PRISONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Column: 349

PRISONS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

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."

Sir, this Bill amends the Prisons Act to expand the Home Detention Scheme and to enhance the operational efficiency of the Singapore Prison Service.

Expansion of the Home Detention Scheme

The Home Detention Scheme was introduced in May 2000 toenable first-

Column: 350

time and minor offenders to return early to the community to be re-united with their families and be gainfully employed. It also helps tominimise the risk of first-time and minor offenders from being influenced by hardened criminals whilst in prison.

The present Home Detention Scheme was first implemented in May 2000. From May 2000 to the end of June 2004, about 4,074 inmates were emplaced on home detention.99.3% of the inmates successfully completed the programme. Only 30 failed tocomplete the programme. Given the success of the Home Detention Scheme, the Ministry of Home Affairsintends to expand the scheme to allow more inmates, especially first-time and minor offenders with short sentences, to benefit from it. Assuming that the prison admissions remain the same, as for the last two years, about 4,000 inmates would be put on home detention under the expanded scheme.

Currently, suitable inmates who are sentenced to not less thansix months' imprisonment and who have served at least half of their sentences in prisons will be considered for emplacement on home detention foraperiod ofup to six months. Clause 17 of the Bill will amend section 53 to expand the Home Detention Scheme such that suitable inmates who are sentenced to not less thanfour weeks of imprisonment and have served at least 14 days of their sentences in prisons can be considered for emplacement on home detention. Clause 16 of the Bill will amend section 52 of the Prisons Act to raise the maximum home detention period from 6to 12 months.

Inmates with sentences of more thanone month and of good behaviour are currently granted remission equivalent to one third of their sentence, subject to the inmates serving a minimum period ofone month in prison. Those sentenced toone month or less are currently not eligible for

Column: 351

remission. With the expansion of the Home Detention Scheme, inmates who are sentenced to more than 14 days of imprisonment and of good behaviour will be granted one-third remission of their sentences, subject to the inmates serving a minimum period of 14 days in prison. For example, an inmate who is sentenced to 21 days of imprisonment will now be grantedseven days remission of his sentence and will serve 14 days of his sentence. Prisons Regulation 118(1) will be amended to reflect this change.

Sir, currently, the Schedule to the Prisons Act sets out the offences for which a person who has been convicted will not qualify for home detention. This ensures that inmates convicted of serious and violent crimes are not released on home detention. The Ministrywill retain the Schedule. However, clause 17 of the Bill inserts a provision in the Act to allow the Minister the discretion to release deserving inmates convicted of offences in the Schedule on home detention. Prison's experience is that there are such deserving cases. But let me assure the House that this discretion will be exercised judiciously and sparingly, taking into account the inmate's progress and response to rehabilitation in prison, the inmate's level of family support and the risk of recidivism by the inmate.

Other amendments to the Prisons Act

Sir, I will now move on to the other amendments to the Prisons Act.

Pre-emptive removal of prisoners

The Minister is currently empowered to remove prisoners to another place when there is an infectious disease outbreak in prisons. Learning from our experience with SARS, the Ministryis proposing to provide for the pre-emptive removal of prisoners when there is a threat of an outbreak occurring in prisons.

Column: 352

Other amendments - delegation of powers

In addition, we have taken the opportunity to streamline the delegation of certain powers under the Act for greater administrative and operational efficiency.

Specifically, clause 5 of the Bill repeals and re-enacts section 25 to allow the Director of Prisons to appoint medical officers for prisons. It is administratively easier to empower the Director of Prisons to appoint the medical officers since the Director of Prisons will be the one entering into a contract with the medical service provider.

Clause 11 of the Bill amends section 39 to allow the Director of Prisons to produce prisoners in the interest of justice, such as when a remand prisoner is required by the court to be brought to the scene of crime when the presiding judge, prosecution or defence wishes to learn more about certain aspects of the case. For operational efficiency, this power will be delegated from the Minister to the Director of Prisons.

Clause 12 of the Bill amends section 42 to empower the Director of Prisons to order the removal of any prisoner if a threat of infectious disease occurs in the prisons. In a case of emergency such as during a SARS outbreak and where the Director of Prisons is absent or unable to make such order for removal, the order may be made by the Superintendent of the prison concerned or bythe Visiting Justices. Clause 13 of the Bill amends section 43 to allow the Director of Prisons to remove prisoners of unsound mind to any mental hospital or other fit place for safe custody within Singapore.

A provision will also be included in the Prisons Act for the Director of Prisons to delegate his powers to the Deputy Director of Prisons where necessary. This is a common provision in other Acts, such as the Police Force Act, the Civil Defence

Column: 353

Act and the Immigration Act. This amendment will make the provisions of the Prisons Act consistent with these other Acts. Specifically, clause 4 of the Bill amends section 20 to provide for the Deputy Director of Prisons to exercise and perform all or any of the powers, duties and functions of the Director of Prisons. This is critical in operational work for it empowers the Deputy Director to make certain decisions and take certain actions when the situation requires him to. For example, in a fire or riot situation in prison, where there may be a threat to life and limb, the Deputy Director may need to remove prisoners from the affected prisons to a place of safety.

