Response by Senior Minister of State for Law, Indranee Rajah SC, to the Motion for the Adjournment – ‘Community Sentencing and Other Rehabilitative Options’

11 Sep 2017 Posted in Parliamentary speeches and responses

1. Mr Speaker, I thank the Honourable Member for his speech.

2. In principle, the Government shares the same objectives as Mr Murali. We have been moving in the direction of extending more rehabilitative options to those who commit offences, especially those who suffer from mental health conditions.

3. The Community-Based Sentencing (or “CBS”) scheme was introduced in the Criminal Procedure Code (“CPC”) in 2010 to harness the resources of the community in rehabilitating offenders. Let me just highlight two schemes. Each year, the courts have been making about 80 Mandatory Treatment Orders (or “MTOs”), which are targeted at persons with mental health conditions; and 80 Community Service Orders (or “CSOs”). We have seen encouraging results on both these schemes, and I have been told that some who complete their CSOs even continue to volunteer with the organisation where they served their sentence!

4. We can go further, and intend to do so. In fact, one key plank of the Ministry of Law’s proposed amendments to the CPC is to expand the CBS scheme. For offenders with mental health conditions in particular, we are proposing to expand the range of offences that are eligible for MTOs.

5. However, we must take a balanced approach. Not all cases are suitable for Community-Based Sentencing. Some crimes may be too serious, and it would not serve the justice system well to allow the offenders to be on the CBS regime. Some offenders may not benefit from CBS. Hence the regime has to be carefully calibrated. We will need to draw a line somewhere, even if that means that some will fall outside the regime. Nevertheless, we will continue to examine the eligibility requirements, and extend the line where appropriate.

6. This brings me to Mr Murali’s point relating to the availability of CBS for offences with mandatory minimum or specified minimum sentences. One area where we think the line should be drawn is where mandatory minimum sentences are concerned. Such sentences are only prescribed for very serious offences. Justice would not be served by imposing CBS for such offences. However, we are prepared to explore whether eligibility for CBS can be extended to offences with specified minimum sentences, which are prescribed for relatively less serious offences. Stakeholders we consulted had generally supported the continued exclusion of such offences, but we will re-look the legislation and seriously consider whether CBS can be extended to these offences.

7. Mr Murali’s other point relates to the availability of treatment for offenders whose mental health conditions have been clinically assessed as being not susceptible to treatment. There are good reasons why these offenders are not given MTOs. It would pose a danger to the public and undermine confidence in our criminal justice system if offenders who would otherwise be imprisoned are allowed to remain in the community, even though there is no prospect that the underlying cause of their offending can be addressed through medical treatment.

8. This does not mean that these offenders are not given treatment. I understand that all inmates diagnosed with mental health conditions are seen regularly by prison psychiatrists. There is a large spectrum of such conditions, and the medical professionals will decide on the degree of treatment and management required.

9. The Singapore Prison Service also works closely with IMH and VWOs to ensure continuity in monitoring and treating inmates with mental health conditions once they are released. For instance, inmates whose conditions are unstable will be escorted to IMH upon their release, for continued treatment. IMH also makes arrangements for those requiring outpatient psychiatric treatment. For those who may not be able to return home, the Singapore Prison Service works with VWOs such as the Singapore Association for Mental Health to emplace them in special care homes.

10. We regularly examine our practices and systems to ensure that the best possible measures are in place to give these offenders their best shot at effective rehabilitation, subject to what is feasible given available resources. We will carefully study Mr Murali’s comments – including the UK approach he has referred to – to ensure as much as possible that nobody falls through the cracks.

11. Finally, we have various intervention strategies to prevent re-offending in cases where those with mental health conditions have been given warnings for certain wrongdoing, but not charged in court. These strategies often entail close cooperation between various Government agencies.

12. Our police force works with multiple stakeholders, including MSF, Family Service Centres and IMH, to achieve this objective. Where an Investigation Officer assesses that there are relevant issues through the course of investigation, such as underlying mental or socio-familial issues, a referral will be made to the appropriate agency for their follow up. The Community Policing Unit also engages community groups regularly. Where appropriate, they are able to render support to reduce re-offending.

13. There are also a number of programmes available to persons with mental health conditions who are at risk of committing offences. For example, IMH’s “Response, Early Intervention, Assessment in Community mental Health” teams (or REACH, in short) have been working with school counsellors to assist students with psychological, emotional and behavioural problems, including students with addictions. Interventions are provided within the student’s school, or if necessary, at the IMH Child Guidance Clinic (or CGC). Children and youths who have committed offences, and are suspected to have underlying mental health conditions, may be referred from the police or MSF to IMH’s “Forensic Rehabilitation, Intervention, Evaluation & Network Development Service” team (or FRIENDS, in short). The FRIENDS team will provide assessment and treatment, including group therapy and home visits, and work with community resources to support these youths.

14. To conclude, the Government will continue to identify and address any gaps in the support structures available for those with mental health conditions, but this cannot replace support from the community. The key to prevent re-offending often lies in the person regularly receiving treatment, including taking his or her medication. For this, there is no substitute for community support. I hope that family and friends, VWOs, and other community leaders can continue to work together to support the rehabilitation of these persons.

Last updated on 14 Sep 2017