PRISONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Order for Second Reading read. 4.18 pm

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

The Prisons Act was last amended in 1997. Further amendments to the Prisons Act are now necessary to enhance the effectiveness of our Prisons Service and offer our penal population with more rehabilitation opportunities.

Community-Based Sentences

I shall first cover the main set of amendments, which are related to the introduction of Tail-End Home Detention for penal inmates.

In 1998, I asked my Minister of State to chair an Inter-Ministry Committee to examine the feasibility of introducing Community-Based Sentences into our criminal justice system. Among its recommendations are the extension of the use of Probation to adult offenders, and the introduction of Tail-End Home Detention, Boot Camp, Community Service Orders and Re-integrative Shaming.

My Ministry is mindful that the use of Community-Based Sentences must neither compromise the objectives of our penal regime, nor give the victim or the public the impression that our system is becoming lenient towards perpetrators of crimes. Tough penalties would continue to be meted out to deserving offenders. Community-Based Sentences complement, not replace, the traditional forms of punishment of imprisonment, caning and fines.

There is scope, however, in Singapore's criminal justice system for lighter sentencing options with a greater rehabilitative element for those who commit relatively minor offences, and first-time offenders. This is especially so if there are mitigating circumstances. That is why we are amending the Prisons Act to provide for the Tail-End Home Detention Scheme.

Tail-End Home Detention for Penal Inmates

Tail-End Home Detention is not new. Home Detention has been implemented at the tail-end of the detention period for drug inmates and Criminal Law Detainees as well as Reformative trainees released onto statutory supervision. Countries like the United Kingdom, Sweden and Australia have successfully implemented Home Detention. It serves as an avenue for the earlier release of prisoners who are most amenable to rehabilitation. Its implementation serves a number of purposes.

Firstly, allowing the offender to be closer to his family and the community will help him to better reintegrate into society after incarceration. The deterrent element is still retained as offenders will be subjected to restrictions and surveillance via electronic tagging. Secondly, as this scheme allows offenders to remain in the community, it keeps the families intact and allows offenders to be gainfully employed. Reaction to our announcement of the Scheme, especially those from families of offenders, has been positive.

Clause 10 of the Bill introduces a new Part IVA in the Prisons Act to provide for the Tail-end Home Detention Scheme. The Scheme will allow selected offenders serving jail terms of six months and above to be released early on home detention up to a maximum of six months. These offenders must have served at least half of their imprisonment term before they become eligible.

The selection of eligible inmates will be based on a stringent set of criteria. Only offenders who are assessed to be least likely to pose a risk to society will be considered for the Scheme. Prisoners serving life imprisonment, offenders of serious or violent crimes, and drug and sexual offenders will not be eligible. Clause 24 of the Bill provides for a new Schedule which lists the type of ineligible offenders. In addition, eligible offenders will go through rigorous assessments to determine their suitability for emplacement onto the Scheme. These assessments will be conducted by the internal Prison committees as well as an independent Advisory Committee, made up of distinguished members of the community. The conduct, attitude and response to rehabilitation and the risk factors of eligible offenders will be scrutinised.

Under Home Detention, offenders will be released on licence to reside at home under strict regulatory control, which includes mandatory reporting to the authorities for counselling and stipulated curfew hours of 10 pm to 7 am, which will be monitored via electronic tagging. Offenders are also required to be gainfully employed or involved in academic pursuits. Those who violate these conditions are liable to be recalled to prison while the breach is being investigated. Those found guilty of breach will be adjudicated and punished, and have their release orders revoked.

Outsourcing of Prisons Escort Functions

I shall now move on to the proposed outsourcing of Prisons escort functions and the consequential extension of the necessary powers to commercial security agencies.

Currently, armed prison officers escort and guard inmates during trips outside prisons and drug institutions. Such outside escort duties include hospital and security ward duty, escort for court attendance and inter-institutional prisoner transfer. Outsourcing the escorting of low-risk prisoners to a commercial security agency will free trained prison officers to take on more sensitive and higher value frontline operational duties such as the management and rehabilitation of inmates. Prison officers will however continue to escort high-risk prisoners. Clause 7 of the Amendment Bill introduces a new section in the Prisons Act to empower the Director of Prisons to employ auxiliary police officers to serve as escorts and guards while the prisoners are transported to, or from, any prison. It also defines the powers given to such auxiliary police officers. Prisons Department will take measures to ensure that the auxiliary police officers meet strict security standards.

Even with the outsourcing, Prisons will continue to be accountable for the safe custody of inmates both within and outside prisons and drug institutions.

Appointment of Committees of Inquiry

The Prisons Act will also be amended to allow the Minister for Home Affairs to appoint Committees of Inquiry to investigate into the death of any prisoner or look into any other matters pertaining to the administration of prisons. Clause 4 of the Bill introduces a new section 7 which empowers the Minister to appoint such Committees. Among other things, these committees will be empowered to summon witnesses and to refer witnesses who lie or misconduct themselves to the magistrates' court for prosecution.

Use of Weapons Against Persons Facilitating an Escape

While the current Prisons Act empowers our Prison authorities to use weapons against prisoners who are escaping or attempting to escape, it does not cover situations where other persons are involved in facilitating an escape. Clause 6 of the Bill amends the Prisons Act to empower Prison officers to use weapons against any prisoner or person who attempts or facilitates an attempt to escape or attempts to damage or break open the enclosure of a prison or a prison vehicle.

Removing Prisons Visit Privileges of Members of Cabinet or Parliament

Let me next turn to the proposal to remove the Prisons visit privileges of Members of Cabinet and Parliament.

