PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

Column: 669

PRESIDENTIAL ELECTIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

Column:670

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."

Introduction

Sir, as our presidential elections are run on similar lines as that for parliamentary elections, this Bill proposes amendments to the Presidential Elections Act similar to that in the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill 2005, which we have just passed. In summary, the amendments in this Bill are as follows:

(a) To simplify nomination procedures by reducing the number of papers filed and the amount of particulars to be filled up in nomination papers;

(b) To reduce the risk of aspiring individuals failing to be nominated due to formal errors or non-compliance with procedures by allowing nominees and candidates to amend nomination papers to rectify non-fatal errors before the close of nominations, and by including blanks and errors in number in nomination papers as non-fatal errors;

(c) To require the nomination papers to be delivered by the nominee accompanied by his proposer, seconder and at least four assentors;

(d) To streamline certain processes in the interests of efficiency and certainty of operations, such as allowing withdrawal of candidature only by giving notice in person, and to allow early declaration of results;

(e) To simplify the process of filing returns respecting election expenses, thereby the filing requirement under the Act and the Political Donations Act (Chapter 236) can be streamlined; and

(f) To allow for the composition of offences under the Act.

Column: 671

Amendments to the Presidential Elections Act

As I explained when moving the Parliamentary Elections (Amendment) Bill for Second Reading earlier, the changes in this Bill seek to improve accessibility to standing for election to the Office of the President by reducing or mitigating the existing risk of aspiring candidates failing to be nominated on account of technicalities and errors. Clauses 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 of the Presidential Elections (Amendment) Bill set out the changes to the presidential election nomination proceedings. However, we make no corresponding amendments on multiple candidature since that is purely hypothetical in a presidential election.

Finally, clause 8 makes corresponding amendments to the post-election reporting of election expenditure in section 56 of the Presidential Elections Act while clause 10 introduces similar powers to the Returning Officer and authorised officers in the Elections Department to offer composition of compoundable offences under the Presidential Elections Act or its regulations.

Sir, I beg to move.

[

Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Chew Heng Ching) in the Chair: ]

5.33 pm

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.

Column: 672

REGISTRATION OF CRIMINALS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Introduction

Sir, in summing up the debate on the President's Address in January this year, PM spoke about Singapore being a land of opportunity, as a nation where everyone belongs, where each person has a role to play, and where all can live with dignity. In particular, he noted that, as a land of opportunity, we should provide, for those who have committed mistakes, a second chance to make good.

Sir, this Bill is a step in that direction: to provide a second chance for ex-offenders who have paid their dues to society and have shown the resolve and ability to stay away from crime. We are amending the Registration of Criminals Act or "RCA" to allow the record of a conviction kept in the Register of Criminals for a less serious crime to be considered as spent if the person stays clean for a specified period. The purpose is to help such deserving ex-offenders put their past behind them. Indeed, together with the Home Detention scheme which MHA introduced five years ago and which we recently enhanced, these are two key platforms to help offenders and ex-offenders reintegrate into society.

Under the RCA, Police keeps records in the Register of Criminals of persons convicted of any crime specified in the First and Second Schedules of the Act. Particulars such as the photograph, finger impressions, and conviction records are recorded. It is a record for life. The Register of Criminals is very useful in Police investigations, especially in the identification of suspects. The courts also

Column: 673

make use of these criminal records when sentencing repeat offenders.

Giving ex-offenders a second chance

While society must be protected from recalcitrant offenders who persist in committing crimes, there are ex-offenders who have genuinely turned over a new leaf. Many of these people were convicted of minor crimes many years ago and have since demonstrated that they can stay away from trouble. They therefore deserve to be given a second chance.

One such ex-offender that we know of is a university graduate in her late twenties who was convicted in court and fined $1,000 for theft several years ago. Since then, this lady has turned over a new leaf and stayed away from crime. However, many employers were reluctant to employ her. There were a few occasions when she managed to get a job but each time, the constant fear and sense of insecurity caused her to resign after a few weeks.

With the assistance of the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises or "SCORE", this lady graduate managed to find an employer willing to give her a second chance. This has greatly improved her morale and self-worth. There are many other similar examples of ex-offenders who have turned over a new leaf, but continue to encounter difficulties in their search for gainful employment.

