How many clemencies from hanging has Singapore granted?

 

When all legal avenues have been exhausted, the last resort for a criminal sentenced to death, is to apply for Presidential clemency. 

When Singapore gained independence in 1965, the avenue of clemency was embedded into the Singapore Constitution[1].  

Although clemency is usually discussed in the context of capital cases, it is in fact available to any offender for any offence.  The Singapore Constitution provides that any offender convicted of any offence in Singapore can apply to the President for a pardon, reprieve or respite, of the execution of any sentence pronounced on such offender. The President may “on the advice of the Cabinet” grant clemency in deserving cases. “On the advice of the Cabinet” means that the President has no personal discretion.  The power of clemency is exercised only if the Cabinet advises it. 

The grant of Presidential clemency from the death sentence is the focus of this article. 

For criminals sentenced to death, the Singapore Constitution additionally provides that the President must, once the Court of Appeal has confirmed the death sentence, call for reports on the conviction to be submitted to the Cabinet to consider the possibility of commuting the death sentence.[2]   So, whether the condemned prisoner asks for clemency or not, the Cabinet will consider clemency for such prisoner.

Since Singapore's independence, only six clemencies against death sentences have been granted.[3]  In each of those six cases, the condemned prisoners had their death sentences commuted to life imprisonment.

I have tabulated the details relating to the six Presidential clemencies from death sentences which have been granted in Singapore, and the table is shown below. 

What do we see when the number of clemencies granted is compared with the number of state executions? 

Of the six clemencies granted, three were granted prior to 1991 and three after 1991.  

On the number of criminals hanged since 1965 to 1991, there are no official data.  According to Amnesty International, a total of 21 judicial executions took place in Singapore from 1981 to 1990 [4], which data a scholar has said “may well under-estimate the true number of executions during this period since the statistics are usually compiled from media reports." [5]

As for the number of criminals hanged since 1991 to 2019, I have tallied 491 judicial executions took place based on official sources.[6]  As against that toll, two clemencies against death sentences were granted in 1992 by President Wee Kim Wee and one in 1998 by President Ong Teng Cheong.

No clemency from a death sentence was granted by President S R Nathan during his 12-year term nor by President Tony Tan, and nor by President Halimah Yacob at the time of writing this article.  In any case, the President has no personal discretion when it comes to granting clemencies.  His role is ceremonial.

Incidentally, in 2018, President Halimah Yacob granted clemency to a convicted murderer who was sentenced to "detention at the President’s pleasure".[7]  Detained at the President’s pleasure means to be imprisoned indefinitely until the offender is deemed to be suitable for release.  The man was 15 years old when he committed and was convicted of murder in 2001.  Because of his age when he committed the murder, his identity was sealed.  Being below 18 at the time of conviction, he was spared the death penalty and was instead sentenced to be detained at the President’s pleasure in accordance with Singapore’s criminal laws then. 

As for clemencies from the death sentence, since 1998 to now, there have been none.

One scholar has opined: “Based on data from 1991 to 2016, excepting jurisdictions where ‘clemency procedures are either absent or exist only on paper’ (such as China and Japan), Singapore may well possess one of the world’s lowest clemency rates among retentionist nations, at less than 1 per cent of finalized cases.” [8]

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss is a practising lawyer in Singapore of more than 30 years’ standing.

24 February 2021

---

[1] Article 22P of the Singapore Constitution

[2] Article 22P(2) of the Singapore Constitution

[3] ‘Last Chance for Life: Clemency in Southeast Asian Death Penalty Cases’, Daniel Pascoe 2019, at p. 95.  

[4] Johnson, D. T. (2013), ‘The jolly hangman, the jailed journalist, and the decline of Singapore’s death penalty’, Asian Journal of Criminology, 8:54.

[5] Chan Wing Cheong (2016), 'The Death Penalty in Singapore: In Decline but Still Too Soon for Optimism', Asian Journal of Criminology, 11: 181, Footnote 10

[6] How many has Singapore hanged from the gallows?’, Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss (22 Feb 2021) at https://jeannettechongaruldoss.medium.com/

[7] ‘Teen who killed Anthony Ler's wife gets clemency after 17 years in jail,’ The Straits Times, 13 December 2018

[8] ‘Last Chance for Life: Clemency in Southeast Asian Death Penalty Cases’, Daniel Pascoe 2019, at p. 96.

How many has Singapore hanged from the gallows?

The death penalty has been a part of crime and punishment in Singapore from day one.  Although there is a host of crimes under Singapore law which attracts the death penalty, Singapore has by and large executed persons convicted of murder and, since the enactment of the Misuse of Drug Act in 1975, drug-trafficking.       

Back in 2004, Singapore was put in the spotlight by a scathing paper, "Singapore - The death penalty: a hidden toll of executions" published by Amnesty International criticising Singapore's use of the death penalty. In particular, the paper chastised Singapore for its high rate of execution relative to its population size. The paper said that more than 400 had been executed since 1991 up the date of their paper, 15 January 2004.  How true is that?  Since Singapore became an independent nation in 1965, how many persons have Singapore executed?

