PROBATION OF OFFENDERS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State for Community Development (Dr Seet Ai Mee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Bill seeks to amend the Probation of Offenders Act to reduce the minimum period of probation from one year to six months and to increase the fine for failure to comply with a probation order from $100 to $500.

For certain offenders, particularly those with no previous delinquent traits and who commit minor offences, a minimum one-year period probation is too long. Experience shows that offenders, particularly young offenders, who come from relatively stable homes and who have had good school or employment records, only need a shake-up. Such offenders would benefit more from short concentrated rehabilitation work within the first six months of their probation order. The fine for failure to comply with conditions of a probation order was set at $100 in 1951. It is too low a sum to be a deterrent in present day circumstances.

The Bill also seeks to delete section 5(5) of the Act which requires the Government to appoint as Probation Officer the person responsible for the supervision of the probationer. For many years, this section has been a dead letter because of frequent changeover of staff due to resignation or transfer. The courts and the Probation Service have grown over the years and the Magistrates and Judges cannot be expected to know the Probation Officers intimately. It will suffice for the offenders to be placed under probation supervision. There is no need for the courts to name the officer who should be responsible for the supervision.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Dr S. Vasoo (Tiong Bahru GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill.

I see that the amendments are minor in nature but they are good steps undertaken to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders. The provisions provide the flexibility for the monitoring of the offenders. At the same time, it reduces the workload of the department and it provides opportunities for offenders to be motivated to bring about change. While all these are good in terms of rehabilitation, the success of the scheme will depend on whether there are effective criteria and monitoring system which could be established. I am wondering whether the Ministry has, in the course of its work been able to assess the effectivenss of shorter periods of supervision, and what does it propose in future in terms of evaluating the impact of such a scheme with regard to rehabilitation of offenders. I think these issues are crucial in the sense that unless we develop an effective mechanism to monitor the success of the scheme, we will not be able to assess its impact. So I would be obliged if the Minister of State will respond to these few queries.

Dr Seet Ai Mee: Mr Speaker, Sir, if I read the Member for Tiong Bahru GRC correctly, he is not objecting to the reduction of the terms but he is worried that rehabilitation process should be closely monitored. I did not quite get what he meant by that aspect of it.

Dr Vasoo: I would, firstly, like to seek clarifications as to whether the Ministry has in fact undertaken some studies earlier to see that shorter periods of supervision have produced results, as such it has proposed this amendment. Secondly, I would like to know whether the implementation of this scheme will be closely monitored, to see whether such a scheme is useful to help the offender.

Dr Seet Ai Mee: Mr Speaker, Sir, the Bill just provides the court with an attractive method dealing with an offender who might otherwise have to be committed to a penal of corrective institution. Not all offenders are eligible for probation, whether it is for a minimum of six months or a maximum period of 36 months. So there is still provision for the bad offenders to be under probation for 36 months. Because this Bill has not been implemented, we of course cannot give him a report on whether there has been any success in that area of rehabilitation within six months. However, the Ministry has made studies and followed up cases of rehabilitation after the period of 12 to 36 months. Two studies were undertaken by the Ministry to measure these long-term after-conduct effects. They showed that in the case of adult probationers, nearly 55% steered clear of the law five to seven years after they are discharged. And for juvenile probationers, 58% steered clear of the law. This is an indication that there is a good degree of success after probation. But I would take note of his request, and after this is instituted, we will follow up cases who have been on six months' probation and see if the degree of success matches this or betters the percentages we have obtained with those under the old Bill.

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. - [Dr Seet Ai Mee.]

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