Currently, besides members of the Cabinet and Members of Parliament, the Prisons Act already empowers every Judge, Magistrate or Justice of the Peace, to visit any prison to examine the conditions of the prison and the inmates. Visiting Justices are Justices of the Peace who have been appointed for the specific purpose of checking on the conditions of a prison and that of the prisoners on a regular basis. They forward their observations to the Prisons Authorities and to the Minister. As distinguished private citizens, they provide a valuable service in presenting reliable and balanced feedback on the state of our prisons. The Visiting Justices conduct monthly visits to all Prison institutions to inspect the physical conditions of prisons and to hear feedback from prisoners during such inspection rounds. The roles of the Visiting Justices are clearly spelt out in the Prisons Regulations.

As there already exists an adequate check by neutral parties on the Prison authorities, the current provision for Members of Parliament and members of the Cabinet is hence not necessary. Malaysia removed its provisions relating to MP's visits from their new Prisons Act enacted in 1995. The United Kingdom and Hong Kong Prisons laws do not have such a provision. Hence, my Ministry is proposing that the provision be deleted from the Prisons Act. Clause 22 of the Bill seeks to do this.

Let me assure the House that prisoners are not left without any avenues to express any grievances they may have. In addition to voicing their concerns to the Visiting Justices, they can also forward any complaints or requests to the Superintendent of their institution or write directly to the Director of Prisons. They are also free to let their family members know of their grievances during prison visits. Their family members may then take the matter up with the Prison authorities, who will investigate into every complaint received.

Other Amendments

In addition, the Bill also proposes various amendments that are essential to facilitate the management of the penal population and to allow the Prisons Department to operate more effectively. For example, clause 18(c) of the Bill regularises the existing practice that, before the offender is punished for any major breach of prison discipline, the Director of Prisons is required to confirm or vary the punishments imposed by the Superintendents.

My Ministry is also taking this opportunity to update the provisions which have become obsolete and outdated since its last major review in 1985. For example, clause 14 of the Bill seeks to delete the provisions pertaining to the terms of engagement and discipline of prison officers which have become irrelevant as all terms and conditions are now in accordance with those laid down by the Public Service Division. Related Amendments to the Intoxicating Substances Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act

Sir, as the Drug Rehabilitation Centres and the Inhalant Abuse Centres are also under the jurisdiction of the Prison authority, some of the amendments made to the Prisons Act will also be made to the Intoxicating Substances Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act. Clauses 25 and 26 of the Bill seek to make amendments to the Intoxicating Substances Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act to empower prison officers to use weapons against inmates and other persons facilitating an escape; to appoint auxiliary police officers to serve as escorts or guards for inmates; and to convene Committees of Inquiry to look into and report on matters connected with the administration, functions, inmates of these centres and institutions.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill.

This Bill is an important one relating to the running of prisons and the treatment of prisoners. It deals with several matters, but I wish to focus on two. One refers to the new Committee of Inquiry to investigate or inquire into "any matter connected with the discipline, administration or functions of any prison or affecting any prisoner ." The other seeks to provide a system and procedure for home detention.

[Mr Deputy Speaker in the Chair]

4.35 pm

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung: I welcome the establishment of the "Committee of Inquiry" and even though a committee is usually understood as a group of persons, it is not unheard of to have a committee of one. My only query here is: would it not be more sensible to have more than one committee member? I say this because such a committee is likely to be appointed only when there is some serious allegation made concerning the running of a prison, or the treatment of a prisoner. A group of members, even of two, will add to the transparency, the credibility and the general quality of the inquiry.

This brings me to my second point: who would be appointed to such committees? Or more precisely, what qualifications must they have? The Bill is silent on this. And I hope the Minister can let the House know who are likely to be appointed to such committees.

Third, the proceedings of the inquiry are not open to the public unless the chairman permits or the Minister directs. I take this provision to mean that where a chairman permits, such a hearing can be open to the public, but that where a chairman does not give his permission, the Minister may direct him to do so. Can the Minister confirm that this is the position?

Fourth, it is apparent that this committee of inquiry is intended to be a quasi-judicial institution, that is, it takes evidence on oath, has power to summon witnesses and the duty to keep records of the inquiry. Prison officers, prisoners and others may be affected by such proceedings. May they employ counsel? If not, why not? I refer in particular to the proposed section 7J where a prison officer who may be adversely affected by the findings of the committee has to be notified, and given a hearing during which he can give evidence as well as examine any witnesses. In such a case, counsel may be desirable.

Fifth, the record of the committee is confidential and not to be released without the permission of the Minister. I am uneasy with this, not that I think the Minister will act improperly. There may be situations where he may be left in a difficult position. For example, a committee finds that a prison officer has used excessive force on a prisoner. Disciplinary action is taken and he is dismissed from the service. He seeks redress for unfair dismissal and of course the claim will be made against the Ministry. In such a situation, where the status and livelihood of a person is at stake, and where he feels that there was, for instance, bias, should he not be entitled to a copy of the proceedings that may assist him in his case? Will the Minister let him have the report, even though the report came from a committee appointed by him? I hope that there could be some procedure to ensure that the committees of inquiry and their records are available to interested and affected parties.

I now move to the provisions for Home Detention. Sir, I am not one to engage in semantics, but I do feel in this case that the use of the phrase, "Home Detention" is not quite appropriate, given the spirit and intent of the scheme. I understand that this scheme was a recommendation of the Inter-Ministry Committee on Community-Based Sentences, and that its purpose is to allow prisoners to re-integrate back into society, and to his home environment. Unless we want to preserve an idea that Home is Prison or detention centre, using another term, such as "supervision" might have been more appropriate. From the point of view of the family members, it may also be more palatable than to regard their home as a place of detention.

In any case "supervision" more correctly describes this process. The supervisee is allowed to go out and seek gainful employment within the period that he is allowed to be absent from home. The electronic tagging is really more like a supervisory or surveillance process - triggered only if he absents himself from home during the restricted hours. I hope that the Minister will take the first opportunity to assure Members that the intention of this scheme is rehabilitative, and not just a measure to reduce prison population.

