years preceding the enquiry and not disclosing any offences where the person had kept away from crime, had proved himself to have taken the necessary steps to keep away from crime for three years or more. It would be sort of, as it were, he has undergone a probationary period after his release and has shown himself to be able to resist any propensity to crime. I would ask the Minister to consider this because some of them have told me that although they have been out of the courts and the prisons for three to five years, the convictions sustained by them 10 years earlier or eight years earlier are still held against them.

I would also ask whether the Ministry would consider advising statutory boards and the Government to extend some positive help to these people by going out of their way to employ them, particularly where they have been out of employment for a number of years. I say they need help and they are crying out for help and they say they are not getting it. They are, may I say, still members of the society and they are entitled to some respect and consideration even though they may have gone astray in time past.

There is also the question that I wish to ask, and that is, the fact of the identity card numbers of certain persons who have been convicted of, perhaps, the graver offences, crimes, being altered by the addition of another number onto it. I am told that where a person has been convicted of certain scheduled offences, upon his release another number is added on to his identity card number. I have asked the Commissioner for Registration of Persons for the legislative authority for this and he was unable to help me. Perhaps I have not been very fair to him because I only rang him up this morning. And at one o'clock when I went back, he was still unable to help me with this. So perhaps the Minister could tell us about this legislative authority whereby persons who are released are given a different identity card numbering which immediately identifies them as criminals or persons with past records. The Commissioner for Registration did not seem to be aware of it.

Quite apart from employment, Sir, I have had two instances of persons applying for licences. They have been told that they cannot get their licences. These two instances relate to licences for driving public service vehicles. I had a man who came to see me in May last year. He was a taxi-driver for some years. Then he was convicted by a court and fined $1,000. I believe the offence was because he had attacked a woman passenger in his taxi. Then his taxi licence was immediately revoked by the Registry of Vehicles and the man was thrown out of a livelihood. He says, subsequently he applied to the Singapore Bus Services to be taken on as a bus driver. The company was prepared to take him as a bus driver but when the application was made to the Registry of Vehicles for a vocational driver's licence to enable him to drive a bus with the Singapore Bus Services, that was denied him. So the man has been without a job now, since 1984. I wrote on his behalf on the 8th May to the Registrar of Vehicles and I have not, to this date, received any reply from the Registrar of Vehicles. He came to see me only on the 17th of this month again, and he is desperate. He says, "All that I can do is to drive. I can drive a taxi or a bus but I can't get a job." And to make matters worse for him, the Housing and Development Board has slapped a notice on him saying that he owes the Board something like $2,586 in arrears for instalments due on the flat and threatening to acquire the flat for non-payment of the instalments under section 48. So there you have a human situation, of a man who did not go to prison but who was just fined $1,000 and now completely deprived of any livelihood or of the livelihood that he knows. He cannot be employed as a bus driver. I, really for the life of me, cannot see why he cannot be employed as a bus driver, if it is felt that he cannot be a taxi driver because he might be left with a passenger alone in the taxi.

I have another case and this time of a man who applied for a taxi driver vocational licence. He has a very casual job at the moment and he wishes to drive a taxi and I think he has a job available. But he again applied to the Registrar of Vehicles for a taxi driver vocational licence and he has been refused. Because he tells me that he was charged and probably convicted, I think, in court in 1979. I wrote to the Registrar of Vehicles and I had a reply in this case, and the reply is, "He does not have a clean record, therefore we cannot give him a licence."

It is these sort of cases, I think, which show the complete harshness of the rule. As I said, if they have been made to pay the penalty or the price and they have paid it, then they should be accepted into the society again. They may not be accepted into responsible positions but at least they should be accepted back into society, into positions of employment, so that they can lead a useful life. If we still continue to deprive them of any gainful employment, the answer surely must be that we are driving them back into crime. I hope the Ministry takes notice of that.

Thank you, Sir.

The Acting Minister for Community Development (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, the Member for Anson raises this question of the plight of people who have served sentences. He has raised this question, in fact, a number of times over the years in Parliament and he has been given the answers. It shows that he is still not satisfied with the answers. He said at the beginning that he has no personal interest in what he is raising today despite the sentence that he has to serve if his appeal fails at the end of next month.

I am glad he also said that an enlightened government should have rehabilitation as its main feature in its penal policy. Sir, this is indeed what the Government is doing. Imprisonment of an offender is not something invented by Singapore. It is a practice as old as the hills. But imprisonment has two purposes, incarceration of an offender and rehabilitation. I will show how much effort the Government spends in rehabilitating a prisoner, and in helping, counselling, assisting him, after he has been discharged from prison. And I will also show that society generally does not have prejudice against such people unless, of course, these people repeatedly commit crimes.

