EXEMPTED BUSINESS (Motion)

Column: 686

EXEMPTED BUSINESS:

(Motion): Resolved,

That the proceedings on the business set down on the Order Paper for today be exempted at this day's sitting from the provisions of Standing Order No. 2. - [Mr Mah Bow Tan].

Column: 686

REGISTRATION OF CRIMINALS (AMENDMENT) BILL: Debate resumed.

Mdm Halimah Yacob: Sir, I rise in support of this Bill. I would like to

Column: 687

applaud the Ministry of Home Affairs for making this amendment as I feel that it will help our ex-offenders to look for jobs and integrate into our society.

Everyone, Sir, deserves a second chance. This amendment will give that much needed second chance to those who have committed minor offences. We have heard over the last few months of the difficulties faced by many ex-offenders who cannot get jobs even though they have turned over a new leaf. This amendment alone will not remove the social stigma that our society sometimes unforgivingly attaches to people, but, at least, it will help to reduce some barriers. Much more needs to be done, and this certainly goes beyond the Ministry of Home Affairs.

Sir, there are a couple of points which I wish to raise. One of them has already been raised by my colleagues who spoke before me, and that is concerning the fact that this Bill mentions about a record being spent but that the conviction still remains. On the ground, when a person - a layman - is asked by an employer whether he has a previous conviction or whether his record is spent, it is difficult for the person to make that kind of a distinction. So he may end up in either one or two situations. He may think that having his criminal record spent means that the conviction is no longer there and, therefore, he may reply "no" when he is asked, "Do you have a previous conviction?". In that situation, he may then be violating the law because he does have a criminal conviction, as what has been removed is only his record as it is treated as spent but his conviction remains. So his reply may not be correct. But a lay person may not understand that distinction.

A second situation could be that an employer may ask him, after being

Column: 688

thoroughly educated - as my colleagues in this House have suggested, we should educate employers, which I thoroughly agree - "Do you have a criminal record?". But he may not understand that he should reply to the question "no", and he may then answer "yes" because, to him, having a criminal record and a criminal conviction are one and the same thing. So this confusion, I think, to some extent, will weaken the impact of this Act, unless the Ministry takes it upon itself to educate employers thoroughly and also the ex-offenders.

The second point about this amendment, Sir, is that the primary objective is obviously to try and help rehabilitate ex-offenders by helping them to secure employment. But in the Bill itself, there is nothing to stipulate as to what happens if an employer subsequently, if he discovers that this person has a conviction, dismisses him on that ground. So I think that is an important consideration as well because at that point of time, assuming that he replies he has no record, and subsequently it is discovered that he has, he is dismissed by the employer on that ground, there is nothing in the law to actually take care of his interests or protect him. So I would like to suggest that in this situation, the Ministry of Home Affairs should work very closely with the Ministry of Manpower and the employers as well to educate them on the various facets of this Act as well as to explain to them the importance of not discriminating or using that as a ground to subsequently dismiss ex-offenders who have secured employment with them.

The next point I wish to raise, Sir, is with regard to the need to make ex-offenders understand this new amendment. I note what the Senior Minister of State had said about setting up a portal and individually informing the ex-offenders. But I think the Ministry could go much further than that. And I would

Column: 689

like to recommend that the Ministry set up a system which ex-offenders can access on their own to ascertain the status of their criminal record as not all offences are covered under the amendment. There are offences where the records will be automatically treated as spent while others require a person to apply to the Commissioner for Police to have his record treated as spent, and the discretion lies with the Commissioner whether or not to approve the application. Even for records that will be automatically treated as spent, the effective date that this takes place varies, depending on the situation. For example, for someone with a custodial sentence, the five-year period starts after he completes his prison term. Whereas if the penalty is only a fine, the period starts from the date that the sentence is passed. It is not possible for us to expect a person to understand the various legal positions to determine whether or not his criminal record is spent. This may lead to a situation where a person may unwittingly commit an offence under the Act, by failing to declare his conviction which he thought is spent when he has actually not met all the criteria.