Coming to the eligibility of prisoners for the Home Detention Scheme, the Bill proposes that he has to have more than six months' imprisonment left, and not be disqualified from being considered. The disqualifications are contained in the Second Schedule. The disqualified category includes offences against the person, especially sexual offences. Curiously, however, the offences of extortion, robbery and armed robbery are not within the disqualified category. These are serious offences - robbery, for example, attracts a minimum of two years imprisonment and a maximum of ten and with caning. Gang-robbery, an aggravated form of robbery, is included in the disqualification list. May I therefore ask the Minister to let this House know why prisoners who are sentenced for armed robbery, robbery or extortion are not disqualified and therefore technically eligible for consideration for home detention? It must be remembered that even in the case of extortion, the crime involves instilling fear of injury or even death to the victims.

Finally, the Bill proposes the establishment of an advisory committee to advise the Director on the suitability of the prisoner for release under the scheme. Could the Minister clarify how such a committee would work? Who would be appointed to this committee? Will it interview potential supervisees to assess their suitability for release, or will it simply rely on the recommendations of the Director? Since it is called an advisory committee, I assume that there is no substantive power of review, but can it insist that it would like to interview prisoners applying for the Home Detention Scheme?

Sir, in general, the Prisons (Amendment) Bill contains useful institutions and measures that, if implemented wisely, would undoubtedly improve our system of criminal justice. As the Bill stands, I would certainly support it, but hope that the Minister would address the issues that I have raised.

Mr Ravindran: Sir, I am happy that the Ministry of Home Affairs is embarking on this Home Detention Scheme (HDS) for prisoners at the tail end of their prison sentence. I assume that MHA has had considerable success in its implementation of the scheme with drug supervisees who were placed on drug supervision via this electronic tagging. If this scheme was successful, then I am happy. But if there were problems, perhaps the Minister could share with us what were the problems that they had faced in its implementation and how these problems had been overcome. For example, I have learned that in the United Kingdom some of these prisoners were placed on electronic tagging. When they came into contact with some big equipment or objects in their house, the tagging system failed and many of them had to be returned to prison. So I want to know whether we have any such problems in the past implementation of this scheme here.

In respect of the present Bill, I have the following points to raise, Sir. Is this scheme being extended to prisoners as a means to alleviate over-crowding in the prisons, as was the case in the United Kingdom? If so, whether steps are being taken to expand the capacity of our prisons. I would also like to ask the Minister whether over-crowding in our prisons is because of our enhanced sentencing for many offences and whether the Minister intends to relook at the sentencing regime in place at present.

Secondly, if the scheme's intention is that there are prisoners who are suitable and have shown good behaviour to deserve to be placed on the HDS, could there be a mechanism whereby such prisoners are released earlier than having to go through this HDS process? Are we too rigid in sticking to the present process whereby we give remission for good behaviour which is usually about one third of the prison sentence? Sir, if the prison authorities and the counsellors who are counselling the prisoners are of the opinion that this prisoner is one who deserves to be given a chance and that he has behaved well and should be released to society, perhaps we need to even amend the Act to provide that the Prisons Director, or even the Minister, should have the power to release this prisoner back into society so that he can be rehabilitated into society even without this HDS.

Sir, the next issue is the question of who bears the cost of this tagging and monitoring system because this is something which remains unanswered in the Bill. I would like to ask the Minister whether the cost of the HDS Scheme is lesser or greater in relation to keeping the prisoner in prison at the moment. Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister the criteria applied to disqualified offenders. Paragraph (7) of the Schedule basically is too restrictive. It tries to lay down a list of criteria which basically covers sex and violent offenders. But looking at the provisions that are laid there, I think the authorities who drafted the Schedule have in a way tied down their hands. Because for a start, there are some offences which are not even specified, offences under the Vandalism Act, the Armed Offences Act, Corrosive and Explosive Substances and Offensive Weapons Act. These are offences which are not specifically mentioned. On the other hand, there are offences like rioting which are mentioned. I would say that the list ties the hands of the authorities because offenders commit offences in various circumstances. For example, an offence of rioting. If five persons participate in an offence which involves violence, three of them could merely be standing there but they may have the intention, but they did not actually participate in the violent offence, beating up somebody or rioting. But by putting specifically here that such a person is disqualified, individuals who may actually qualify for the scheme may inadvertently be left out and may be disqualified under the scheme.

I would urge the Minister to see whether the Schedule and the criteria for disqualification can be reconsidered and worded in a wide manner whereby individuals who may be caught under crimes, whether it is an attempt, or abetment or just merely being present, are also given a chance to go under this HDS scheme and are not automatically disqualified as the way the present disqualification has been written.

Sir, I would also like to ask the Minister as to why short-term prisoners cannot be placed under the scheme. The way the Bill is drafted in the proposed section 38B specifically says that one cannot be qualified for home detention for a period exceeding six months and also that those who are given sentence must have a minimum imprisonment sentence of six months of which he may not have served three months. So basically, those who are going to qualify for this offence must have been given a prison sentence of six months or more. My question is: could this scheme be also extended to those who are given even shorter prison sentences?

In Sweden, for example, Sir, short-term prisoners are given home detention as an alternative to prison sentence, that means, they do not even go to the prison in the first place. Such an alternative sentencing minimises the risks for social dislocation by allowing the offender to maintain his employment and family contacts. It also reduces the rate of new criminal behaviour being learned during periods of imprisonment. It is something which will be very suitable for young offenders who are studying or offenders who may need regular medical treatment. The way the sentencing scheme exists at the moment, for example, for a youthful offender is he either gets probation or he goes to prison. There may be cases where some youthful offenders fall in between, and I think HDS may be more appropriate for them so that they are not exposed to prison environment where they pick up bad habits and may become more difficult to turn over a new leaf.

