Examining How Ex Offenders Seek New Life Criminology Essay

“While ex-offenders acknowledged that they needed to play their part in seeking a new life, they called for society to be more understanding, and for more rehabilitation and employment opportunities, so that they can reintegrate with, participate in, and contribute to society.”

Para 69, Report on “Youth: Creating our Future” Consultation Exercise

1. The above extract served as the launch pad for our workgroup’s review into the issues surrounding offenders before, during, and after incarceration.

2. We hope that the extract would aid the reader in putting our report into perspective as it details the areas of focus, and the philosophies and proposals behind each focus area.

In our quest to understand the primary difficulties faced by offenders, let us weigh the experiences of a typical offender as he goes through his journey from incarceration to reintegration:

During incarceration: He suffers from the negative influences of the prison environment

Before release: He is enthused by his impending release, but remains skeptical of pre-release programmes

After release: He is overwhelmed by the transition to society and estranged from the community

In response to the above, we directed our review and tailored our proposals in three broad areas of focus:

Enforcing Incarceration as a Last Resort

Bridging the Divide between Incarceration and Reintegration

Tackling Discrimination

5. We have adapted the Bronfenbrenner’s model of an ecosystem as the environment of an ex-offender for attachment as Annex A. This model may aid the reader in putting our philosophies and proposals into the “bigger picture”.

6. Feedback is greatly appreciated at [email protected]

Enforcing Incarceration as a Last Resort

Background

1. While incarceration or the threat thereof provides the elements of deterrence, punishment, and quarantine to the justice system, it can bring about unwanted side effects that work against the interests of both society and incarcerated individuals.

2. An incarcerated offender is subjected to the threats of contamination from hardened criminals within the prison environment. The punitive isolated environment is also conducive for the offender to seek refuge and identity in the company of negative influences. Upon his release, the offender might find himself distanced from his family and friends, while sharing a sense of identity with his former inmates. Coupled with the stigma that society places on him, the offender might be dragged into a vicious cycle of “criminalisation”, where minor offenders, through incarceration, find themselves too estranged from society to reintegrate.

3. Our view is that if the application of incarceration is not adequately accompanied with a commensurate effort by the justice system to divert reformable individuals to restorative programmes, a vicious cycle will end up being increasingly perpetuated.

4. While we recognise that youths, in particular the older ones amongst them, are mature enough to discern the criminal nature of their actions, and hence be held culpable for their offences, there exists great potential for rehabilitation in such offenders and thereby avert the cycle of criminalisation. It is our wish that young offenders be given the opportunity to optimise this potential and as far as possible, be diverted from incarceration onto rehabilitative programmes.

5. While we push for diversionary sentences, we are well aware of the need to maintain incarceration for its original purposes of deterrence, punishment and quarantine. We also recognise that many improvements have been made to allow rehabilitative programmes to take place in the prison environment. We endorse the need to maintain a balance of punitive and rehabilitative sentences, while targeting the more lenient and restorative programmes to those whom we assess as suitable.

Review of Current Situation

Age bars and sanctions

6. The Children and Young Persons Act (CYPA) defines a ‘Child’ as being a person who is below the age of 14 years and a ‘Young person’ as being a person who is 14 years of age or above and below the age of 16. In adherence to this age limit, the offender must be below 16 years (i.e., juvenile) when he/she is first charged in the Juvenile Court. Once he reaches the age of 16, the Juvenile court relinquishes its jurisdiction over to the adult court.

7. For the purposes of this document, “youths” and “young offenders” are defined as individuals aged 16 to 21, while “juveniles” refer to offenders below 16.

Pre-sentence reports

8. For juvenile offenders, pre-sentence reports (PSRs) are made after the youths plead guilty, or are found guilty. PSRs allow the magistrate to review the circumstances surrounding the juvenile’s offence, as well as his background, before the deliberation of the sentence.

9. For youths aged 16-21, the judge has the power to order PSRs for first time offenders, but this feature is not mandatory.

Sentencing options

10. Diversionary sentences are limited for youths. They can be put on the Probation Programme (PP), which is run by MCYS. Young offenders can also be sent to Reformative Training Centres (RTCs) and Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs) run by the Singapore Prisons Service (SPS).