My Ministry has a Prison Welfare Service. The Prison Welfare Service takes care of prisoners, long-term prisoners as well as those under statutory supervision like young offenders and habitual offenders. The Ministry of Home Affairs takes care of the criminal law detainees and drug offenders through the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) and the Central Narcotics Bureau's job placement unit. And there are also a number of voluntary organizations, for example, the Singapore After-Care Association (SACA), helping in the rehabilitative effort of the ex-prisoners. SACA will visit the prisoner one or two months before his release. The Prison Welfare Officer deals with the prisoner the moment he is in and if he falls into the category of prisoners to be serviced by the Prison Welfare Service.

While in prison, the Prison Department through SCORE provides skills training, vocational training and academic training to those who can benefit from such training. Everything possible is done to make the prisoner's reintegration into society easy after his release. Just as an example, SCORE provides vocational training and work programmes, including VITB approved training courses in electrical wiring, general welding, industrial training in furniture, metal, electronic products, bakery, cane products, laundry, tailoring and printing. Those who do not take up vocational training but have an inclination for academic studies attend classes leading to the 'O' level examinations.

For the prisoners under the criminal law category as well as those who are serving short-term sentences of six months or less, or those with long-term sentences but have six months more to serve, will take part in day-release schemes where they go out and work, receive pay like any other worker, so that they can eventually reintegrate into society when they are released. All these activities prepare them for acceptance into society.

Except for the special category of prisoners, the young and habitual offenders, after-care for the other kinds of discharged prisoners is voluntary. It depends very much on the willingness of the prisoner to receive help and to seek assistance from the Prison Welfare Service. But not all of them take advantage of this because some want to shed off their past and have nothing more to do with official attention. Others are capable of looking after themselves and getting into the mainstream of society. Still others would like to enjoy the flush of freedom which is set upon them and they do not seek help until they are in trouble again.

For those who do not come to the Community Development Ministry or the Home Affairs Ministry for help, they can still go to the Labour Ministry which does not distinguish whether or not a person has a prison record before it offers help.

Let me give some examples and statistics on how discharged prisoners fare under the care of the Prison Welfare Service. As at 31st August, there are 412 discharged prisoners. These are the voluntary cases who come to us for help. We found that 56% of them are working, gainfully employed; 25% of them are not employed because they were just recently released from prison or they have recently ceased employment; 1% could not be employed because they are disabled or because they are studying; and 5% are doing national service. We do not know what happened to the remaining 14% because they did not follow up with us.

Of the other category of prisoners under statutory supervision, these are the young offenders and the habitual offenders, we have 148 of them on our record. Of these, as at 31st August, 55% of them are working, 22% studying, 5% in national service, only 7.6% unemployed because they have been released recently or awaiting placement. The last 11% was suspended from supervision because they have breached the supervision rules.

So you see the Government has taken on the rehabilitative efforts of the prisoners and spends a great deal of effort in them. Altogether, there are about 100 full-time staff employed by the Home Affairs and Community Development Ministries as well as SCORE in helping these prisoners and discharged prisoners. There are also more than 1,000 voluntary after-care officers helping these people to readjust into society.

What about the Government jobs, the Member asked? Well, the answer has already been given by the Minister for Home Affairs as well as the Minister for Finance on previous occasions, ie, that it depends on the individual merit of the discharged prisoner. As you know, jobs in the civil service require integrity and honesty. But some jobs are open to people with prison records and it is up to the Permanent Secretary to decide, especially if they are the lower division jobs. When it comes to senior positions where officers have access to sensitive information, naturally the public service would be a bit more careful.

The Member also said that taxi drivers are not allowed to drive if they have committed an offence and he quoted the example of a resident of his who has a record of molesting a woman passenger.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Not my resident. Somebody else's.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Do we not know the seriousness of an offence like this, of a taxi driver alone in his vehicle and has a female passenger in the vehicle all by herself, not being able to defend herself if she is offended or molested by the taxi driver? Surely we want to protect our public from such people. I think, when weighing the individual rights of a person with criminal records in seeking public appointments or in this kind of public service jobs, we need to take into account the wider interest of the public. We must protect the interest of the public. This person claims that he can only drive a bus or a taxi. But I am sure with a pair of hands, he can do many things as well in addition to just driving. So if he wants to work, I am sure he should have no difficulty in finding employment.

There are also other categories of jobs which should not be open to people with convictions for serious offences, eg, in security agencies. Security agencies' staff are employed by their clients to look after property or sometimes even life. For a person who has been convicted of a serious offence, do we want to place the public's interest, the client's interest, in his hands if he has such a record? I think we must ask ourselves: whose interest should we protect? The wider interest of the public or one person's interest? 5.30 pm

The Question having been proposed at Five o'clock pm and the Debate having continued for half an hour, Mr Deputy Speaker adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned accordingly at Half-past Five o'clock pm to a date to be fixed. Annex - INVOLVEMENT OF SENIOR CITIZENS IN ACTIVITIES BY PERCENTAGE (Cols. 743 - 744)