MHA recognises that there is a need to facilitate the reintegration of ex-offenders into our society. To this end, SCORE already plays a key role in providing inmates with opportunities to pick up useful skills, to enhance their chances of landing a job when released from prison. The "Yellow Ribbon" project, jointly organised by member agencies of the Community Action for the Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders or "CARE" Network, aims to remove the social

Column: 674

stigma faced by those who have been convicted of crimes. We are gratified by the strong support from the public for this project. While these initiatives have greatly benefited ex-offenders, more can be done to help those who have since stayed on the right side of the law. There are also other initiatives like the Community Tele Movies, Toilet-Kitchen, Coming Home and other projects mounted by CARE Network.

In reviewing the RCA, MHA studied the two options of either expunging the record or rendering it spent. Expunging a record means erasing the record completely, to the extent that the ex-offender is deemed to have never been convicted of that offence. In contrast, when a person's record becomes spent, he is deemed to have no record of that conviction, but it does not remove the fact of conviction.

Sir, as we are making a start in this area, we have decided to do so on a more cautious note, by providing for criminal records to become spent. In the light of experience gained, we can consider expunging criminal records in the future.

Rendering criminal records as spent

Sir, let me now highlight the main features of the Bill. First of all, the new section 7B provides that a record in the Register of Criminals of a person convicted of a minor crime will automatically be marked as spent, if he satisfies a five year crime-free period. For offenders who are sentenced to a term of imprisonment, the crime-free period would be determined from the date of the person's release from custody.

Once a person's record of a conviction is marked as spent, the new section 7E deems him to have no record of that conviction in the Register of Criminals. If asked whether he has a "criminal record", the person can lawfully answer "no". He does not have to disclose its existence in

Column: 675

most circumstances, especially when applying for a job. The ex-offender can treat such questions as not relating to his spent criminal record. Therefore, if he decides not to disclose a spent criminal record, he cannot be denied employment or subsequently dismissed on the grounds that he failed to disclose it.

However, as I have said earlier, these amendments do not completely delete a person's criminal record. Hence, a record that becomes spent does not remove the fact of the conviction. So, an ex-offender whose record is marked as spent must still disclose his conviction if specifically asked about a "previous conviction", for example, if the question asked is if he has ever been convicted by a court of law. The record will also be surfaced in investigations authorised by law and in connection with court proceedings.

Disqualified ex-offenders

All this, of course, cannot be at the expense of public safety and security. My Ministry has given much thought to the profile of persons who pose the lowest risk to society and should therefore be allowed to have their criminal records rendered spent. Trying to define a minor crime by the maximum sentence allowable could result in anomalies. So, we decided that the actual sentence meted out would be a more realistic criterion. Hence, the new section 7C provides that to qualify for a record to be spent, the ex-offender must not have been sentenced to an imprisonment term exceeding three months or to a fine exceeding $2,000. The majority of those eligible to have their records spent will be those who have committed minor offences, such as shop theft and gaming in a common gaming house. Persons convicted of serious offences listed in the new Third Schedule,

Column: 676

such as culpable homicide, sexual offences and drug trafficking, are disqualified from having their records spent under the Bill.

Sir, the Bill also disqualifies an ex-offender who has more than one record in the Register of Criminals from having his criminal record marked as spent. In addition, an ex-offender is allowed to have only one of his criminal records in the Register of Criminals marked as spent in his lifetime. Thus, an ex-offender is given only one second chance.

Some legislation, such as the Architects Act, Medical Registration Act and Legal Profession Act, stipulate that a person convicted of certain offences, such as those involving dishonesty, will be disqualified from either joining the profession or appointment to certain posts within the profession. This amendment to the RCA will not displace any of the existing requirements in the law for these professions.

Application to have criminal record treated as spent

The new section 7D enables an ex-offender who is otherwise disqualified to apply to the Commissioner of Police to treat his record in the Register of Criminals as spent. In deciding whether to grant the application, the Commissioner of Police will consider factors such as the nature and severity of the offence, the sentence imposed and the applicant's conduct subsequent to the conviction. This provides some flexibility in administering the scheme,

and ensures that those who do not satisfy the criteria, but are nevertheless deserving of a second chance, can benefit from this policy.