Gaps and areas for enhancement

11. We have identified philosophies and policies that could be reviewed to further serve the needs of young offenders and society at large. The following points are identified:

Age bars and sanctions

12. The current age cap for the Juvenile Court is 16.

13. We are concerned on how this age cap would reconcile with other age bars:

The United Nations Conventions on the Rights of a Child defines a child as a person below 18 years of age. [1]

The right to consume alcohol or tobacco at the age of 18

The right to marriage without parental consent at the age of 21

The right to vote at the age of 21

14. To a smaller extent, we also wonder if having too many age bars would present a confusing picture to the individual on his freedoms and rights as an adult.

Time lag between offence and trial

15. Whether an offender is charged as a juvenile or an adult depends on the age when he is charged, not the age when he committed the offence. This can result in the youth being treated as an adult court for offences he committed as a juvenile. Therefore if 2 boys, one who has just turned 15 and the other about to turn 16, were to commit an offence together – they will be treated differently if the older boy turns 16 before the conclusion of his case. A harsher judicial regime awaits the older boy-even if he is just marginally older than the younger one, and notwithstanding the fact that he could have played a lesser role in the offence.

16. Although the justice system expedites the investigations of juveniles nearing their 16th birthday, there is no legal guarantee that juvenile offenders will not get charged as adults through this technicality.

17. We are also worried about possible instances where individuals who were well below 16 at time of offence can be charged a few years after they committed their offences (for whatever reason).

Disparity in sentencing options

18. While the Juvenile Court is more open to alternative sentencing and employs the Restorative Justice model, the court system that older youths go through is more punitive and arguably less rehabilitative.

19. While we acknowledge that generally, maturity comes with age and a more ready acceptance of personal responsibility, we feel that older youths should be given the opportunity to benefit from the restorative programmes which juveniles are privy to. We argue that these youths are still at a stage where they are somewhat impressionable and susceptible to negative peer influences, but the potential to turn over a new leaf is still very real. Notwithstanding the efforts of current institutions like RTC (Reformative Training Centre), we respectfully urge the justice system and community to exploit even more the potential for youth to veer away from the cycle of criminalisation and nurture them as productive and active citizens of society.

Proposals

20. We would like to acknowledge the efforts of government agencies, especially Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and Singapore Prison Service (SPS), for constantly reviewing incarceration philosophies throughout the recent years and regularly introducing rehabilitative programmes in prison sentences. Through our proposals, we hope to address the areas where gaps have been perceived and policies can be furthered attuned. The proposals are predicated on our philosophy of steering reformable offenders away from incarceration and preventing them from being dragged into the vicious cycle of criminalisation.

Near Term Proposals

Proposal 1: Provide wider sentencing options for offenders – according to the age when they committed the offence, not the age when they are charged.

Rationale: Offenders should have their sentences meted based on the circumstances surrounding the time of their offence (age being a very critical circumstance). While we recognize the division of court’s jurisdiction based on age, the incongruity between a fixed event ( the time of offence) and a variable event (the time the offender is charged in court) can be resolved by giving the judge wider sentencing powers , ie. to treat him as per his age at time of offence .

Constraints: One potential concern arises when there has been a time lag of several years of more: Would juvenile programmes such as the Boys’ Home and Guidance Programme be effective on an older youth or even an adult? We feel that if the youth has since been free of crime, he can be deemed as having reformed and should be meted out with a Community Service Order (CSO) instead.

Stakeholders: The Juvenile Court is best placed to champion this change in practice, with the police in partnership as the latter carries out offence investigation.

Proposal 2: Make pre-sentence reports mandatory for all first-time offenders aged 16 to 21 [2] . For repeat offenders, we urge the court to call for updates to their PSRs to incorporate new circumstances that may mitigate their cases.

Rationale: Pre-sentence reports (PSRs) are critical documents which judges can refer to during the deliberation of sentences. In an adult court of law, where even minor offences can land a young offender in jail, we urge the use of PSRs to allow the court to better appreciate and understand the culpability and reformability of the offender before sentencing. Through this enhancement, we hope to reinforce the philosophy that incarceration is a sentence of last resort. For repeat offenders, updated PSRs would help the judges achieve a complete picture of the circumstances surrounding the offender’s crimes, as well as the evolution of his background.

Constraints: One concern is the resource and manpower limitations of MCYS’s Probation Service as it is the division that churns out PSRs. We advocate a review of allocation of resources to address this limitation. Another concern is that the processing speed of court trials would be slowed down.

Stakeholders: The Judiciary is best placed to push for the increased use of PSRs. MCYS should come in as partner to work out the implementation details of the proposal

Proposal 3: Extend appropriate restorative programmes to youths aged 16 to 21. Our proposed programmes include the Guidance Programme (GP), Community Service Orders (CSOs) and Home Detention Order.