Other minor amendments are also being made to the Prisons Act to allow for better administration of the Act.

Conclusion

Mr Speaker, Sir, the amendments to the Prisons Act

that I have presented today will allow more inmates to benefit from the Home Detention Scheme, and for our prisons to function more effectively.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill and would like to focus on the amendments to the Home Detention Scheme as mentioned by the Minister.

Traditionalists hold the view that home detention is not really a form of punishment. After all, the inmate is allowed all the comforts of home, and the effect of them having committed a crime and sentenced to a custodial sentence may be lost. So, the first question that I would like to ask the Minister is: how is the point driven home that this is still a custodial sentence and that the person

Column: 354

put on home detention has still committed a crime and is properly punished?

The second concern is one that is expressed by some that the extension of the Home Detention Scheme is a means of reducing overcrowding in prisons, and that there is this hidden agenda that, actually, we have overcrowded prisons and, therefore, we extend the Home Detention Scheme. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether this is really the case and, if not, to tell the public that home detention is really a measure which would serve the interests of society.

Thirdly, there isthe reformists' view that holds thathome detention is a good thing, that it will shield first-time offenders from experienced offenders who are incarcerated in high security prisons and so on.

So, is there a move towards a more front-end type of home detention, ie, would the courts, for example, be allowed in appropriate cases to sentence a first-time offender or minor offenders immediately to home detention rather than going through a period of incarceration?

Finally, it is a concern that neighbours may face when somebody is placed on home detention. They may have a suspicion whethera person who is under home detention being allowed out before his time would be subject to close scrutiny. Would he have the opportunity to perhaps commit more crimes while he is out on home detention?

These are some of the concerns about home detention. They go in different directions. So, I hope the Minister can clarify as to which way we are headed towards in terms of penal policy.

With those comments, Sir, I support the Bill.

Column: 355

Mr Chandra Mohan K Nair (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the proposed amendments to the Prisons Act are to be welcomed. This Bill proposes to amend, inter alia , section 53 which deals with the Home Detention Scheme by increasing the maximum period that may be served under home detention by reducing the minimum sentence of imprisonment imposed for a prisoner to be eligible for home detention by reducing the minimum term of imprisonment to be served before a prisoner is eligible for home detention, and by enabling the Minister to remove the disqualification of a prisoner under section 53 for home detention if he considers the prisoner deserving of home detention in the circumstances.

Hopefully, Sir, through the proposed amendments, the large number of select imprisoned citizens would be given an opportunity to be released and be with their families whilst serving sentence under the Home Detention Scheme. Our sentencing regime in the 21st century and in the 1990s, as compared to the 1970s and 1980s, has been very strict and deterrent-minded. It may serve its purpose. However, Sir, it may be worthwhile and timely for the authorities, the courts, the legal fraternity, including the Attorney-General's Chambers, the Ministry of Law, the Law Faculty of the National University of Singapore, the Law Society of Singapore and people involved in the administration of criminal justice in Singapore to revisit, review and decide anew what is the best approach to adopt in the criminal sentencing system. It should involve a balance between rehabilitation, reformation, deterrence and retribution form of sentencing of convicted accused persons. Where possible, Sir, we should avoid or minimise criminalising our citizens, and avoid sending too many of them to prison, except for serious and deserving cases.

With that, Sir, I do support this Bill.

Column: 356

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Mr Speaker, Sir, this amendment allows the Director of Prisons to release an inmate for home detention for a period not exceeding one year,from the current limit of six months. The prisons administration can also allow an inmate to be placed on home detention if his sentence is at least four weeks long and he has served at least 14 days of his sentence.This means that a person who is convicted ofa jail term of one year may in fact only serve 14 days in prison, then he is out of jail to serve the rest of the sentence at home.

Sir, I do agree that home detention is a good sentencing option for offenders who are not dangerous. The question is whether such an administrative measure would undermine the intention of this House which fixes the sentence, and the intention of the judge when he passes sentence based on the severity of the offence. If we say that 12 months in prison is an appropriate punishment for a specific offence, will serving 14 days in jail and the rest at home render the sentence a formality and will the sentence lose its deterrent effect?

On the other hand, are we giving the prison authority too much discretion to treat offenders differently? Are we prudent in giving the prison authority such powers to decide and, in fact, to amend the punishment meted out by the courts?

Sir, it seems to me that, if the Prisons Department would like more people on home detention and for a longer time, it could be their assessment that many of these inmates under their care do not need to remain in jail for that long. Does this mean that our laws are too harsh and the punishments or sentencing benchmarks are, in actual fact, disproportionate to the offences committed? If this is the case, should we not review the laws? Instead of working backwards through administrative release, why not legislate

Column: 357

home detention as an option for the sentencing judge so that there can be more transparency in the system, instead of just leaving it to the prisons to decide?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, I thank the Members for supporting the Bill and also raising the questions so that clarifications can be made.