Sir, fifthly, I would also like to ask the Minister whether the Ministry would be taking responsibility and would also be exposing itself to be liable for any crimes that may be committed by such prisoners who are released under this Home Detention Scheme. For example, if a person who is under the HDS commits an offence where he causes economic loss or injures somebody in commiting another crime, then naturally, under the law, perhaps the Ministry may be exposed. I do not see a clause in the Bill itself which exempts the Ministry which is trying out this scheme from being liable under this scheme. Perhaps, we have to look at this carefully because I am quite sure that there will be some offenders who may end up committing offence and the person who is hurt or who suffers economic loss may be looking towards the Ministry for compensation.

I was happy because I was concerned whether the person who is placed on this HDS scheme will be forced to go for counselling. I was happy that the Minister in his speech had mentioned that there will be mandatory counselling for such people who are placed on this HDS Scheme.

Sir, I would also like to know whether, among the conditions to be imposed, there will be a condition that these offenders are to completely refrain from alcohol consumption during their period of home detention.

I would also like to know whether the consent of all adults living in the same residence as the detainee would be obtained prior to placing him under the HDS. Similarly, I am also wondering whether the Minister would insist that all individuals who are placed on this HDS must be gainfully employed or must be undergoing some sort of a study programme. Otherwise, whether they would be released on this HDS scheme.

Lastly, Sir, I would also ask the Minister whether he would consider extending the scheme to various types of categories of prisoners and various types of schemes. This is very interesting because there are cases where during pre-trial certain individuals who are unable to put up bail, are now at the moment placed in the remand prison. This is one option which could be experimented by the Ministry whereby individuals who are unable to raise money could perhaps be placed under this electronic tagging so they are not sent to prison and be contaminated by other prisoners while they are detained there.

Similarly, whether this HDS scheme could also be considered for pregnant offenders, handicapped offenders, primary family care providers and juvenile offenders. Sir, I hope the Minister would see how the scheme could be made flexible enough to ensure that we provide various alternatives in rehabilitating our crime offenders in Singapore.

On that note, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to speak. I would like to raise one main concern on the Bill under the section on home detention order in Part IVA.

I heard Prof. Chin just a while ago and I agree that maybe "home detention" may not be a good term. If the Minister ever seeks to change the term, let me add to the confusion by suggesting two other terms. One is "home supported rehabilitation order". The other is "community-based rehabilitation order".

Sir, I am in full support of the Community-Based Sentences but overcrowding, as MP, Ravindran suggested, is certainly not the issue and should not be the concern and the cause for why we are doing home detention. Literature has shown that offenders recover well and best in familiar surroundings and among loved ones. But I do agree with Mr Ravindran that there should be different sentences and different durations of home detention for various categories of offenders. He mentioned, for example, handicapped offenders, pregnant offenders, etc, and some flexibility to be given for different forms of sentences. I am all for that.

Before a Director may, by order, release a prisoner who is eligible for home detention for a period not exceeding six months, I would like the Minister to clarify if the authorities will do the following four things.

First, to carry out an intensive in-depth interview and assessment by experts before the release to ascertain the level of readiness of the prisoner in facing the real world again. I heard from the Minister just now that this will be provided and an assessment will be carried out objectively by external consultants and internal experts including senior officers. But this is only meaningful if the baseline has first been established on the cognitive and emotive orientations of the prisoner when he first arrived so that the final assessment before the release could measure the changes in him during incarceration. I hope, therefore, findings upon arrival in prison and before he leaves prison will be gathered and that these findings be weighed against the order made by the Director.

The second condition is to prepare family members on the objectives and significance of the home detention order and what they must all do responsibly if the prisoner shows signs of recidivist behaviour. A study on the after-conduct of a cohort of probationers conducted by MCD in 1999 showed that the recidivism rate for the probationers from intact families is lower than those from non-intact families. That means, in families where the parents are still married and living together, the chance of re-offence by the probationers is reduced compared to those from non-intact families or broken families. As the family is significant in the rehabilitation of the offender, an assessment of the readiness of the family in receiving the prisoner home should be carried out by specialists on family therapy. Their findings should be weighed against the order made by the Director.

Third is to mandate continuing counselling sessions for the prisoner under home detention. Rehabilitation is a long process and the chance of recidivism is less if the offenders continue to receive consistent and scheduled counselling sessions. I hope the Minister would consider mandating this.

Fourth, if the objective of Community-Based Sentences is to allow the community to collaborate in the rehabilitation process of offenders, I hope that the Minister, in the next Budget debate, will also commit to more resources being given to the community for carrying out this work effectively.

Sir, I would like now to raise one query on the composition of the Committee of Inquiry in Part IIA.

Could the Minister clarify the meaning in new section 7B that every member of a Committee of Inquiry appointed shall be deemed to be a public servant within the meaning of the Penal Code? Please elaborate and help us understand. Second, in the event that an institution is being inquired into or the family of an aggrieved prisoner should petition for their own representation to the Committee of Inquiry, is there a provision to ensure a balanced hearing of views?

Sir, with these points which I hope the Minister can clarify, I support the Bill.

Mr Noris Ong Chin Guan: Sir, I rise to speak in support of this Bill.

Dangerous and violent criminals deserve to be incarcerated for long periods of time. But for less serious offenders, I see the merit in applying correctional treatment to re-integrate them into the community. I see the social value in having a home detention scheme to minimise the negative socialisation that occurs in prison. It is assuring to know offenders placed on Electronic Monitoring (EM) schemes in other countries register lower recidivism rates. But the success rate varies, and the EM may be more effective with some groups of offenders and at certain stages of the rehabilitation process. A group of American researchers found that EM works better with offenders who have had a taste of prison detention. Apparently, juveniles seem to respond better to EM than adults. EM also seems to be more effective among targeted groups of non-violent offenders, such as drunk drivers.