Rationale: With the extension of the aforementioned programmes, the adult court will have even wider discretion to steer youths away from incarceration [3] . Coupled with the use of PSRs, the Court will consider diversionary sentencing even more and leave incarceration as a last resort to treat repeat/ severe offenders.

Implementation: We recognise that deterrence and punishment must remain as serious enforcement tools in dealing with youths. To balance between the need to maintain strictness and severity in treatment of offences with the principle of giving a second chance, we urge the court to consider a “cocktail” treatment to implement our proposal: offenders serve shorter sentences before entering restorative programmes.

Constraints: One concern is the risk of contamination when older youths mix with juvenile offenders in the restorative programmes that had hitherto catered mainly to the latter. This risk is minimized as the option is primarily for those charged for minor offences or where relevant mitigating circumstances exist. The older youths can also be segregated from the juveniles. Another concern is the ability of restorative programmes to cope with the increased workload.

Stakeholders: The Judiciary is best placed to champion this proposal, in particular the Juvenile Court as advisor and the administrators of restorative programmes as partners.

Medium/ Long Term Proposal

Proposal 4: Review the current age cap of 16 for offenders to be charged in the Juvenile Court.

Rationale: As mentioned earlier, there are different age limits marking the different milestones of adulthood in Singapore. The age cap of 16 for offenders to be charged as juveniles happens to be one of the earliest. Though this topic has been broached before in earlier reviews, we wonder if the authorities can review the circumstances around the age cap in light of the rise of the awareness towards the needs of offenders as well as the effectiveness of restorative programmes to keep them off the cycle of criminalisation.

Constraints: Whilst there are several schools of thought [4] , we take the view that age caps are arbitrary as a person’s maturity cannot be determined by age alone. We feel that more room can be given to individuals of age 17 or 18 to benefit from the range of sentencing options currently accorded to under16s at the Juvenile Court. But the raising of the age cap would also let more youths to undergo a more lenient and restorative court of law, which is in line with our philosophy of making incarceration a last resort.

Stakeholders: This proposal advocates a change in legislation. We suggest that the Ministry of Law, along with the Ministry of Home Affairs, conduct this review.

Bridging the Divide

Background

1. The phase between incarceration and reintegration is a critical one, during which offenders can embark on restorative programmes and prepare themselves for lives after incarceration.

2. This phase is made up of pre-release (the duration right before release) and aftercare (the duration after release). We believe that it should be run as a seamless transition to ease the convict from one environment to a totally different one.

3. Being released from prison can be at times a bittersweet experience. Almost every convict feels the initial rush of freedom. But that sense of exhilaration dries up when society turns out to be a strangely familiar yet distanced place. What many an ex-offender fails to realise is that he himself has changed so much during incarceration that adapting to his new environment is by no means an easy task.

4. Many ex-offenders fail to stay on top of things and forget the promises made to their wardens, their counselors, and most importantly, to themselves. They end up avoiding outreach programmes and losing focus on their rehabilitation. Other ex-offenders fail to adjust to the rigours that society places on them and seek refuge and identity with other ex-offenders. Alas, every ex-offender that turns his back on society is a potential recalcitrant hardcore criminal who drags not only himself but his loved ones down as well.

5. Being aware of this risk, society must help ex-offenders transit to a new environment and provide opportunities for them to reengage their communities.

6. We acknowledge and applaud the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA)’s efforts in setting up an extensive and well-planned pre-release and aftercare framework that is tailored to meet the needs of the newly released. To this end, we hope that MHA will continue to extend educational, social, and employment opportunities through its framework.

7. We as a workgroup seek to add value to the existing framework. Our proposals will enhance the efficacy of certain programmes as well as create new ones to reflect the need to bridge the divide between the incarcerated and the released.

Review of Current Situation

Short Pre-release programmes with tight itineraries

8. Pre-release programmes range from two months to one year before release, depending largely on the duration of the sentence. As a rule of thumb, the shorter the sentence, the shorter is the duration of pre-release.

9. The shorter the pre-release, the less time is there to engage the impending ex-offender in counseling and introduction to aftercare programmes. The tight itinerary leaves little room for a convict to “absorb” the meaning of the programmes. Coupled with the rush of knowing that freedom is just around the corner, the convict is likely to rush through the programme without paying heed to how he wants to manage his life after release.

Menial Nature of Community Outreach/ Service Programmes

10. Both aftercare programmes and community service orders (CSOs) advocate community service as a channel for ex-offenders to give back to society as well pick up skills that might prove useful in other aspects of their lives.

