by Sylvia Lim, MP for Aljunied GRC and Chairman of Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council
[Delivered in Parliament on 20 Jan 2014]
I support the main aims of the Bill. However, I wish to raise concerns about three areas – first, the expanded role of the auxiliary police; second, the provisions relating to remission of imprisonment, and thirdly, the external placement scheme.
Expanded Role of Auxiliary Police
Clauses 5 and 6 of the Bill make changes to the role of the auxiliary police in escorting and securing prisoners. While the current Act allows the auxiliary police to be deployed to escort prisoners while in transit to and from prison (e.g. to court) and while they are outside prison, the Bill effectively expands their role to include safeguarding prisoners while they are within prison premises.
The handling of prisoners within prison is a delicate matter entrusted to prison officers. Could the government explain why this task is being outsourced to the auxiliary police? Is this due to any shortage of prison officers? As we know, the training requirements and mindsets of prison officers and auxiliary officers are also quite different. Prison officers are trained in Rehabilitation and are recruited to be “Captains of Lives”, while auxiliary police are generally focused on safeguarding property and some law and order functions. Given this fundamental difference, what additional jobs are to be assigned to the auxiliary police to do within the prison premises? How suitably trained are they for their expanded roles?
Remission
One of the key features of the Bill relates to remission of jail terms. Clause 7 introduces Part VB which will remove the remission rules from the Prisons Regulations to the parent Act. The Bill generally preserves the current default position of granting prisoners a one-third discount off imprisonment for good behaviour. However, the purpose of granting remission is changed from “facilitating reformative treatment” as stated in the Prisons Regulations to the more holistic aim of “facilitating the rehabilitation of prisoners and their reintegration into society” as stated in the new S50E. Release at the two-third mark will no longer be unconditional but be subject to a condition that while the remission order is in force, the person should not commit an offence and be sentenced to incarceration. If he breaches the condition, he may lose his remission in addition to being sentenced for the new offence.
Apart from remission at the two-third mark, the Bill introduces a new provision for discretionary remission before the two-third mark for prisoners who have already served at least twenty years’ imprisonment. This is a good amendment, as the new S50J will put such long-term prisoners on par with those serving life imprisonment, who already can have their cases reviewed after serving twenty years’ imprisonment. This will give both groups the chance to re-build what remains of their lives and to reconnect with society once again. I have one clarification concerning S 50J. It is not stated how the Minister will conduct his review of the case to decide if earlier remission should be given. In life imprisonment cases, the Prisons Regulations currently provide for a Life Imprisonment Review Board to be appointed to make recommendations to the Minister on whether remission is appropriate. Will another Review Board be set up to make recommendations to the Minister regarding earlier remission for prisoners serving long sentences?
As regards the procedure for reviewing such cases, I note that in Hong Kong, there is a Long Term Prison Sentences Review Board to review long term prisoners for sentence remission. Under their procedures, there are some features of transparency worth noting. For instance, what factors are taken into account in reviewing cases is publicly gazetted e.g. nature of the offence, criminal history, age, behavior in prison, rehabilitation and employment prospects, and others. Another feature is that when the Board rejects remission, the affected prisoner can ask the Board for its reasons, so that he can work on those areas to increase his chances in future reviews. I hope the government will continually look at such best practices and see how the process can be improved.
Clause 7 of the Bill also introduces a Mandatory Aftercare Scheme for certain prisoners when released on remission. The new S 50U provides for the kinds of cases which qualify for Mandatory Aftercare. However, according to S 50V, mandatory aftercare is not an automatic condition once a prisoner qualifies but the Commissioner may make such an order. I would like to ask whether this means that mandatory aftercare will only be selectively imposed, or does the government expect that most, if not all, qualifying cases will be subject to mandatory aftercare?
Cancellation / Forfeiture / Restoration of Remission
In relation to remission, I also wish to seek 2 clarifications on the cancellation, forfeiture and restoration of remission. The Bill makes changes to the Prisons Regulations, and there now appear to be two anomalies which require clarification.
The first concerns the powers of the President. Under the existing prison regulation 124, the President can take away a prisoner’s right to remission if he commits a grave offence while serving sentence. Under the Bill, this power of the President is preserved under the new Section 50 I (4). However, what is quite different is that under the current regulation 124, the President may also give “remission without limit for special services”. This phrase is not found in S50 I (4). Could Minister clarify whether we are indeed changing the authority being given to the President under the Act, to take away his right to grant remission without limit, and why this is being done?
The second clarification concerns Clause 15 of the Bill. This relates to the Superintendent’s powers when a prisoner has forfeited some of his remission due to disciplinary offences while in prison. Under the current Prisons Regulations, a prisoner’s remission could be forfeited under the orders of three authorities – the Superintendent himself, who may forfeit up to 60 days of remission, or the Director of Prisons, who may forfeit up to 90 days, or by the Visiting Justices, who can forfeit up to 180 days. I assume that even after the Bill is passed, the Superintendent, the Commissioner of Prisons and the Visiting Justices will retain some powers to order forfeiture of remission. In this regard, Clause 15 appears to increase the powers of a Superintendent drastically. Under the existing Regulation 124, a Superintendent can only restore to the prisoner up to 7 days of remission which was ordered by the Superintendent himself to be forfeited. However, under Clause 15 of this Bill, the new S77A will allow the Superintendent the “discretion” to restore to the prisoner the entire period of remission which had been forfeited by such prisoner. This power under S77A is much wider than regulation 124. It appears to allow the Superintendent to change not only his own decisions about forfeiture of remission but also the decisions of his superior viz. the Director (Commissioner) of Prisons and even the Visiting Justices. Can this be a correct reading of what is intended? The effect of the new S77A needs to be clarified.
External Placement Scheme
Clause 12 introduces the new Part VIA concerning an External Placement Scheme. This Scheme allows a prisoner to serve his sentence in a place other than a prison, if the Minister directs the Commissioner to make an external placement order. This order can be for periods of up to 12 months at a time.
Under what circumstances will a prisoner have the privilege of serving his time outside prison? According to the new S59B, the Minister is reminded that prisoners should ordinarily serve their time in prison and that external placement may cause a public safety risk. However, the Minister can take into account the physical and mental condition of the prisoner, and “any other relevant circumstances” in considering whether the prisoner should be externally placed. Senior Minister of State mentioned that a committee would advise the Minister in such cases.
I assume that certain prisoners may not physically or mentally fit for prison perhaps due to old age or some illness. I can understand why it would make practical sense to house the prisoner instead in some specialized care facility or even in a hospice. Senior Minister of State mentioned that the section would be used for terminally ill patients as certified by prison-appointed doctors. What I am concerned about is whether, over time, some prisoners may try to “game” the system by getting their own medical experts to advise that they need to serve time outside prison for one medical condition or another, and thereby get away with serving their jail terms in more comfortable environments or even in their own homes. I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State to elaborate on what safeguards will be put in place to prevent such subversions.