Speech by Sylvia Lim, MP for Aljunied GRC for the debate on the President’s Address (28 May 2014)
The government has always prioritized creating economic growth, and nobody seriously disputes that growth is one of the ingredients for social progress. However, the surge in the population since 2005 has had its repercussions on our quality of life. Singaporeans were waiting longer to board public transport with less comfortable rides, wasting more time and petrol stuck in traffic jams, and increasingly feeling like strangers in our own country.
As everyone fights for scarce resources, we must ensure that Singaporeans have the assurance that we live in a safe, fair and just society, and have access to essential services at a standard we can be proud of. To this end, I would like to highlight two areas we should pay attention to viz. Challenges for the Home Team, and Access to Justice. I will later argue for a culture of greater research and gathering and sharing of data in crime and justice matters.
Challenges for the Home Team
First I would like to talk about some challenges faced by the Home Team.
Let me at the onset acknowledge the tremendous pressure on the Home Team in recent years, as it tries to cope with the surge in population. With millions more residents and visitors to handle, there is an exponential increase in the number of encounters with Home Team officers, and with that, a higher risk of mistakes occurring, statistically. When mistakes happen, a measured reaction should be taken, to diagnose the cause and prevent its recurrence. Heads may need to roll, but scapegoating should be avoided.
The public too, should play a constructive role and not add to the problem. Why do I say that? About six years ago, a man managed to clear immigration at Changi Airport using his son’s passport. This incident was widely reported and was the subject of much public criticism. Later, an ICA officer shared with me that in the aftermath of that incident, some Singaporeans clearing Woodlands checkpoint found it amusing to ridicule the ICA officers by asking them to re-check their passports in case they were travelling on their father’s or mother’s passports. The officers had to take such jibes in their stride while focusing on the sheer volume of people and vehicles to process.
The security manpower at our checkpoints is a complex eco-system of ICA, SPF, auxiliary police, Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB), customs and Land Transport Authority, requiring attention to segmentation of tasks and supervision. Today, I understand that Singaporeans are facing slower clearances at Woodlands, as the security procedures for checking vehicles have been tightened since the various security breaches there this year. I note that a Ministerial-level Committee is reviewing and strengthening the security measures at the checkpoints. As we plug the gaps, it is also important not to add more red tape to slow down the clearance process.
I turn now to policing. Policing needs have evolved and undoubtedly increased; the MHA addendum mentions a new Divisional HQ in Woodlands and two new Neighbourhood Police Centres in Geylang and Bartley. During the Committee of Inquiry into the Little India riots, the Commissioner of Police expressed his view that he would need 1,000 more police officers. Can we ever find enough manpower? Since our local birth rate is low, will we be forced to turn to foreign manpower for policing? For instance, we have historically accepted Malaysians and Nepalese Gurkhas into the SPF. Will we be doing more of that?
The need to leverage on technology to reduce manpower is a must, and it is good to note that the SPF has clearly been doing this. For example, the nationwide PolCam project will install CCTV cameras at lift lobbies, staircases and multi-storey car parks of HDB blocks. PolCam is now substantially implemented, and has been very welcome by the public. However, there is no equivalent of PolCam in the private estates. Though I do not think the residents in private estates expect that, they do have their crime concerns.
When COPS was launched, one of the justifications was that it would enable the police to cater to an ageing and diverse population. To this end, one of the innovations I am not sure of is the revamp of the Neighbourhood Police Posts under COPS. The new NPPs, called e-NPPs or enhanced NPPs, offer electronic services, but are completely unmanned. I note that a pilot phase involving 3 NPPs began about six months ago. How did the elderly cope with the change to an unmanned NPP? I visited one of the revamped NPPs recently and noted online services at the e-kiosk in English. Are the services available in other languages? With the e-NPPs, was there any change to the police response times, compared to a physical presence at the NPP? I believe this needs to be assessed carefully to ensure there is no compromise in police response.
Access to Justice
Much as we would like to think that justice is blind, it is a fact across the world that the rich and the poor access the criminal justice system differently. While the rich have the resources to engage expensive lawyers and experts to support their cases, the poor have to make decisions based on their means. This sometimes includes pleading guilty, when they do not have the time or resources to contest their charges. This problem is not unique to Singapore.
Having legal representation when facing criminal charges is a necessity, as it is not easy for a layman to understand legal jargon and navigate his way through the various procedures. To this end, the Law Society stepped up to fill a void left by the government. The Society has been running its Criminal Legal Aid Scheme since the late 1980s to provide free legal representation to poorer accused facing non-capital charges. Despite the Law Society’s most noble aims, the scheme had some limitations, as it covered only certain types of offences and only when the accused intended to claim trial. Thus, we have residents telling us they were turned away from CLAS because their offence was not covered (e.g. charges under the Immigration Act and Moneylenders Act) or because they wanted to plead guilty and only needed help in mitigation for a lighter sentence. To this end, it is heartening that the Ministry of Law has changed its stance. The MinLaw addendum specifically emphasizes its funding to the Law Society’s Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS) for direct assistance to poorer suspects. With greater and sustained government support, the aim should be to provide legal aid to all accused persons of limited means.
The Ministry of Law addendum also talks of an impending Criminal Procedure Review to develop a plea bargaining framework for early resolution of criminal cases. I do not know what the Ministry has in mind at this stage. Early resolution of cases is good for the court system and for public resources; it can also be good for the accused provided he is fully aware of the nature and consequences of his actions e.g. if he pleads guilty to reduced charges. However, there is a risk of persons taking certain courses of action out of ignorance or convenience, not realizing they have a valid defence, and not being aware of the effect of certain types of convictions on their future prospects. To this end, the plea bargaining framework should include ensuring that persons entering such bargains are legally represented even if they cannot afford their own lawyers.