Records of offences not kept in the Register of Criminals

Column: 677

Let me move on to another important aspect of the Bill, which concerns the records of offences that are not kept in the Register of Criminals.

Definition of "criminal record"

At present, not everyone convicted of an offence ends up with a record in the Register of Criminals. Only those offences listed in the First and Second Schedules of the Act, commonly known as "registrable offences", will result in a criminal record in the Register of Criminals. Many offences are non-registrable. These tend to be minor or regulatory in nature, such as parking or littering offences. For these non-registrable offences, the department concerned which enforces them would keep its own records.

Employers often ask questions about a potential employee's previous criminal record or conviction. We feel it is not necessary to stigmatise persons who commit minor, technical or regulatory offences as "criminals" with "criminal records". Hence, in line with the intention of giving such ex-offenders a second chance, we have introduced a new section 7F in the RCA so that records of these non-registrable offences are not regarded as "criminal records".

The effect of section 7F is that when a person is asked about his criminal record, that question will be taken to refer only to a criminal record as defined in the RCA, ie, the record of convictions for registrable offences. A person who has been convicted of only non-registrable offences can say he has no criminal record. A person who has been convicted of some registrable and some non-registrable offences is only obliged to disclose his registrable offences, unless these are treated as spent by the amendments.

Column: 678

MHA is currently working with other Ministries to ensure that the list of registrable offences is updated and contains the more serious offences, leaving the minor regulatory offences as non-registrable. This approach ties in with what Government is doing through the Ministry of Law - my other hat - which, together with the Attorney-General's Chambers, is spearheading a drive to decriminalise minor, regulatory offences. So that is part of the larger pattern.

The role of employers

Let me now speak on the role of employers. Whilst deleting criminal records is a useful step, the key consideration is really the attitude of our employers. To give ex-offenders a second chance, employers should consider dovetailing with these amendments by not inquiring about previous convictions of a prospective employee. Instead, they should consider asking, for example, whether he has a criminal record. In this way, a person need not dredge up a past conviction which could have occurred many years ago, the record of which has already been spent. Because of the safeguards in the Bill, employers can rest assured that only one-time offenders who were convicted of minor crimes can have records rendered spent. In this regard, MHA will be actively engaging employers to try to encourage and persuade them to adopt an enlightened view in employing ex-offenders.

Implementation

Sir, in terms of implementation, once the Bill comes into operation, ex-offenders whose records have been rendered spent will be informed by letter. As there are a large number of records that need to be verified and checked, some of which go back many, many years, the letters will be sent out sometime in September or October this year. We are taking extra

Column: 679

care to minimise the inconvenience and embarrassment that may result from errors. In addition, to enable those who think they may benefit from the "spent" regime to check on their status, we plan to set up an e-Portal to allow them to verify whether they have a criminal record that has been rendered spent. This system will be ready within the next nine months. In the meantime, Police will provide more information by way of FAQs on its website. This is readily available to Singaporeans who want to know more about this new scheme.

Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, these amendments will, for a start, result in about 120,000 ex-offenders having their records rendered spent. Thereafter, we estimate that some 9,000 ex-offenders will benefit annually from this "spent" regime.

In conclusion, Sir, by providing for certain criminal records to become spent, the Government is taking another important step to help ex-offenders reintegrate into society, not just Government but together with other partners and agencies. Especially for those who have genuinely repented and are determined to make a fresh start, society as a whole should be more embracing and more supportive. This is especially so for those who have kept to the straight and narrow path for some time after being released from prison.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Ms Indranee Rajah: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I speak in support of the Bill.

I strongly support the intention behind the amendment which is to allow an ex-offender who has turned over a new leaf to have a second chance and to start on a clean slate. The proposed amendments

Column: 680

are useful because, first, they allow the ex-offender who has a criminal record that has been spent to be deemed to have no record of that conviction. And, secondly, because it is tied to him having a five-year period of being crime free, it is a powerful incentive to help that person stay crime free and therefore have his record spent.