I tried to find official judicial execution statistics, but it turned out to be a cat-and-mouse game.

On 12 October 2011, then newly elected Member of Parliament Pritam Singh from the Workers' Party filed a written question for the Minister for Home Affairs (MHA), asking from 2004 to 2010, how many criminals had been hanged in Singapore and what was the breakdown in terms of foreigners, permanent residents and Singaporeans for each of those years.[1]  In reply, DPM Teo Chee Hean provided statistics indicating that from 2004 to 2010, a total of 38 people were executed, comprising 26 Singaporeans and 12 foreigners.

DPM Teo Chee Hean also stated that the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) publishes the number of judicial executions in its Prisons Annual Report and that those Annual Reports were publicly available on the SPS website.

DPM Teo Chee Hean's statement gives the impression that the Singapore Government is transparent about execution statistics.  It may seem to the casual observer that Pritam Singh's question was unnecessary if execution statistics were publicly available by checking the SPS website.

In fact, Pritam Singh's question was not redundant at all.  If you go to the SPS website[2], you will only find SPS Annual Reports from 2008 onwards.  SPS Annual Reports prior to 2008 is not obtainable from the SPS website (and I do not know where to find them).   Moreover, looking through the 2008 Annual Report, it does not contain any statistics on judicial executions at all.  It is only starting with the 2009 Annual Report, that executions statistics are published in every Annual Report to date.  The 2009 Annual Report contains execution statistics for 2007, 2008 and 2009. So, it would be more accurate to say that execution statistics from 2007 onwards are publicly available on the SPS website.[3] Execution statistics prior to 2007 cannot be found on the SPS website.

Perhaps Pritam Singh was motivated to ask for the execution statistics from 2004 to 2010 because prior to filing his question, which DPM Teo Chee Hean answered on 12 October 2011, Pritam Singh could not find those figures anywhere. 

Thanks to Pritam Singh's question, official information on the number of persons executed in each year from 2004 to 2010 is on public record.  Further, based on the SPS website, we also know the number of persons executed in each year from 2007 to 2019. 

How about executions statistics prior to 2004? 

Amnesty International's paper published on 15 January 2004 prompted the Singapore Government to issue a rebuttal on 30 January 2004. Residing as footnote no. 4 at the end of the rebuttal were a set of statistics indicating that a total of 138 persons were executed "in the last 5 years".  Given the date of that rebuttal, "the last 5 years" would mean 1999 to 2003. Thanks to Amnesty International's paper, another piece of official information was coughed up. 

The Government’s rebuttal 30 January 2004 indicated that a total of 138 persons were executed in the 5 years from 1999 to 2003, but did not provide the breakdown for each year between 1999 to 2003.  From the yearly statistics given in Parliament on 12 January 2001, we can see how many persons were hung in 1999 and 2000.  But how many persons were hung in each of the years 2001, 2002 and 2003? 

Fortuitously, a set of official execution statistics that fell into the public domain inadvertently answered this question. On 24 September 2003, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong gave the BBC in an interview in which he glibly said that up to 80 people had been executed in the first nine months of 2003.  To correct the erroneous figure, the Singapore Government attached a note to the transcript of the BBC interview stating that 21 persons were executed in 2000, 27 in 2001 and 28 in 2002. [4] Thus, another set of official statistics fell out into the open. The number of persons executed in 2003 can be worked out by arithmetic.  Thus, the gap in the execution statistics was filled.

How about executions statistics prior to 1999?

Rolling up my sleeves, I went on my hands and knees to claw and trawl the graveyard of old Parliamentary reports.  My efforts were rewarded.  I found that on 12 January 2001, in reply to a question filed by then non-constituency member of parliament JB Jeyaretnam from the Workers’ Party, Wong Kan Seng provided the number of persons who have been hanged in Singapore for the years 1991-2000, giving the numbers year by year and splitting the number for each year into the various crimes for which they were hanged.[5]  Thanks to JBJ's guts, another trove of official execution statistics was given out. 

As for the number of persons hanged prior to 1991, my efforts to find those numbers have drawn a blank.  Hopefully, someone has or has found those numbers and if so, I would be keen to learn.   

 In summary, the official sources which I managed to find are as follows:

1. SPS website giving execution statistics from 2007 to 2019;
2. Parliamentary report dated 12 October 2011 giving execution statistics from 2004 to 2010;
3. Singapore Government’s rebuttal dated 30 January 2004 to Amnesty International's paper giving execution statistics from 1999 to 2003;
4. Note attached to the transcript of Goh Chok Tong's interview with BBC released by the Singapore Government on 25 September 2003 giving number of persons executed in 2002, 2001 and 2000; and
5. Parliamentary report dated 12 January 2001 giving execution statistics from 1991 to 2000. 