Sir, in New Zealand, which has a similar law, individuals can request for a copy of the criminal record from the Privacy Assistant of the Ministry of Justice to determine if they meet the criteria. The New Zealand's Ministry of Justice has also developed information pamphlets to increase awareness of the effect of their legislation as part of their public information campaign to ensure that potential employers know about the effect of the legislation. Copies of the pamphlets have been distributed to employers. Individuals can also secure a copy of the pamphlet from the courts, police stations, community law centres and other public places. They can also view the pamphlets online, and these pamphlets, Sir, are available in English,

Column: 690

Maori, Samoan, Tongan and other ethnic languages in New Zealand.

I would like to suggest that the Ministry of Law provide a similar service where persons can access to ascertain whether their criminal records are spent. The Ministry of Law can also conduct an awareness campaign targeting employers as well as the public. Such pamphlets could also be made available to individuals in the CDCs, CCs, police stations, courts as well as online.

Sir, in other jurisdictions where there is a similar law, where the records are not automatically spent such as the US, for instance, the power to decide on a person's application is usually vested in the court. In the present amendment, for those offences where the records are not treated as automatically spent, the disqualified person has to apply to the Commissioner for Police if he wants his record to be treated as spent. I think, considering that the Police is also the authority responsible for making arrests and maintaining law and order in Singapore, it may be more appropriate, in my view, for the application to be determined by a court. The Minister's comments on this would be helpful.

Finally, Sir, the amendment seeks to provide some safeguards by stipulating that even if a person's record is treated as spent, for appointments to any job or any office, or for admission to any profession or vocation which by law disqualifies a person with a conviction, then the person is legally obliged to reveal that he has a criminal record. This amendment, as I understand it, seeks to try and balance what we can see as conflicting interests - on the one hand, the interest of the ex-offender and his desire and also in the public interest that he may be integrated into society, and then there is also the other aspect,

the larger public interest, and that public interest is one where in certain offences, the knowledge of those offences is necessary for certain types of

Column: 691

employment and jobs. I note that under the new section 7E(2)(d), it is stipulated that for any appointment or job or any profession or vocation which by law disqualifies a person with a conviction, then the person is legally obliged to reveal that he has a criminal record.

My concern is that, with this provision, the safeguards may be too narrow. For example, if a person with a previous grievous hurt record which is spent applies for a job in a school, he need not reveal about his record during the interview since there is no law disqualifying him from doing such a job. Although this will put him in a situation where he will come into frequent and close contact with young children, I believe that it must be the intention of section 7E(2)(d) to protect such groups. The present section does not cover this situation.

In the UK, Sir, a person is not obliged to disclose a criminal conviction which is spent when applying for a job. However, there is an exception to this rule for exempt posts which are jobs that involve working with, for example, children, young people, the sick, old or vulnerable. Under the New South Wales law, a person will have to reveal to an employer about the spent conviction if he is applying for a job in a position of public trust, such as teachers, teaching aides or childcare providers. So I would like to seek the Senior Minister of State's clarification on this point.

On balance, this is an important and good amendment. It will definitely provide more avenues for employment and better integration into society for ex-offenders.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I thank Ms Indranee Rajah, GPC Chairman, Mr Ahmad Khalis and Mdm Halimah for

Column: 692

supporting the Bill and, more specifically, for the very useful comments and points they have made.

Sir, an enduring theme in their speeches is the importance of reaching out to employers. I think that is the key point. As Ms Indranee Rajah said, it is important to change their mindsets. Like Mr Ahmad Khalis and Mdm Halimah have said, it is important to reach out to them and to convince them that this scheme is worth supporting. We have taken some time to come up with the scheme and we have also made a cautious start, because this is a scheme that is introduced for the first time. There are improvements and expansion that we can make. But we are also mindful that, even if we do this for the first time, there is also a need for us to be aware that we are also balancing various interests. We have, on the one hand, the interest of the employers who may want to know as much as they need about prospective employees and, of course, the other side of the scale is the interest of the ex-offenders.