The concerns I have though are whether the amendments either go far enough or whether the legislative framework may have some difficulties in terms of implementation. I think the most pertinent point will be the one which the Senior Minister of State has highlighted, and that is the attitude of employers. Because we have decided to embark on the regime where records are spent rather than expunged, it means that the fact of the conviction remains even though you can say that you now no longer have a record, and it does mean, as the Senior Minister of State has illustrated, that if an employer asks you point blank, "Do you have a criminal record?", you can truthfully answer yes. But if he asks you point blank, "Have you ever been convicted?", you cannot truthfully say no. You have to say, "Yes, I have been convicted.", which means that the ex-offender's employability or his ability to get a second chance is dependent, to some extent, on how the employer frames the question.

There are only two ways to deal with that. One possibility is to legislate on it and we say that the employers have to ask the question in a particular way, ie, they can only ask whether you have a record. But the question is whether we want to interfere too much in the employer's HR practices, and particularly for those in the private sector, because we do want them to have a certain autonomy in the way they run their HR business.

The alternative would be that we have to, both as employers and society, change

Column: 681

our mindset, and to now slowly realise that there is another category that has come into being. Instead of the previous two categories, which is either offender or non-offender, there is now a third category of someone who has been an offender but because it is spent, we should treat him or her differently than someone who still has a record, and that obviously is going to need, if we go that route, a lot of persuasion and cooperation, and we would need the employers as well as members of society on board for that. And I think that is a role that should be played not just by MHA but something which the Ministry of Manpower should be working on as well, and employers' associations, such as the Singapore National Employers' Federation.

I would also like to ask the Senior Minister of State to clarify two points. One, when explaining why we had decided to go along the regime of spent records rather than having the records expunged, he said that it was because this is a new legislation and we want to proceed cautiously. If I could just inquire, what are the specific concerns about having a regime where these records are expunged? Is there something that we are particularly afraid of or concerned about that we have seen from experience with the legislation in other countries, or is this just a general concern?

The second clarification I would like to seek is: what happens to the registrable particulars of these ex-offenders whose records have been spent? Let me explain. Under the RCA, the Registrar of Criminals keeps a register. And on that register are various particulars. It includes the conviction, particulars of the offence, but it also includes things like the ex-offender's fingerprints. And if a person is charged with a crime but is subsequently acquitted or completely discharged, the fingerprint records and the photographs which are on the register are destroyed.

Column: 682

And they are destroyed because the person is deemed innocent.

There is a similar approach with respect to the DNA database that is also kept by the Registrar. For these ex-offenders who had their records spent but whose convictions can sometimes be referred to for particular purposes such as investigations or court proceedings, what happens to their registrable particulars, in particular their finger prints and DNA records? Do they remain on the register or are they destroyed as well, similar to those who are acquitted or discharged?

Mr Ahmad Khalis Bin Abdul Ghani (Hong Kah): Sir, the big issue that arises here is what we, as a society, should do as regards ex-offenders. Our paramount concern is to reintegrate them back into the mainstream. We want them to quickly get back to their families, get back to work, get back to normal living. The RCA was not intended to deal with ex-offenders as such, but to deal with the records of their convictions. However, it is a fact that such records have significant effects on the lives of ex-offenders, sometimes even long after they had completed their full sentences, and this significance is usually in the negative - social stigma and a major minus point in job applications. Any effort to reduce this negative effect is welcome, bearing in mind our basic concern to reintegrate ex-convicts into mainstream society. So I think the Bill has its heart in the right place and I welcome it.

Having said that, I think the treatment of ex-offenders is best managed by society through its own actions. Legislation can only do so much. The Minister and my colleague, Ms Indranee, had given examples of this. We cannot legislate against employers from asking the question to a potential employee, "Have you been convicted of an offence?". If asked such a question, the applicant has to answer yes.

Column: 683

But, Sir, even if his criminal records were to be expunged, the fact that he has a criminal conviction remains. While records may not show any conviction on his part, the ex-offender if asked that question will still be placed in a moral dilemma whether to be honest and be on his way to redeeming his past misdeeds but risk not getting a job and therefore delaying his process of reintegration or to lie, ie, to commit another wrong so as to secure a living for himself and his family in his efforts to reintegrate back into society.