Piecing them together, the total number of persons hanged in each year from 1991 to 2019 can be calculated. Below is a tabulation of the information provided by the official sources.  From the tabulation, the following conclusions can be quickly be drawn:

1. From 1991 to 2003 (13 years), 414 persons were executed, thus vindicating Amnesty International’s charge that more than 400 had been executed in Singapore since 1991 up to the date of their paper, 15 January 2004;
2. From 2004 onwards, there has been perceptible drop in the rate of executions for mysterious reasons; and
3. From 1991 to 2019 (29 years), 491 persons were executed.

No doubt more observations or inferences will come to mind on further consideration of the statistics. 

A set of information with gaps is incoherent. A complete set of figures is always useful. Which is why coherent factual information, especially information relating to state action carried out on behalf of the citizenry, should be made available for one to consider and ponder.  

Who knew that one has to be quite a sleuth to track down the number of persons hanged by the state. 

I do feel I am like Sherlock Holmes solving a murder mystery, pardon the pun.

 

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss is a practising lawyer of more than 30 years’ standing who is interested in but does not specialise in the practice of Criminal Law. In uncovering the facts discussed in this article, her research tool was a good wi-fi connection to the internet and a bee in her bonnet.  Putting herself in the shoes of a layman, she did not avail of materials which are only accessible by subscription or otherwise unavailable to the general public. 

---

[1] “Judicial Executions in Singapore” Parl. No. 12, Sess. 1, Vol. 88, Sitting No. 6 (21 October 2011)

[2] https://www.sps.gov.sg/news-about-us/publications

[3] Execution statistics from 2007 to 2019 are also available at https://data.gov.sg/dataset/judicial-executions

[4] "More people executed in Singapore", AFP report published in The Age, 25 September 2003 https://www.theage.com.au/world/more-people-executed-in-singapore-20030925-gdwejk.html

[5] “Number of Persons Hanged” Parl. No. 9, Sess. 2, Vol. 72, Sitting No. 13 (12 January 2001)

COURT OF 3 JUDGES TO DECIDE IF LEE SUET FERN SHOULD BE DISBARRED

This article was first published on 11 August 2020 by the onlinecitizen at: https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/08/11/court-of-3-judges-to-decide-if-lee-suet-fern-should-be-disbarred/

This Thursday, 13 August 2020, a Court of Three Judges will be considering whether Lee Suet Fern, a practising lawyer of 37 years' standing, should be disbarred for legal professional misconduct. 

Lee Suet Fern is the wife of Lee Hsien Yang and the daughter-in-law of Lee Kuan Yew. Lee Hsien Yang is one of the three beneficiaries of Lee Kuan Yew’s estate.

The charges of misconduct were brought against Lee Suet Fern by the Law Society of Singapore (the Society) following a complaint filed by the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) to the Society on 4 December 2018.  As the complaint came from the AGC, the Society is by law mandated to apply to the Chief Justice to appoint a Disciplinary Tribunal. 

The Society’s charges against Lee Suet Fern relate to her involvement in the execution of Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will signed on 17 December 2013.

From 20 August 2011 to 17 December 2013, Lee Kuan Yew made a total of seven Wills.  By operation of law, each new Will superceded the previous Will.  Lee Kuan Yew signed the Last Will on 17 December 2013.  Two lawyers came to Lee Kuan Yew’s house to witness his execution of the Last Will. 

On 2 January 2014, Lee Kuan Yew on his own prepared and signed a Codicil to his Last Will.  He arranged his own witnesses.  A ‘codicil’ is a formally executed document made after a will that adds to, subtracts from, or changes the will.  The Codicil bequeathed two carpets to Lee Hsien Yang.

Lee Kuan Yew passed away on 23 March 2015. Probate was granted on the basis of the Last Will on 6 October 2015.

On 13 February 2019, two practising lawyers, Sarjit Singh Gill and Yee Kee Shian Leon, were appointed by the Chief Justice as the Disciplinary Tribunal to hear and investigate the Society’s charges against Lee Suet Fern.

The issues at stake before the Disciplinary Tribunal were essentially:

1.       Whether Lee Suet Fern and Lee Kuan Yew stood in a solicitor-client relationship i.e. was there an Implied Retainer; and 

2.       If Lee Kuan Yew was her client, did she fail her client to the extent of professional misconduct.

Lee Suet Fern pleaded not guilty to all the charges.  The Disciplinary Tribunal conducted a five-day hearing from 1 to 5 July 2020.  During the hearing, Lee Suet Fern and Lee Hsien Yang were cross-examined on the witness stand by the Society’s lawyers on their testimonies. 

On 18 February 2020, the Disciplinary Tribunal released their decision.  The Disciplinary Tribunal concluded Yes on the two questions.