In the light of such findings, there is merit in insisting that home detainees should be non-violent offenders and have spent at least six months in prison. Justice is upheld as they have at least been minimally punished in prison. Thereafter, they should not be mixed too often and too long with hardcore criminals. If it is bad company that led some misguided offenders into prison, why test the penitent's resolve by confining him further with proven bad company? Why suffer him to be corrupted even further while in prison? It is in the public interest to give deserving contrite hearts a second chance. We should grant them the opportunity to redeem themselves so long as they do not pose a risk to the public. It is a fact I wholeheartedly applaud the spirit of the Bill. Nonetheless, I would like to raise several points for the Minister's clarification.

Firstly, can the Minister clarify the types of inmates who can qualify and benefit most from the scheme? It is in the public interest that the selection guidelines rule that violent and dangerous criminals, murderers, rapists and other inmates convicted of serious crimes should be automatically disqualified from the scheme. They deserve the full prison sentence. There should be no exception to this. But what are the other criteria - family support, good prison behaviour, age? Will these criteria be transparent to the inmates? Are there studies to indicate that certain targeted groups of offenders will benefit most from the scheme?

Sir, I believe that the home detention scheme can help to steer misguided offenders back to the right path. But what numbers are we referring to here? This leads me to the second point of clarification. Can the Minister provide us with an estimate on the percentage of prisoners who potentially qualify for the home detention scheme? How many detainees, fitted with the EM device, can the community expect at any one time? Does this number affect the Government's plan on the number of prisons to be built in the future?

Thirdly, what will the detainees do at home? The scheme provides the offenders with a measure of freedom. My concern is that when they are taken off the discipline of regular physical exercise, prison chores and solitude, what are they going to do with their free time at home? We cannot legislate to deny a home detainee the pleasures of his home for what is there to prevent an affluent detainee from enjoying movie after movie on an ultra modern high-tech big screen home entertainment system together with his family, or hours and hours of Internet surfing, or a nice sun tan after a leisure swim in his private pool, or a home party on Saturday night with his and his family friends.

Sir, I am not exaggerating. Some years back, a son of a former Amercian Vice-President candidate was sentenced to four months of house arrest for selling cocaine. The home detention was as good as an extended resort holiday. He lived in a luxury apartment, with maid service, cable TV and many other expensive amenities. This led his prosecutor to observe that the drug felon was living in conditions that 99.9% of the people in the area could not afford. Too much free time can be bad for the less affluent detainees too. A home detainee cannot roam the streets. But in the confines of his small HDB flat, he is exposed to the temptations of the streets through his friends, family media. Some of these influences and friends may not be good for him. They may numb him to forget that he is still serving his sentence, albeit at home. While there are devices to ensure that he does not leave his home, we cannot legislate against such influences from entering his home.

Sir, a new freedom can be a dangerous thing. When we feed idle minds with bad influences, they will breed crooked schemes. Restricted freedom strengthens the resolve for some, but for others, it propagates jealously, resentment and bitterness. To put it simply, home detainees should not be left to their own schemes. Thus, detaining offenders at home is only part of the rehabilitated solution. The other part involves providing structured programmes to occupy their daily routine. Meaningful activities should be included, such as skill upgrading to help the detainees to find suitable jobs later on. Perhaps, the activities also can benefit the community so that there will be a pay back redemptive effect.

My third point of clarification to the Minister then is how much free time do home detainees have. What kind of rehabilitative programmes would there be? This leads to my fourth point regarding community service programmes. Community service programmes can supplement the home detention scheme and acts as an additional intermediate sanction. Any minor offender, not necessarily just home detainees, can be put on community service programmes. For example, minor offenders can be made to help out in places like nursing homes or centres for the disabled. They can be assigned simple tasks that require some degree of contact with the elderly or disabled. Minor offenders may find it to be extremely therapeutic when they are exposed to the pride, strength and character of the elderly and disabled. It may even help to change their value system for the better. But such a programme must be managed properly and discreetly.

In some countries, as part of their sentence, certain offenders have to conduct talks in schools or advise troubled teens. Some convicted sports personalities conduct sports clinics followed by counselling sessions for juveniles. Along this line, is it not better for a convicted computer hacker to help non-profit organisations to create websites, design software programmes, conduct basic IT training rather than for him to rot in prison for the entire period of his sentence?

Sir, if there is a corrective work order for litterbugs, why cannot there be a corrective social work order for social bugs? Not all social bugs are social menaces. Social menaces should be put away from arm's reach. Some minor social bugs can perhaps be disinfected of their ills by a dosage of corrective social work order. In this light, may I ask the Minister whether he will consider broadening correctional sanctions further to allow minor offenders to perform community services?

Fifthly, should the home detention scheme always take place at home? The home environment is not necessarily the best rehabilitation centre. Some offenders are in prison precisely because of the lack of guidance at home. The lack of parental support has driven some to bad company and subsequently to prison. If the root of the problem is at home, why send them back to their homes? In such cases, putting them back to their homes is likely to be counter productive. But does this mean that the offenders must have a supportive home environment in order to qualify for the scheme? I hope not. If penitent offenders do not have a favourable home environment to return to, perhaps they can be detained in some established half-way houses instead.

It is no secret that some of these half-way houses are founded by ex-convicts. They know what it takes to turn over a new leaf and want to help others to do so. The environment in these half-way houses can be more rehabilitative than the home environment. The sharing of positive experiences, bonding and encouragement can do these detainees a world of good. But there must be a review of the programmes, funding level and management practices of half-way houses. This is because the performance standards, services and facilities of half-way houses may vary too significantly. A benchmarking of the standards of half-way houses is important in this regard. Some degree of recognition and support for half-way houses is also in order. For my fifth point of clarification, may I ask the Minister whether an extension of the home detention scheme to relevant half-way houses has been considered?