Another important aspect of access to justice is bail. The ability to be released on bail before trial is important, especially when one intends to contest the charge. Being at liberty allows a person to keep his job; he can also prepare his defence more effectively. As bail tends to be set based on monetary amounts, this operates against the poor who may not have family or friends with such means. The consequences of not receiving bail would affect not only the suspect but also his or her dependents. In countries such as the US, studies have shown that not being released on bail may lead to higher chances of conviction and heavier sentences. This has led to some reforms to facilitate more poor people being released on bail, e.g. by putting more information before the judges about the defendant’s roots in the community, family ties and employment. With more information, judges were then more likely to remove or reduce the monetary condition and enable more of the poor to be released pre-trial.
Turning to home, it was good that the government set up a Bail Court in 2007 to focus on bail applications. Today, I still come across residents who say there is no way they can bail their son or daughter out due to the sums set. I hope the courts will look more closely at the possibility of more non-monetary bail conditions being set, so that more of the poor can obtain pre-trial release. To this end, I have sent to the government some research I did on this area, for further study.
Culture of More Research and Gathering and Sharing of Data
Finally, let me argue for a stronger culture of scientific decision-making in crime and justice matters.
There is still relatively little data available to the public and even to MPs to make informed decisions about crime and justice in Singapore. Let me give just two examples to illustrate my point.
First, do we really know the crime situation in Singapore? There is an over-reliance on police statistics as giving the true picture. For instance, in a recent police fact sheet on the new Community Oriented Policing System, it was stated that from 1997 to 2013, crime rates had gone down by 44%, concluding that the NPC system which started in 1997 had worked well to keep our neighbourhoods safe. But is there a clear cause and effect established? For one thing, not all crime is reported to police. In a rare population study in Singapore on offences of violence against women (Bouhours et al 2013, International Violence against Women Survey: Final Report on Singapore), it was estimated that less than one quarter of incidences of violence against women in Singapore was reported to police, meaning about 75% was unreported. The under-reporting of crimes is a global phenomenon, with varying reporting rates for different crimes. Even if crimes are reported, how police classify or re-classify the reports will affect crime rates. Another complication for Singapore is that there is a significant foreigner population here. We know that foreign workers are subject to policing by auxiliary police, and how this affects the official recording of crimes is uncertain.
To take another example of unknowns, we can look at the composition of our prison population. The Prisons Service publishes data on the number of inmates, segmented by type of offence, gender, and even educational level. But the government does not reveal the ethnic composition or nationalities, and whether certain groups are over-represented relative to the general population. I filed a Parliamentary question on this but was told the data could not be revealed.
The reporting of ethnicity and nationality of prison populations is a common practice elsewhere. The purpose of such reporting is not meant to embarrass certain communities, but to facilitate a holistic assessment as to why certain groups may be disproportionately incarcerated. With open data, public interest would be generated, and Parliament would more likely debate such issues. Publishing such data in other countries has led to law enforcement agencies and the courts reviewing their operational practices and decision-making, to ensure that they do not discriminate or stereotype people based on ethnicity or nationality. It has led to examination of social conditions and whether there has been fair economic opportunity. Well-meaning citizens would also take an interest to support families and children of at-risk groups. Government decision-making would be helped by those outside government applying their minds to resolve the matter. I would argue that disclosure would promote social cohesion. In any case, I note that CNB has been publishing data on ethnicity of drug arrests for many years.
Madam, my point is that in order for decisions to be taken in a disciplined manner, the government should be more open to gathering and sharing data on crime and justice issues. What I hope we can aim for is to have a culture of producing scientific papers on a regular basis for the public to better understand crime and justice issues. The British government has a strong research arm in Crime and Justice, which regularly publishes data and analyses on crime and law enforcement matters. Among the most important projects undertaken is the British Crime Survey, which is a population survey to ascertain the levels of unreported crime. Other topics include crimes of interest, the exercise of police powers and crime experiences of vulnerable groups. At home, I believe the MHA does have its research wings, but not many papers are published for public consumption. I hope this can change.
Besides the government’s own research being published, there is also a need to facilitate and encourage other independent researchers (universities, think tanks, concerned members of the public) to conduct criminological research. It is important that at least some of the findings are seen to be independent of the government, so that more can participate in our sense making and we can have wider ownership of the directions we take. Further, we should encourage school leavers to take up such studies and become researchers to add to the rigour of public discourse on crime and justice issues. The new full-time undergraduate degree of Bachelor of Arts (Honours) in Criminology and Security offered by the Singapore Institute of Technology and the University of Liverpool gives hope in this direction.
Final Observations
Madam, the last few years have seen some significant policy changes in the field of law and home affairs. Five years ago, the Criminal Procedure Code underwent a major review, which among other things changed the pre-trial process to force more disclosure from both State and defence to enable better preparations for trial. In 2012, after decades of consistently defending the need for the mandatory death penalty to apply to many offences, the government suddenly and without warning announced in this House a scaling-back of the mandatory death penalty for certain homicide and drug offences. For many years before, the government had been reluctant to provide criminal legal aid to those facing non-capital charges; this has also moved forward. Personally, having studied these issues and spoken for change for several years, I was pleasantly surprised that the government was able to slaughter these cows that appeared sacred for too long. This is good for Singapore. We should not be afraid to change our minds and make U-turns.
There are other areas for improvement. Protecting civil liberties, recognizing crime victims’ needs and rights, and better safeguards for suspects during police investigations are but some. We should approach these and other issues with an open-mind. Ultimately, it is in our common interest to have a safe, fair and just society.
Subscribe
Login
0 Comments