The Disciplinary Tribunal agreed with the Society that Lee Suet Fern and Lee Kuan Yew stood in a solicitor-client relationship.  The Disciplinary Tribunal said that Lee Suet Fern had failed to advance her client’s interest, instead she had promoted her own interest and/or the interest of her husband, Lee Hsien Yang ahead of her client's interest. She also failed her duty to advise Lee Kuan Yew to be independently advised in respect of his intention to give a one-third share of his estate to Lee Hsien Yang. 

Given the Disciplinary Tribunal’s findings against Lee Suet Fern, the Court of Three Judges will now determine if the Respondent should be disbarred.

 The Society's case against Lee Suet Fern is about a solicitor's legal professional duties, how a solicitor should conduct himself when he deals with his client and what amounts to professional misconduct. 

The Society's case against Lee Suet Fern is not about whether Lee Kuan Yew was aware or unaware the Last Will contained the Demolition Clause.   In a statement published by the AGC on 7 January 2019 to announce that the AGC had filed a complaint of professional misconduct involving Lee Suet Fern, the AGC stated that their complaint did not relate to the validity of Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will.

Doubts as to whether Lee Kuan Yew was aware his Last Will contained the Demolition Clause was publicly raised by Lee Hsien Loong on 15 June 2017 who said a “series of events led me to be very troubled by the circumstances surrounding the Last Will.”

Notwithstanding Lee Hsien Loong had publicised his unhappiness with Lee Suet Fern’s involvement in the execution of Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will, Lee Hsien Loong is not the Complainant nor a party to the proceedings against Lee Suet Fern. 

As earlier mentioned in this article, the case against Lee Suet Fern was initiated by AGC.  More accurately, it was filed by Deputy Attorney-General Lionel Yee, as Attorney-General Lucien Wong had recused himself from the case against Lee Suet Fern. Lucien Wong had been Lee Hsien Loong’s personal lawyer prior to becoming the Attorney-General.

In their 7 January 2019 statement, the AGC referenced their statutory duty to deal with misconduct by lawyers as the basis for filing their complaint against Lee Suet Fern. The AGC said that when the AGC becomes aware of possible professional misconduct, it is required to consider if the matter should be referred to the Society.  In this case, AGC became aware of a possible case of professional misconduct by Lee Suet Fern. The AGC statement did not say how the AGC became or was made aware of possible professional misconduct by Lee Suet Fern in respect of the execution of Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will.

Notwithstanding Lee Hsien Loong’s misgivings with Lee Suet Fern’s involvement in the execution of Lee Kuan Yew’s Last Will, the focus of the Disciplinary Tribunal was on what Lee Suet Fern should or should not have done, rather than on whether Lee Kuan Yew was aware or unaware of the Demolition Clause when he signed the Last Will.

The Court of Three Judges hearing the case this Thursday comprises Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon,

Justice Judith Prakash and Justice Woo Bih Li.

Although the next step following the Disciplinary Tribunal’s findings against Lee Suet Fern is for the Court of Three Judges to decide if Lee Suet Fern should be struck off the roll, the powers of the Court of Three Judges are not limited to that role. 

The Court of Three Judges is not bound to accept the findings and decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal.  If the Court of Three Judges does not agree with the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal, it has the power to set aside the determination of the Disciplinary Tribunal, direct Disciplinary Tribunal to rehear and reinvestigate the complaint, or even order the appointment of another Disciplinary Tribunal to hear and investigate the complaint.

We shall see in the coming days whether the Court of Three Judges agrees with Disciplinary Tribunal’s conclusions or not; and if the Court does, then whether the Court considers it would be an appropriate sanction to strike Lee Suet Fern off the roll.

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss is a practising lawyer of 30 years’ standing.  Wills & Probate is one of her areas of specialisation. 

UNCONSCIONABLE TO HOLD GE AT THIS TIME

Today, Singaporeans are facing the closest thing to war since our nation gained independence. We are fighting an invisible enemy which moves in stealth and strikes in unpredictable ways. Our everyday lives are disrupted. We are hunkering down in preparation for a siege of uncertain duration.

In this unprecedented time, we are looking towards our government to lead us. We will have to trust in the judgment of our elected leaders.

I only have good things to say about how our leadership has been managing the COVID19 crisis - until now.

For despite the fact that we are in the midst of battle, the PAP Government has all but announced that the next General Election (GE) will be held within the next two months. This is crazy. Why the rush to hold the next GE?

The PAP Government is giving the explanation that the COVID19 crisis is not going to be resolved anytime soon, so we better hold the GE now than later.

I beg to differ. Two weeks ago, I would have been prepared to go along with the "let's do this now, rather than later" rationale. Looking at what is happening as we speak, I think the window - the figurative "calm before the storm" - has closed. We are now not only in battle mode but also bracing for the battle to escalate in the days ahead. Holding the GE at this juncture cannot but serve as a distraction when all efforts must be focused on managing and coping with the COVID19 crisis.