Like Mr Ahmad Khalis has opined, the law should not be made such that we tell them not to ask certain questions. So how do we go about striking this balance? The other balance, of course, is the concern of society and the interest of the ex-offender. Just like we did for the Home Detention Scheme where we started small, and after operating the scheme for four to five years, we expanded it recently. I think it is right for us to, as we introduce the scheme, start on the spent regime platform and then we will review. We also review the experience of other countries that have the expunging approach like the UK and see whether we should expand. So that is my first point to Ms Indranee Rajah which is linked to the fact that to get this scheme fully off the ground, there is a need for us to engage employers, and that MHA certainly will do together with the Ministry of Manpower and specifically

Column: 693

reaching out to the Singapore National Employers' Federation, which Ms Indranee Rajah has spoken about.

Having said this, I am very happy to report that there are indeed many enlightened employers out there. Mr Ahmad Khalis has talked about his involvement in SCORE. He would therefore know that SCORE has a database which, over the years, has multiplied. And last year, there were some 1,400 employers on the list, up about 25% from the year before. So that is what we will continue to do, ie, to engage employers, bearing in mind that, like Mr Ahmad Khalis has quite rightly said, if the employers are so minded to find out everything about the employees, whatever way we frame the legislation, they will try to get round it by asking very specific pointed questions other than they have a conviction. Even if we remove the expunge regime, they may try to skirt that just by asking simply, "Have you ever been jailed or fined before?". It is important to reach out to them as to what we are trying to do and to give reformed ex-offenders a chance at making something of their lives.

Whilst legislation can facilitate the process, it is definitely not sufficient. That is what Mr Khalis has said. Part of reaching out to employers, of course, is to let them know that it is in the law that if the employee answers truthfully that he does not have a criminal record because he has checked the portal and his record has been spent, therefore, he is telling the truth. He is not misrepresenting the truth. The employer cannot subsequently thereafter, if he discovers that this fellow had been convicted and has a record, dismiss him on that ground alone. But I think Mdm Halimah, having worked with the unions and workers, will know that it may be difficult to pin an employer down if he dismisses an employee because he will not say that he is dismissing the employee because he has discovered that

Column: 694

truth. He will find other reasons. Mdm Halimah is right that we have to educate employers and, indeed, even employees who feel that they have been victimised, that they can go to MOM and present their cases to MOM.

Mr Khalis asked about what Government can do. I agree with him entirely. The Government must also show the way. We must also show that we are an enlightened employer. And this has been happening because those of you who have been in the House for some time will know that, over the years, at various COS debates, MHA has been taking questions on this aspect on how to reintegrate ex-offenders and the focus has been on the Government. So I am happy to say that there was a change in 2000. Before that, those with criminal records would only be employed by the civil service with the approval of the Prime Minister's Office, that was before August 2000. But subsequently, autonomy has been given to the Ministries and they have the flexibility to recruit even ex-offenders, taking into account the nature of the offence committed and the nature of the job. I am happy to say that at the latest count, because I asked for the figures, the civil service has recruited more than 50 ex-offenders over the past three years. And on its part, MHA currently employs more than 20 ex-offenders. But numbers do not tell the full story. I think the attitude is also important. So part of the reaching out process of MHA is also to work with the Public Service Division to see and explore how they can reorientate or fine-tune their approach to employing ex-offenders in the light of these amendments.

Another point that Ms Indranee Rajah asked is what happens to the particulars that have been obtained from the ex-offender - these can be his DNA, records of his fingerprint impressions. As Ms Rajah knows, these are all investigative tools which are internal to the Police.

Column: 695

Therefore, even though his record may be marked spent, that is important to him because then it enables him to interact with the outside world as someone who does not have a criminal record. Internally, the Police will continue to keep these records in its database because, after all, the strength of the database for investigation purposes and for identifying possible offenders in future cases is the size of it. These are already particulars in the database which will be kept, but only for that purpose.