Indeed, we need to have all the stakeholders of the criminal justice system to take a close look at the various sentencing options. Thoseinvolved are not just thestakeholders of the criminal justice system but also the community at large, and that we need to balance the need to send a deterrence to those who committed offences and the need to re-integrate theminto our society and become useful citizens again. That is why when we first introduced home detention in 2000, I said we indeed had a committee to look at this and thoseinvolvedwere not just the Ministry of Home Affairs but alsothe Ministry of Law,the Attorney-General's Chambers. We also sought the views of the courts, plus others who might have an interest in this.

The committee chaired by the Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs, Prof. Ho Peng Kee, came to the conclusion that we need to have several sentencing options available to the judges, and community-based sentencing is one of them, and the Home Detention Scheme is part of the community-based sentencing. The amendment to the Prisons Act at that time allowed for the release of prisoners on home detention. An advisory committee chaired by prominent citizens, in particular, Justices of the Peace and other prominent individuals was formedto make recommendations to the authority. The inmates were then released, subject to certain conditions.

So, let me assure the House that when we implemented the scheme, we

Column: 358

thought through very carefully the need to ensure providing a deterrent or retribution aspect to persons committing an offenceand his need to be rehabilitated and re-integrated into society, as well as the interests of the community to enjoy a safe environment within their own community. It is not a measure to reduce overcrowding, as suggested by Prof. Chin, because prison overcrowding is not a serious issue, although we do have prison crowding for the time being. But when the new prisons are ready, we will relieve a significant part of the overcrowding.

Looking at the number of prisoners we have at any one timeand the number of prisoners or inmates who are on home detention, the number of those on home detention wasa very significant number. We have only about 1,000 or 1,500 on average a year who were on home detention compared to the several more thousands who weresent to prison. So, let me assure the House that this is not a cost-cutting measure.

The Home Detention Scheme is not an invention by Singapore. It is something that is alreadyimplemented in other societies. Wemade a serious study of the scheme in other countries before embarking on it. The Home Detention Scheme is practised also in the United Kingdom, Australia as well as in Sweden, and we borrowed apage from their criminal law book.

The question by Mr Low Thia Khiang about a person being sentenced to one year in prison and would serve only a minimum period of 14 days is a misunderstanding. A person who is sentenced to one year will serve many more than 14 days in prison. In the first place, because he is sentenced to one year, he will have one third of his time for remission, meaning that he will have toserve a minimum of eight months in prison, of which half could be served at home, ie, four months at home and not

Column: 359

14 days, and four months are a significant period.During the period of home detention, he would be put on an electronic tag. He would be subject to curfew hours within his home, but he would be allowed to workoutside the curfew hours, which are normally between 7.00 am and 7.00 pm, and thereafter he has to remain at home. Therefore, there is no cause for his neighbours to worry that he isnot being under watch. If he is up to mischief and breaches the conditions for home detention, he would be sent back to prison. The fact thatonly 30 out of the 4,074 inmates who were placed on home detentionhad to be recalled shows that the scheme has been highly successful. Of course, we have to continue to watch this to make sure that the right kind ofinmates are selected, and the kind of inmates selected are the ones with minor offences or first-timers, and they do not fit into the schedule of offenders who are ineligible for the scheme.So, when a person is sentenced to a long jail sentence and the offenceis subject to the disqualification scheduleofserious crimes, he would not be released on home detention, so he would not make a mockery of the deterrent effect of the sentence. The objectiveof home detention is not to undermine the powers of the court or the intention of this House to subjectoffenders to deterrent sentences. Even though it is the prisons that decide on this instead of the court, we do this quite cautiously.

We had thought of letting thecourt to decide on sentencinga person to home detention. But, having consulted the courts, it is better that we make sure theoffender serves a period in prison before he is let off on home detention, because we believe that there is a salutary effect of serving a prison sentence. A person who commits an offence, however minor it is, ought to know that there is a price to

Column: 360

be paid for it and therefore he should serve a period. Before this amendment,prison sentences of less than six months are not eligible for home detention. We thought there is some need to adjust this to enable the group that has minor offences to be allowed to be put on home detention. Hence, wereduced this period to

14 days.

I believe I have dealt with the key issues raised by the Members. Let me assure the House that in selecting individual inmates, it is not at the whims and fancies of the prison officers. As I have said, there is already an advisory committee. With the scheme beingexpanded, we are going to have three more advisory committees to advise the prison authorities on theinmates who are suitable to be emplaced on home detention. The chairman andvice-chairmen of these committees are Justices of the Peace. In fact, among them is one of our Members of the House,Mrs Fang Ai Lian. I am sure that the committee members know full well their task, ie, to ensure that these inmates who are amenable to change are allowed an opportunity to change and, at the same time, we do not subject the communityto extra risk.

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.