General election is a defining event in a democratic society. Leaders and citizens are required to give their due attention and focus on the electoral process. Once elected, our leaders have authority over our lives and livelihood for the next four to five years. It would be a betrayal of our nation's values as enshrined in our Constitution for the Prime Minister's Office to relegate the GE to a passing formality, to treat such a crucial event as something that we need to "get out of the way". If neither the incumbent nor the citizenry have the bandwidth to give sufficient attention to the electoral process, then the responsible thing to do is to defer it to a better time.

Many concerned citizens have already spoken out against holding the next GE and to urge the Prime Minister to defer the GE until the crisis has abated. They have also said that they would not fault the PAP Government if the next GE is deferred beyond the statutory deadline of April 2021. With so much as stake, I feel compelled to add my voice in support of such views.

I do believe that we will eventually prevail over this crisis. It is only a matter time that we learn more about and understand better the enemy and its ways. Effective mitigating techniques and countermeasures like vaccines will eventually be developed. The element of surprise can only be used once. So, I think the better wisdom is to defer the GE for at least another year.

Our nation identifies itself as being a democracy. Democracy is all about the citizenry being able to choose our leaders. If we go to the polls within the next two months, I feel it will be tantamount to the incumbent holding our citizens to ramson: vote us back, or else you will be at the mercy of COVID19. The incumbent is already in the driver's seat in the COVID19 battle and we are depending on them to lead us out of the woods. For anyone wishing to capitalize on the reluctance to change the status quo and to leverage on the fear of succumbing to the physical and economical impact of COVID19, now is the best time.

When votes are cast in fear of life and livelihood, is the election free and fair?

Are we upholding the tenets of democracy to hold the GE at the time when Singaporeans are facing their worst crisis in the history our nation?

Is it conscionable for the PAP Government to hold the GE at this time?

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

Resignation from the Singapore People's Party

On Monday 2 Sep 2019, I handed in my resignation from the Singapore People's Party (SPP). I did so after much thought and careful deliberation.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank Mrs Lina Chiam for her guidance, counsel and mentorship.

I am also very grateful for the support given by SPP members, several of whom I have become good friends with. I hope we will remain good friends.

I wish SPP, Mr & Mrs Chiam and SPP members all the best in their future endeavours.

I entered politics in 2009 because I was convinced that the PAP held too much power and I was worried for Singaporeans. I felt that we desperately needed more opposition in Parliament to redress the imbalance.

My convictions have not changed. If anything, I feel more strongly than ever that we must have more non-PAP MPs in Parliament. The fight for more political balance remains urgent and imperative.

There are many ways to serve my country and to serve Singaporeans. I hope to continue serving the cause of Singaporeans in one way or another.

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

This announcement was first published on my Facebook page on 4 September 2019.

Mandarin Gardens en bloc siege ends with 64.46% consent, not 68%

The Mandarin Gardens en bloc attempt is officially over. The required 80% was not achieved within the prescribed time frame, so the tenure of the Collective Sale Committee (CSC) expired on 24 March 2019.

As per the lawyers' official notice dated 23 March 2019, the level of consent to the collective sale was 64.46% in the final tally.

However, the CSC Chairman's Final Message on 24 March 2019 (the day of its expiry) cited the figure 68.34% - a figure which includes partially signed units.

Legally, only fully signed units are counted in when computing the percentage required by law. Partially signed units have no legal relevance.

In the Final Message, the CSC also thanked "all the approximately 70% SPs who voted for the collective sale". As only 64.46% was achieved, there is no "approximately 70%" support to speak of.

The figure cited in the Final Message appears to have been picked up by Straits Times. Their article on Mandarin Gardens' failed enbloc attempt published on 26 March 2019, gives the wrong impression that the CSC achieved 68% consent.

For the record, the percentage achieved at the end of the day was 64.46%. And that is the true and legally relevant figure to remember and take note of.

THE PEOPLE’S VOICE OR THE PAP’S VOICE?

The troubling spectre of elderly Singaporeans doing menial jobs like cleaning toilets, pushing rubbish carts, collecting cardboards and wiping tables at hawker centres, has become all too common these days and doubtless weighs heavy on the minds and conscience of many Singaporeans.

Financial Support for the Elderly Poor

Voicing questions which I believe many of us have, a concerned resident took the mic at a South-East Community Development Council (CDC) conference on 2 Aug 2018 [1] to ask whether elderly Singaporeans were being forced to work at manual jobs “just to survive” and whether the Government could provide a pension scheme to meet the basic financial needs of the elderly.  He also wondered if such a pension scheme could be funded by a marginal cut on the defence budget or by cutting Ministerial salaries by 10%.

As the resident from Braddell Heights, put it: “I think not many people will believe you if you say that elderly work because they want to mix, because they want to do exercise. Perhaps they work because they need to work."

Grassroots Adviser Lim Biow Chuan responded to the resident’s concerns as follows:

1. For the elderly, the Government has the Silver Support Scheme, which “does help quite a number of our seniors”;
2. For low-income citizens, “the Government does take quite good care of you. There are actually many, many schemes to help look after those who are poor”; and
3. For elderly who are not poor but wish to work, “I personally think it is a good thing, because if not, then what do you expect the elderly to do at home?”