To make things worse, this lie may be found out with even more devastating results. Once, a friend of mine, a manager of an organisation, employed a man with a previous conviction, but the fact of this conviction was not made known. After a year or so, the manager asked for details of the man's previous experience, as the manager wanted to consider the man for suitability for a course. The man was unable to furnish his full records. There was a gap of about 15 months unaccounted for. He was not able to come up with a convincing story to cover that long break. At last, he admitted to having spent time in jail. The manager was greatly disappointed, less by the fact that the man had a conviction

but more by the fact that the said conviction was not made known. The manager felt that he could not fully trust the man that much after that. Their relationship strained greatly. After a few months from that incident, the man tendered his resignation.

Sir, the point is Parliament cannot pass legislation to force employers not to ask certain questions such as, "Have you been convicted of an offence?" There is a limit as to what legislation can do. Indeed, the public, including employers, should have the right to know who they

Column: 684

are dealing with. They have the right to know his or her history to see whether he or she is suitable for jobs available. But, nevertheless, this Parliament can and should urge society, especially employers - and I echo the sentiments of my colleague, Ms Indranee - to play its part in reintegrating ex-offenders.

In this regard, there are segments of society that have done much. I wish to declare my interest, here, Sir, as a member of the Board of SCORE. SCORE's partners include hundreds of employers who have shown willingness not only to employ ex-offenders but also to provide them with relevant training. I wish to thank them for their care and their help. But the number of such positive employers is too small. Even after getting jobs, many ex-offenders face class barriers in their workplaces. Many also carry the additional burden of being stigmatised by family and ex-friends for years.

To help reduce these difficulties, the "Yellow Ribbon" project, which the Senior Minister of State made mention of just now, was launched last year. It was and still is a widely publicised campaign to raise public awareness of the challenges faced by ex-offenders and the issues involved. I understand that the Hon. Prime Minister had promised on television that he would attend the event this year because he missed the "Yellow Ribbon" event last year. I thank the Prime Minister for this. Now it is recorded in Hansard as well. The "Yellow Ribbon" project has to have a high profile and wide outreach because it is important that our society gives its wholehearted support. As I said earlier, it is not feasible to enforce support by legislation. We have to garner support by education and persuasion.

I also think, Sir, that the public sector can do more to help. I stand corrected on this point. But my impression is that

Column: 685

anyone with a conviction - registrable offences - will find immense difficulty in getting a job from the public sector. Recently, two persons approached me to appeal to the Land Transport Authority to obtain taxi driving licences. Their applications were turned down due to "regard for public safety". Both persons admitted to me that they had previous convictions. However, one was for a white-collar crime and the other for drug consumption. I believe that their previous convictions were given undue weightage by the LTA. I wish to add that they were not my residents. So I did not write in. I advised them to seek their own MPs and gave them general advice.

The public sector and all employers should avoid applying blanket rulings. While we appreciate their need to be careful, let us not reject the whole basket just because of one rotten apple. Each case should be dealt with individually. Each application must be assessed on its merits. And I think, in our context, the public sector should take the lead. I wish to ask the Minister whether he agrees with this and, if so, what steps will the Government take in this respect.

Sir, this Bill seeks to ameliorate, in some way, the ill effects of maintaining criminal records. I thank the Minister and his officials for putting their minds to do this. But this Bill does not and cannot resolve the issue of how our society should treat ex-offenders. If our society wishes to be harsh and it is not forgiving, even if all records are expunged, there will be ways and means for these convictions to be made known and used against ex-offenders. Conversely, if our society is overly forgiving, then whatever negative records available would not make much difference.

As we go along, we need to strike a balance between a few conflicting principles: First, how much we want to forgive and accommodate our members'

Column: 686

past misdeeds and be a caring society? Second, how much we want our ex-offenders to come back into our fold? Third, to what extent we want to protect our society from possible dangers? And fourth, to what extent should society have access to records of ex-offenders?

As our society evolves, we seem to gain the confidence and willingness to be more forgiving. This is partly attributable to strong law enforcement, transparent prosecutorial process, a very independent judiciary and a keen observance of the rule of law. The strength of our judicial and legal institutions rightfully should give us equal strength to be more flexible and more caring to ex-offenders after they complete their sentence - the strength to be a more gracious society. For all its shortcomings, this Bill demonstrates the Government's continuous search to balance the need to reintegrate ex-offenders into society on the one hand and the need to maintain records of offences for society's future protection and benefit on the other. Seen in a larger context, I agree that it is part of our quest to be a more gracious and caring society.

I support the Bill.