Finally, I turn to the family home detainees who are generally supportive. The family is one of the critical success factors for the scheme. It may not be so in the West because, given their cultural practices, it is conceivable that many home detainees there do not live with their families. But this is generally not the case here. Home detention here can literally mean being detained with the family. A family may seem to be supportive, but we have to recognise that it is one thing to express support and another to be able to deal with the difficulties and shame of living with a detainee. The family has to learn to adjust and accept the concomitant stigma, but not all family members can manage that successfully. The mother may accept but the father may resent. The sister may bear with it but the brother may find it embarrassing and disgraceful to stay at home with the detainee. And when a family dispute erupts, the detainee cannot run off to cool himself down.

Not all neighbours can accept living near a detainee either. It is possible for the family to conjure up excuses to explain to their neighbours and relatives regarding the absence of the prisoner from home. But having the detainee locked up at home is altogether a very different thing. Hopefully, the spot checks on home detainees will not be conducted by uniformed law enforcers. Otherwise, the whole neighbourhood will soon know about it. When tongues are set wagging, some home detainees and their family members will fail to deal with the stigma. When this happens, the scheme will backfire and become dysfunctional. Instead of being reintegrated, the scheme may end up disintegrating the whole family. In this regard, may I ask the Minister whether any steps will be taken to minimise the stigma of home detention and to help home detainees and their family members to be prepared for the social and psychological stigma associated with the scheme?

Mr Chew Heng Ching (East Coast): Sir, I support the Bill and would like to raise a matter of concern that has arisen over the years in my dialogues with residents, and this relates to employment opportunities for ex-prisoners and ex-inmates of rehabilitation centres.

Our Government is well-known to be tough on crimes and other forms of deviant behaviour. This is an admirable stand and has served us well in making Singapore a country safe for visitors and residents. However, there is a segment of our population, albeit a small one, who had previously served some time in prison or in various rehabilitation centres for errors made in their youth who require help. And there is also quite a high incidence of repeat offenders who have not been granted the opportunities of reintegration into society at large. We have schemes in prison and rehabilitation centres and now homes to equip some of these individuals with skills and values so that they adjust back to society. However, it is often difficult for such individuals to find gainful employment once they are tarnished with a criminal record. We run the risk of developing by default an underclass who is not given a second chance.

Sir, our Singapore society is not a very forgiving one. We are very tough on failure, whether it is financial failure in the form of bankruptcy or social failure in the form of poor judgment and influence resulting in criminal activities. Ex-prisoners and ex-inmates of rehabilitation centres are often labelled and are not given opportunities that normal individuals have despite having served out their punishment. It is no wonder that often they fall back into bad company.

Sir, I feel that we, as Singaporean employers and Government, are not doing enough to give these individuals a chance to assimilate back into society and become responsible citizens who have the ability to fully contribute to our nation's progress. If we are indeed attempting to be a more compassionate and gracious society which is tolerant of failure, then we have to give such individuals a second chance in life. And this is in keeping with some of the objectives of Singapore 21, as we will provide a real avenue for all Singaporeans to be the best that they can be.

Sir, the Government may have to go beyond providing education and skill training to help rehabilitate prisoners or inmates. I am not advocating something as radical as what is practised in some European countries where it is illegal for employers to ask if prospective job applicants have had previous criminal records. However, I would like to ask the Minister whether he could consider using some of our Government agencies as vehicles to enable the integration of these people into society, by providing an avenue for employment for a period of, say, 1-2 years, after their release from prison or rehabilitation centres so that these ex-prisoners have a chance to start life afresh. Also, I would like to urge the Minister to ask our Government agencies, in particular, the airport and the seaport police authorities, to review their policy to allow ex-prisoners and ex-inmates of rehabilitation centres to work in their premises, with the thrust of Singapore 21 in mind as we move towards becoming a more gracious, compassionate and forgiving society.

Mr Gerard Ee: Sir, I rise to support the Bill.

It is a positive move to introduce home detention. Whilst it is new to Singapore, it is not new to other countries. It is a tested system and it can work well in the Singapore environment. I hope that with the introduction of home detention, more studies can be made to extend the scope whereby home detention could be considered as an alternative sentencing. Detention in prisons or any institution of detention should be prescribed only where the offence calls for it. Where an offender can be sufficiently punished by restriction of freedom, perhaps home detention should be prescribed. More studies should follow because I am not sure that there can be any easy answer as to whether the home environment is better for rehabilitation, or that the prison environment is preferred where the home environment is considered hostile. I think the permutation would vary and it requires studies.

Home detention is a new method. It is new to Singapore. I do not think we should rush into making conclusions. Earlier speakers have suggested the possibility that home detention could be used for people who are suffering from, say, some disability or even a state of pregnancy. I would have thought that the mode of punishment should suit the offence rather than the individual's condition itself. I am not sure that it is so clear cut that one could just come out with a guideline in a moment without more detailed studies.

The existing Prisons Act and amendments to the Intoxicating Substances Act and the Misuse of Drugs Act permit the use of any weapon including firearms. I am concerned that there should be adequate safeguards to ensure that weapons, especially firearms, are used only when absolutely necessary. A committee of inquiry should consider every occurrence of a discharge of firearms or where a prisoner is injured by the use of a weapon. I am not sure whether the committee of inquiry under new section 7A(2) of the Prisons Bill is intended to cover such occurrences, because it states, "any matter connected with discipline, administration or functions of any prison or affecting any prisoner .". Perhaps the Minister could clarify on this. And if it is not intended to cover such occurrences, whether there will be someone who will look into such occurrences.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I thank the Members for speaking in support of the Bill, and I shall try to answer as many of the questions as possible and as detailed as possible.

First, Prof. Chin Tet Yung's question about whether it would be better to have more than one member in the committee. Certainly, it is, and it is not my intention to have only a one-member committee. Otherwise, it does not make much sense, except that the law, as it is drafted, is not inconsistent with the provisions in other laws.

Who would be appointed to such committees for the committee of inquiry? As I have said in my speech, prominent citizens, non-prison officers, senior officers in Ministries and the Government, and people who can help us to inquire into a particular matter. All expertise would be sought where necessary. This is not the first time that we have committees of inquiry for matters that happen in the prison. We have appointed a few of them and, invariably, the committees have members who are not from the civil service, like Justice of the Peace, for example, or someone who has been involved as a Visiting Justice.