Wearing Two Hats

To best understand Lim Biow Chuan’s response, we need to recognise that he wears two hats. He is both:

1. Adviser to Mountbatten Grassroots Organisations under the People’s Association (PA); and
2. Member of Parliament (MP) for Mountbatten SMC.

The two hats are distinct roles, which do not fit as one.

The role of an MP is to be the voice of the people in Parliament. The MP’s job is to channel feedback, grievances and issues from his constituents to the government of the day.  Voters expect their MPs to advocate their concerns, to champion their issues and to hold the Government accountable for their decisions and for their deployment of public funds.  

On the other hand, the PA’s key role is to promote, explain and defend government policies and programmes to Singaporeans.  In effect, the PA is the Government’s apologist i.e. the Government’s defender and spokesperson. The Grassroots Adviser’s job is to help the PA to carry out its said role.

Clearly, the MP’s role is set to clash with his concurrent job as Grassroots Adviser when it comes to unpopular Government policies.  While voters expect their MPs to champion their grievances with Government policies, the PA expects their Grassroots Advisers to promote and defend those very same policies.   

The fact that the two hats do not fit as one, is proven by the PA’s refusal to appoint non-PAP MPs as their Grassroots Advisers.  The PA has flatly refused to have non-PAP MPs as their Grassroots Advisers on the basis that non-PAP MPs cannot be expected to champion all Government policies - good and bad - in the way that PAP MPs can be relied on to do so.[2]

The Braddell Heights resident raised a very valid concern, but the occasion on which he raised his concern was at a Southeast CDC Conference. CDCs are part of the PA.  

I do not blame the Braddell Heights resident if he was confused. He saw his MPs before him and he must have thought that as his MPs they would listen, carry his voice to Parliament and advocate for change.

“the Government does take quite good care of you”

Instead, the resident got a show-and-tell. Right on the mark, Lim Biow Chuan responded to the resident by assuring him that the Government already has the Silver Support Scheme, which “does help quite a number of our seniors”; and for low-income citizens, “the Government does take quite good care of you. There are actually many, many schemes to help look after those who are poor”.

After explaining what the Government was already doing for the elderly and the poor, Lim Biow Chuan then went on to exhort his listeners not to shirk from their own personal responsibilities towards their aged, by saying:

“My sense is always that we shouldn’t always look to the government to solve the issues of the elderly. It is every child’s responsibility to look after their parents, because your parents looked after you when you are young. To all those who are getting elderly, I hope that you don’t think that your children should not look after you. These are their responsibilities. And this is what filial piety is all about."

Of course, children have a moral duty to care for their parents. But the Government also has a social responsibility towards the elderly.  Taking care of the elderly is a joint responsibility of both the young and the State. 

The needs of the elderly encompass medical, physical, emotional as well as financial.  Indeed, very few of us can comfortably shoulder the entire burden of all those needs.  It is not unreasonable to expect the State has to share a meaningful portion of the burden.  After all, we pay a lot in taxes and we expect our hard-earned monies to be spent on the public.    

Instead of calling on the Government do to their part and to do more for the elderly, we see the MP asking his constituents NOT to look to the Government to solve the issues of the elderly.  The MP was more focussed on ensuring that the individual does not shirk his personal responsibility for his parents. I would have preferred my MP to be more bent on ensuring that our Government does not evade their responsibility towards our elderly citizens.

“Ministers are not paid enough”

What the Braddell Heights resident wanted to know, was whether the Government could alleviate the financial hardship of the elderly by a pension scheme, and whether the pension scheme could be funded by reducing Ministerial salaries.

As if to ensure that any thought of cutting Ministerial salaries is buried 6 feet underground, Lim Biow Chuan’s tag team-mate, Grassroots Adviser Goh Chok Tong took the mic to rebuke the resident for suggesting Ministerial salaries be cut to fund a pension scheme for the elderly:

“Had you suggested to up GST by 2 per cent and give them the pension, I would have applauded you. Seriously. Because you are then taxing the whole society to support older ones. But you did not. You said cut from defence, 1 per cent is enough. And on top of that, you said cut Ministers’ salaries. That is very populist. I am telling you the Ministers are not paid enough, and down the road, we are going to get a problem with getting people to join the government, because civil servants now earn more than Ministers. Are you aware of that?”

Citizens are short-changed

Citizens need to know that when they vote in a PAP MP, they are adding staff to the PA’s already well-staffed and well-funded Machinery, a Machinery designed to defend the Government’s decisions and to convince citizens to accept them. 

Having been co-opted into the PA, PAP MPs cannot fully perform their role as your voice in Parliament. They cannot challenge Government policies, ask difficult questions or hold the Government to account for how they deploy public funds, without having regard to their obligations to the PA – which is on top of their obligations to the Party Whip.

Citizens need to know that when PAP MPs go around their constituency making house visits and meeting residents, they do so in their capacity as Grassroots Advisers, not as political MPs. 