The other big point that all Members make is the need to reach out to more segments of the society, including Mdm Halimah who talked about public education, whether we could consider having some pamphlets. I think that is an excellent idea. That is something I will ask my officials to look at because some Singaporeans may not be that computer savvy. We have the Police website on the Internet. It is easily accessible. I have looked at what they will put up. There is a long list of FAQs that will explain how this policy will be implemented over time. That is quite good because the details are there. But on top of that, I suppose for many Singaporeans who are not that computer savvy, something like a hard copy will be useful. We will certainly consider that. So let me say that public education will in fact be part of the outreach. Because after all, Singaporeans out there must also understand what is a registrable record, what is a non-registrable record. So they must, for example, look at the Registration of Criminals Act and the Schedules. Even for lawyers, it may not be so easy to fully comprehend and grasp this concept. So that is something that we will educate Singaporeans on.

When the portal is implemented over time, it will be user-friendly. I think that will solve Mdm Halimah's concern

Column: 696

whether it will be easy to check. It will be something where an ex-offender who wants to know more about this practice will be able to access. We will think about the implementation, in terms of confidentiality. That is important too. Here, again, we have to balance accessibility with confidentiality. That is why we are taking some time to work out these details, whether it is sending out the letters, which will be about three to four months' time, or setting up the portal, which will be about eight to nine months' time.

One other point that Mdm Halimah asked is why the Commissioner for Police has the powers to decide whether or not to let the person who does not qualify under the stated criteria also have his records spent. She is right because, in implementing this scheme, it flows like this. There are certain criteria that the person must meet, that means, his offence must have attracted a punishment of not more than three months and not more than $2,000, then he must remain crime-free for five years. But the Bill also states certain disqualifications. For example, if he has two registrable offences, or if he has got an outstanding warrant of arrest, that also will disentitle him. But having looked at all these barriers, if he feels that notwithstanding that he may not qualify, he wants to make out a case for him to be considered to have his records marked spent, then he will apply to the Commissioner for Police. That is not a new power that the Commissioner has. Actually, there is a parallel, but not quite the same. Currently, under section 7, anybody who has committed an offence under the Second Schedule of the Act - not the First Schedule as it lists out the more serious offences and the punishments are heavier - where it states another set of offences and the punishments are generally lighter, he can actually write to the Commissioner for Police to ask that his record not be entered into by the Criminal Registry

Column: 697

Office. So it is not a new power that the Police Commissioner exercises. I am sure, as a Police Commissioner, he will exercise it objectively. It is not as though because this man has put the person in prison in the first place, he will be less inclined to allow the application. Because after all, the criteria are also set out in the Act. He looks at the nature of the offence, he looks at the sentence that has been meted out, he looks at the conduct of the applicant subsequent to conviction. So let the Commissioner do his work.

As to safeguards, Mdm Halimah felt that there are certain professions which are so serious with security implications or with implications impinging on the safety of children that the applicant for a job in that industry should divulge his record. This is, as I have mentioned earlier, the need for balance. That is why, again, the point that I have addressed earlier, as to Ms Indranee Rajah's question. Why do we not go straight into the expunging regime? Because we are mindful that we have to convince Singaporeans that the scheme will also take into account their concerns of safety and we will balance them accordingly. The screening process that has been in place for professions which have security implications, for example, security guards, or for professionals in the teaching profession, ie, pre-school teachers, that will still be in place. It is not going to be thrown out just because we have this scheme. This assures Singaporeans that there is a balance. So the screening process will work in tandem with this new spent regime.

I think I have made all the comments in response to Members.

Finally, I just want to thank Members for supporting this Bill. But like I have said, if all of us are enlightened, including all Members who are employers, I think we can show the way. Like I have said before, that is just part of the larger movement that is happening in Singapore,

Column: 698

to give genuine ex-offenders who have reformed a second chance.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

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