Since the proceedings are not open to the public, and if the chairman decides not to open it to the public, would the Minister decide? Certainly, I will so decide if there is a public interest to do so. If there is not, then I think we should leave it to the committee to do its work. Otherwise, the committee will feel encumbered and its job is to get to the root of the problem. It is not a prosecutorial agency, neither is it an agency to decide what sort of charges to make out against people who commit any particular offence. That should be left to the proper prosecutorial authorities.

Whether a person who may be implicated adversely arising from a committee of inquiry may employ counsel? Yes, to be fair to him. If the person is likely to be implicated, he may engage counsel to represent him. Eventually, if the committee's report adversely affects him and his career, eg, it involves a prison officer, as Prof. Chin says, then, of course, we will look at the grounds for a request for the committee's report.

There were three suggestions on the term of "home detention", eg, why do we not try something else like community-based detention and home supervision and so on. Of course, there are various alternatives that we can consider, but the term "home detention" is not an original term that we have coined. Rather, it is a term used by other countries as well including the United Kingdom. So I see no particular reason why we should favour one term over another when that particular term is easily understood by the rehabilitative or prison authorities in other countries.

Both Mr Ravindran and Prof. Chin asked whether this home detention scheme is more rehabilitative or perhaps merely a measure to reduce over-crowding in prisons. We know, of course, that there is an over-crowding situation in the prisons, but that is because many of our prisons' capacities are designed based on the old norms and we do not have many new prisons lately. So there is some aspect of over-crowding, but that is not the reason why we are providing for home detention. The reason, as I have said earlier, is that it arose from a study that I have asked my Minister of State to make together with other interested parties on what are the other alternative sentencing options that could be made available in our criminal justice system. We found that this tail-end home detention is one of them. Mr Ee and Mr Noris Ong also asked whether we should not consider that as an alternative instead of having the person served a prison sentence and then put him on home detention. The Committee that my Minister of State chaired did indeed consider such an option, but I think we should take things one at a time and we should not rush into implementing every recommendation that has been put up by the Committee.

Prof. Chin also asked why some offences which we consider to be serious such as armed robbery or extortion are not included in the disqualification list. We can have an exhaustive list which can run into many pages or we can consider some of those offences which we think are very serious and which we should exclude them. For the others, they could be included provided they satisfy the criteria that I have made out. The criteria being that the inmates are amenable to re-integration and rehabilitation and the family members are prepared to support them in the re-integration effort, and the good behaviour of the person and so on. So it is not an exhaustive list and we will review the list from time to time and, if necessary, update or include or exclude other offences which are currently not in the list.

Prof. Chin also asked about the Advisory Committee for Home Detention, how such a Committee will work and who will appoint the Committee and whether the Committee will be appointed by the Minister and whether it will have its own internal procedures. Of course, the internal working will be such that the internal Prisons Committee will review all eligible inmates for home detention and those who are considered suitable or even not suitable, but if they are eligible, they will be put up periodically to the Advisory Committee who will then make its recommendations. In the process of making its recommendations, the Committee can call up the inmates and ask questions and review their records. That power is given to the Advisory Committee. In the end, a decision has to be made and that will be made by the Director of Prisons.

Mr Ravindran asked specifically whether the overcrowding in our prison is the result of the strict sentencing guidelines that have been imposed for offences. There are a number of reasons which I have explained earlier. We always look at the sentencing regime to see whether they are adequate or not. Of course, if they are not, we will review them. On whether we could release prisoners in the process earlier instead of just having the standard remission period, I think the remission of one-third of the prisoner's sentence is already quite generous. Now we are providing the balance of up to six months for the person to serve his sentence at home and I think for a start we should just go for that and not do anything more.

The prisoners need not pay for the cost of the electronic tagging and the cost of monitoring because this will be borne by the prison authorities. Home detention with electronic tagging is not a new thing that the prison has implemented. As I have said, it has been implemented for criminal law detainees, reformative trainees as well as those detained under the Misuse of Drugs Act. So Prisons Department already has enough experience in dealing with such people, including the process of examining, assessing and investigating whether a person is suitable for home detention or not. That process will be quite exhaustive, including talking to professionals and counsellors if necessary, and, in particular, for home detention, family support is very important. Without family support, there is no purpose in releasing that inmate back to society because we need the family to also play its role in rehabilitating the inmate. Getting the half-way house to do the job is not good enough because we should not just pass the responsibility to the half-way house. But we can get the half-way house to help. For example, in counselling, we can get SANA, VWOs, the Singapore Aftercare Association to help in the counselling. Counselling would indeed be one of the conditions that the prison would impose on anybody who is on home detention. Of course, by not incarcerating the prisoner, it will be cheaper in the process to put a person under home detention. So indeed the answer is yes, it is cheaper to put a person under home detention.

Mr Ravindran also asked whether the Ministry or the prison authorities or the Government will be liable for any offence committed by an inmate who is on home detention. The prison authorities will be liable if it is shown that there is criminal negligence on its part. If there is criminal negligence in releasing the person, yes, certainly they could be sued. But in the end the whole process has to be examined and see whether prison has indeed been criminally negligent in releasing the prisoner. The final decision on that will be, of course, the courts which will take that case into consideration and decide whether there is any criminal negligence based on evidence and facts.

One condition which Mr Ravindran asked the prison authorities to consider is whether we can prohibit such home detainees from consuming alcohol. I think we should only have conditions which can be enforced or seemingly possible to enforce. It is very difficult to enforce a condition which requires a person to be a teetotaler at home unless, of course, if a person is out on a drink driving charge, and an offence is committed, that person will be in deep trouble.