House Visits by Grassroot Adviser

As Grassroots Advisers, their job is to promote, explain and defend existing Government policies.  Even questionable policies - such as sky-scraper high ministerial salaries and shamefully inadequate help for the elderly poor – stand to be vigorously defended by PAP MPs working with the PA Machinery.   

Citizens need to know that so long as the PA continues to appoint PAP MPs as their Grassroots Advisers, and thereby co-opting them into their Machinery to bolster their role as the Government’s apologist, constituents will be denied the full measure of the advocate, activist and political leader that they had voted for. 

We are short-changed. Instead being the People’s Voice, our PAP MPs defect from serving our cause to become the PA’s Voice.  Bearing in mind that the PA are servants of the PAP Government, the PAP MPs end up as the PAP’s Voice. 

Cloaked by the pretext of promoting social cohesion, the PA has the effect of distorting our democratic system to the advantage of the ruling party.

---

[1] "Goh Chok Tong’s speech defending high ministerial pay and defence budgetat grassroots event", 5 Aug 2018 The Online Citizen

[2] "PAstands firm over selection of grassroots advisers", 2 Sep 2011, Jeanette Tan, Yahoo

OUR RESPONSIBILITY TOWARDS EX-OFFENDERS

I read with a mixture of intrigue, cheer and dismay the letter from Mr Sunny Lee, Director, Media Relations, Community Partnership and Communications Group, Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) captioned "Score focused on securing jobs for ex-offenders" published in The Straits Times Forum page on 16 June 2018. [1]

INTRIGUE.

I am intrigued by Mr Lee saying, in reference to The Straits Times article captioned MP Lim Biow Chuan clarifies comments on former offender's job snub, calls for 'proper conversation' published on June 10, 2018 [2] (the June 10 article):

“Unfortunately, it does not state the position accurately.”

Yet, curiously, Mr Lee did not go on to clarify what is "the position" which the June 10 article stated inaccurately nor explain in what way the June 10 article stated "the position" inaccurately.

Instead, Mr Lee went on to detail the efforts of The Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) in helping ex-offenders find jobs. 

What is clear is that the June 10 article is a summary of Mr Lim Biow Chuan’s arguments justifying job curbs on ex-offenders, especially for a security officer's job.

The June 10 article highlighted several aspects of Mr Lim’s arguments, such as Mr Lim noting that while it was easy to say that the police should give ex-offenders a second chance, the reality is that "most of us would err on the side of caution".

The June 10 article also featured Mr Lim’s comments where he compared a convicted child molester with a person convicted of assault:

"...we would not want a convicted child molester to teach swimming to young children; we would also not want a person convicted of dishonesty to be involved in finances or accounts of a company ... Along the same principles, we would not want a person convicted of assault to be employed as a security officer protecting the residents."

Mr Lim’s comments expressed a tough stance against ex-offenders in the interest of public protection. Whose views is he representing- MHA, the general public or perhaps his own?

The concerns about hiring ex-offenders expressed by Mr Lim can hardly be helpful to SCORE, a MHA agency.  In fact, such negative attitudes about ex-offenders must surely undermine and hinder the efforts being made by SCORE to help ex-offenders find jobs. Which may perhaps be why MHA has stepped into the public square with Mr Lee’s letter. So, I don’t think that Mr Lim is representing MHA’s views.

Mr Lim’s remarks generated some controversy and many detractors have voiced their disagreement with his views about ex-offenders. So, I have to surmise that Mr Lim’s views do not represent the general public.

Hence, Mr Lim may well be representing his own views or the views of a segment of our society who are privileged to be among those who have never broken the law.

It is telling that Mr Lim uses the ‘us versus them’ stance in his comments, referring to “we” on the one side and “the ex-offenders” on the other side. As much as some may want to take comfort in the description, “we are not like them”, that is ultimately a false dichotomy which belies the truth that ex-offenders are members of our society. Being so, they matter and their well-being are our collective responsibility.

The trouble is, Mr Lim’s cautionary comments against employing ex-offenders appear more reflective of fears than of fact and serves more to affirm prejudice than to spur constructive public discourse.

For example, Mr Lim’s rhetoric question "The concern of police would always be, what if the offender re-offends?" does not square with the fact that most ex-offenders do not re-offend. In 2016, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) reported that overall recidivism rates have remained "low and stable".  

Moreover, the rate of re-offending is directly related to how society treats and re-integrates ex-offenders:

“Rehabilitation and reintegration work does not simply stop at the end of an inmate's jail term but continues into the community, said Mr Rockey Francisco Jr, who is the director of SPS' Community Corrections Command. "It's what they do outside that counts, (which is) most importantly, to stay crime free and to not re-offend," he said, while stressing the importance of community partnerships in ensuring that inmates do not go back to their old ways.”

