Statutes Misc Amendments No. 2 Bill (SL) – 14th October 2024 – Speech By Sylvia Lim

I have no objections to the Bill and wish to speak briefly on the issue of young offenders, who are the subject of the amendment under Clause 4 of the Bill.

Clause 4 will amend the Criminal Procedure Code concerning the age of criminal responsibility of young offenders.  The definition of “juvenile” is being amended from referring to someone between the ages of 7 and 16 years old, to refer to a person who is between the ages of 10 and 18 years old.  The change is in line with the amendments that this House made five years ago to the Penal Code and the Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA), which had hitherto defined child to be someone under 16 years old. 

This amendment to the CPC, when effective, will mean that youths between 16 and 17 will now be included in some of the CPC provisions meant to protect juveniles.  Some examples include the power of a sentencing judge not to impose the usual punishment for an offence but to make orders to rehabilitate and reintegrate the young offender under the CYPA; another example would be the opportunity for the young offender to be released on bail even if charged with an offence attracting the death penalty or life imprisonment.

The general policy of recognising childhood as lasting till 18 years of age is well-accepted internationally and in Singapore, has been a long time coming.  Nearly 30 years ago, in 1995, Singapore ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which defines childhood as that period of life up to 18 years.   The Convention recognises that a person’s life till 18 years is a “special, protected time, in which children must be allowed to grow, learn, play, develop and flourish with dignity.”  Children under 18 have yet to be fully developed, and when they do wrong, they should be guided rather than shamed and punished.

While the changes in the definitions regarding age are necessary, they will only be meaningful if the entire eco-system of criminal justice adopts the same approach.  To this end, there are significant measures already in place, such as prohibitions on publishing the identifying particulars of crime victims or suspects under 18 years old. 

Another area where progress has been made over the years is in the Appropriate Adult Scheme, where an appropriate adult accompanies a young offender during law enforcement investigations.  Three years ago, during parliamentary questions, the Ministry of Home Affairs affirmed that the cut-off age for suspects under the AAS remained at 16 years.  When I enquired then about whether the scheme would be extended to suspects below 18 years, MHA pointed to a manpower challenge.  It was pointed out that the AAS relied on volunteers, and if the scheme were to be expanded to youths above 16 but below 18, it was necessary to double the number of volunteers. 

I am happy to note that the Ministry has since confirmed that the AAS would indeed be expanded to include 16 and 17 year olds. It was announced that this would be done in phases from 1 April last year with the target completion date of October last year.  It is commendable that the manpower challenge has been overcome. 

Another important area is the Youth Courts, which are an integral part of the eco-system for the support of our children.  Compared to conventional courts, the Youth Courts adopt more therapeutic practices, such as having closed-door hearings and a range of court orders for the reintegration of young offenders.  In 2019 Parliament passed amendments to the Children and Young Persons Act, to raise the jurisdiction of the Youth Court to hear cases involving youths to include those aged 16 and 17.  However, it appears that five years on, the Youth Courts are still hearing cases involving youths aged up to 16 years only.  Could the Ministry of Law confirm when the Youth Court will start hearing cases involving youth offenders between 16 and 18 years old?

Over the years I have witnessed young residents getting into trouble with the law.  Some simply fell into bad company and succumbed to peer pressure, while others lacked proper adult guidance.  After their first brush with the law, some are saved, while others sink deeper into more offending, snuffing out the great potential their lives probably had.  Not everyone has parents who can advocate for them.  It is thus vital that the agencies in the criminal justice system, and we in Parliament, do what we can to give these young citizens a leg up.