Among the other suggestions Mr Ravindran talked about in extending the scheme to the different categories of offenders, indeed those he mentioned would be covered except those who are on pre-trial or pre-sentencing. Because, if the case has not been heard yet, how could we put a person on home detention? What power do the prison authorities have? If he cannot post bail, then he goes on remand. That is it. I cannot imagine a person who cannot post bail but at the same time commits a serious offence and there is no way of assessing the bahaviour of the person, the prison authority is called upon to decide whether that person should be on home detention. I think that is an impossible task.

Mdm Claire Chiang asked about different home detention periods for different types of prisoners like, for example, a person who is handicapped. The prison authorities will look at all eligible inmates and release them for up to six months on home detention if they are suitable. That is the kind of flexibility that we should have. We should not put too many conditions and criteria into the assessment process, otherwise it will complicate the whole running of the scheme. Even for intensive interviews, that will be done. As I have said, counsellors will be used. We will talk to the right people, including the family members, to make sure that the person is indeed amenable to home detention. But the more money we invest in this, the less we will have for other purposes, including rehabilitation in the prison.

Mr Noris Ong asked what is the potential number of prisoners who will qualify for home detention. I do not have the numbers but I believe it will be a significant number. Of course, not the majority of them, because many of them are in the medium and high security prisons. So we will have to consider all those eligible cases and then take a look at them. Offhand, I would say that prisons will start off with 30 to 40 a month. It will try this out and see the pace of it. If it can cope with it, and if our Advisory Committee can deal with it, then more can be released. We have to take it one step at a time.

The person who is on home detention is not likely to be wasting his time. If he wants to do that, I do not know what else we could do. We could recall him. One of the conditions for home detention would be that the inmate be gainfully employed or studying. We will try our best to find him a job. But that may not be easy. There could be a time when a person may not be able to find a job. That does not mean we will recall the inmate back from home detention immediately. We ought to have some flexibility on that.

As to whether we can help them to reduce the stigma and their friends knowing them as prisoners or not, I think the moment he goes to prison, the neighbours will already know. The prison authorities have been quite discreet in designing the tag. The tag is a little item that is put on the leg and if he wears long pants, it can be covered. Unless he wants to go for a swim, that is a different matter. I think the person has to take a chance.

Mr Chew Heng Ching asked whether we should be more compassionate to ex-prisoners. That is a view which we will try to encourage people to have, particularly employers, to employ these people. Of course, some employers are wary of employing ex-prisoners. What SCORE and ISCOS, which are MHA statutory board and company, have done is that they have been helping these people to find jobs. If employers are prepared to employ them, we will be happy to match the prisoners or those under home detention for jobs. In certain places, like airport and seaport, security is very important. Therefore, the standards that the authorities expect of people with criminal records are much higher. We should not be too lax about that, otherwise we will bring ourselves more trouble by being too lax over security standards in the airport and the seaport.

Finally, Mr Gerald Ee asked about the use of firearms, and whether firearms would only be used when absolutely necessary. That must be the case. I do not think our people are trigger-happy to shoot whenever somebody attempts to escape. They will employ all measures to restrain the person and to stop the escape from happening and if that is impossible, then orders to shoot will be given by a superior officer. If firearm is actually used, and it is necessary to have a Committee of Inquiry, we will inquire into it. In any case, the right authority to investigate into any discharge of firearm is the police. If there is a discharge of firearm, even innocently or accidentally, by an officer on duty, the matter will also be investigated by the police. Members can be rest assured that we do not just shoot unnecessarily.

Sir, I believe I have dealt with all the questions.

Mdm Claire Chiang See Ngoh: I seek an answer from the Minister on the status of the members in the Committee. What does he mean by "being deemed public servants"?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: I have not looked at the particular provision in the Penal Code, but from my recollection, I believe that it applies to people who are not civil servants who help us and we consider them to be public servants in the performance of their duties as members of the committee. Therefore, we assume that they do their job in good faith and whatever decisions, recommendations or actions that they take would not be subject to any suit.

Mr Ravindran: Two points of clarification for the Minister. The first point is on the issue of imposing a condition on the offender for not consuming alcohol. Sir, I am quite sure, as part of the condition for release, the prison authorities will be imposing certain conditions. Similarly, one of it will be that he cannot consume drugs. Naturally, the officers will be making surprise visits to meet this offender. By imposing a condition that they do not consume alcohol imposes on them a condition that they stay sober and also makes sure that this is not a luxury which they enjoy at home but it would be monitored. So I would urge the Minister to impose it as a matter of condition because this is something that is even introduced in Sweden and they have found that it can be successfully monitored if your officers are keen. If the condition is there, I think the offender will know that there is such a condition. If he infringes it, he goes back to prison. So I hope that the Minister would include this condition into the terms.

Sir, the second issue is on the question of pre-trial option to go on electronic tagging. My concern is that there are cases where individuals, who come from poor families, before they are determined whether they are guilty or innocent, because they are unable to raise the bail money, they end up being in the remand prison. And these are instances which I consider sad cases. An option can be given to them to opt for electronic tagging, so that they avoid going to prison. I think it is an option that can be considered, and it is also being considered in the United Kingdom in certain districts. So perhaps this is something that the Minister could consider implementing, so that people who are determined subsequently to be innocent would not end up serving in the remand prison just because they are unable to raise the bail money.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the prison authorities will look at whatever condition that is necessary to be included in the enforcement of this home detention scheme. It is easier to detect drug consumption than, say, alcohol. When you take alcohol, whatever drink it is, and overnight, it can be washed away. But as for drugs, you can actually do a urine test, and you can determine whether the person has drugs. But we will still look at the Member's suggestion and see if it is necessary to have the condition.

On pre-trial cases, I think right now it is definitely beyond the scope of this particular review, and it is a totally different thing altogether. I am not ruling it out completely, but right now we have other considerations that we have to take into account in implementing this particular scheme.

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 Wong Kan Seng].

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