(Recidivism rates remain 'low and stable'due to strong community support for inmates: Prison Service, ST Feb 17, 2016)[3]

Barriers to re-integration, such as job restrictions and social stigma contribute to higher rates of re-offending. The end result is a vicious cycle and a fractured society.

Imprisonment serves the fourfold purposes of punishment, deterrence, incapacitation and reformation.  The mission statement of SPS states that it is a correctional agency which enforces secure custody of offenders and rehabilitate them, for a safe Singapore.  It is not misplaced to have some confidence in SPS’s ability to fulfil their mission of deterrence and rehabilitation.  When someone has served his time and has been released from jail, it is not unreasonable to expect that he would want to keep out of jail. 

If one were to follow the line of Mr Lim’s argument as reflected in the June 10 article, one would come away with the impression that the police would not and should not allow anyone with a criminal record to ever be employed as a security officer to err on the side of caution in the interests of ensuring public safety.

CHEER.

I am cheered by Mr Lee’s letter because it clarifies that the job restrictions imposed by MHA against ex-offenders are not absolute or permanent, even for a security officer’s job.  According to Mr Lee:

“… depending on the severity and relevance of the offence, a person with crime antecedents is required to remain offence-free for some time, before he can take up certain jobs, including the job of a security officer”.

It is heartening that a degree of forgiveness is being shown and practised by MHA.  

But answers from MHA are still needed by ex-offenders for such questions as:

1.       What kind of jobs would MHA seek to "protect the public" from and be deemed as being unsuitable for ex-offenders to work in?

2.       What convictions would restrict ex-offenders from taking up which kind of jobs?

3.       In respect of an ex-offender convicted of a certain offence, how long would he have to wait before his past conviction ceases to affect his job opportunities?

Ex-offenders would greatly benefit from knowing the extent of the job restrictions applicable to them.  It hoped that MHA would give ex-offenders more information on the MHA policies affecting them and more transparency in their screening processes, so that ex-offenders can manage their expectations and not be set up for disappointment when they hope, apply and fail in their job application.

That said, it is encouraging that Mr Lee’s letter affirms MHA’s commitment to help ex-offenders reintegrate into society.

However, the silver lining in Mr Lee’s letter is marred by a dark cloud of inexcusable indiscretion.

DISMAY.

I am dismayed by Mr Lee's indiscretion in mentioning the actual name of the Potong Pasir resident in his letter, knowing full well that his letter is for public consumption.  Up to now, the resident has not been identified to the public.   

The resident has served his prison term. He has paid his debt to society. Yet, after his release from prison, he faces difficulties like job restrictions and social prejudice. This was the predicament which Mr Jose Raymond raised to public awareness by his Facebook post of 6 June 2018 [4].  When doing so, Jose Raymond made sure to withhold the identity of the resident to protect his privacy.

Even though Mr Jose Raymond’s post went viral, the resident has remained anonymous, up to now. Ironically, an MHA Director of Communications has exposed the resident's identity to the public.  

Surely one would expect a communications expert, with MHA no less, to be cognisant of the adverse consequences of publicising someone’s identity, let alone someone who is already suffering the social stigma of being an ex-convict.

I am also disappointed with the ST forum editor for not picking up and correcting Mr Lee's failure to anonymise the resident. I have known ST forum editors to assiduously scrub and revise letters, especially letters which express dissenting views. I hope it is not the case that the ST forum editors lapsed their usual diligence and posted Mr Lee’s letter without review, simply because the letter came from a MHA media rep.  If that were the case, then it would only serve as evidence of groupthink.

Mr Lee’s remiss notwithstanding, his letter reminds that we have a responsibility towards ex-offenders.  

Of course, the needs of the few (in this case, ex-offenders) have to be weighed against the needs of the many (i.e. the public interests).  To “err on the side of caution” is a valid policy, but its end result is zero tolerance and exclusion.  It is a harsh society which allows the concerns and needs of the majority to hold full sway over those of the minority.  Policies must serve society as a whole, not just a majority of - or worse, the more powerful in - society.  Policies which serve the interests of the majority at the expense of the minority do not necessarily serve the greater good of society.  Rather, the greater good is served when policies reflect the principles, ideals and aspirations which identify our society.

Policies affecting ex-offenders should give expression to principles like forgiveness, those who make mistakes deserve a second chance and everyone matters.

It is the responsibility of the privileged to care for the less privileged. When we take care of the lesser and least among us, we are a better society. And that is the greater good.

Jeannette Chong-Aruldoss

18 June 2018

---

[1] https://www.straitstimes.com/forum/letters-in-print/score-focused-on-securing-jobs-for-ex-offenders

[2] https://www.straitstimes.com/politics/mp-clarifies-comments-on-former-offenders-job-snub-calls-for-proper-conversation

[3] https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/courts-crime/recidivism-rates-remain-low-and-stable-due-to-strong-community-support-for

[4] https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2018/06/06/spf-rejects-application-of-ex-offender-to-be-security-officer-writes-he-is-not-a-fit-and-proper-person/