11. To that end, we wonder if the menial nature of work and the limited capacities to add value serve as stumbling blocks to capture ex-offenders’ interest.

Proposals

12. Our philosophy is simple: to enhance and add on to the existing framework of pre-release and aftercare to bridge the divide between incarceration and reintegration.

Near Term Proposals

Proposal 1: Lengthening Pre-release Duration

Details: We seek to enforce a minimum duration in which there will be adequate time to conduct counseling as well as allow convicts to sample more aftercare programmes. We advocate longer pre-release for longer sentences to factor in more counseling in light of his longer exposure to the prison environment (as well as longer absence from the outside community).

Rationale: We believe that no matter how short a sentence is, an offender requires enough counseling and preparation for his transition to society. In addition, we hope that, through the sampling of more programmes at a more relaxed pace, the offender would have enough information and focus to settle down on an aftercare programme in which he has a genuine and sustainable interest.

Constraints: There is no guarantee that the receptivity to the programmes will increase with longer pre-release. Also, pre-release programmes face security limitations as offenders cannot leave the prison environment up till their point of release.

Stakeholders: We see the Ministry of Home Affairs as best placed to champion this review, as well as VWOs as partners to enhance pre-release programmes as samplers to their aftercare components.

Proposal 2: Enhancing Early Release Programmes

Details: We want to offer early-release programmes such as the Home Detention Scheme to every deserving convict. The Home Detention Scheme is an early release programme where offenders are tagged, monitored, and placed under curfew. Participants of this scheme are allowed to work or study in the day.

We hope to extend early-release programmes to those who wish to enter tertiary institutions, or to seek hospital-based psychiatric treatments for addictions (eg. gambling, substance abuse) that spurred them towards crime. By removing participants from the prison environment, it will also be possible to bring forward aftercare programmes to the pre-release phase, as well as institute compulsory community service programmes as a way to gain exposure and pay their dues to society.

Rationale: This proposal espouses our philosophy on striking a balance of punitive measures (deterrence through incarceration) and rehabilitative programmes (such as counselling, community service). Hitherto, convicts who have displayed good behaviour and genuine determination to reform have been placed on early-release schemes (eg. Community Based Rehabilitation Programme) on that premise. We seek to enhance the value of early-release by expanding the array of endeavours convicts can undertake to enrich themselves.

Implementation: We would like to focus on the Home Detention Scheme as a case in point. A convict can be considered for eligibility a year or so before his release. The following screening criteria (by no means exhaustive) should be considered:

Severity of offence/ Length of sentence

Conduct in institution

Response to institutional rehabilitation efforts (eg. counselling)

Psychological assessment of criminal/offending attitudes

Support of family

Likelihood to benefit from programme (eg. an overstayer/ illegal immigrant is unlikely to benefit)

The activities and programmes the convict is eligible for:

Employment through SCORE or other channels (on his own merit)

Education in any mainstream school (on his own merit)

Hospital-based psychiatric treatment for possible addictions

Compulsory stint in community service

Aftercare

Constraints: Expanding early release programmes entails an increase in the resources needed to support the effort. There is also a fear of participants re-offending and betraying the trust vested in them by their employers and/ or schools. Their unrepentance levies a burden on their families and support groups.

While this fear is within reason, research has shown that breaches of the Home Detention Scheme have been lower than 1% (MHA, 2003). Moreover, our proposal does not relax the entry criteria, but seeks instead to give participants access to rehabilitative measures such as psychiatric treatment, community service and outreach programmes.

Stakeholders: We see the Ministry of Home Affairs as best placed to champion this review, since it is the ministry which manages early-release programmes. But the roles of partners such as SCORE, aftercare agencies, VWOs and IMH are equally important in providing the avenues of engagement for the participants.

Proposal 3: Provide roles of ownership and responsibility in community orders and aftercare programmes.

Details: To accept ex-offenders in existing or new community outreach programmes where they can contribute in capacities most suited to their talents. Other than extending a wider variety of roles to cater a wide array of talents, there must also be roles where ex-offenders can conceive, plan and execute certain events.

Rationale: Many ex-offenders lack the self-esteem and harbour an inferiority complex which makes it extremely difficult to break out of their shells to reengage society. Their situation is akin to a Catch-22, as self-esteem is also gained through gratifying interactions with the community. The self-esteem of an ex-offender can also be raised through the satisfaction of having his talent widely recognised and appreciated.

We believe community outreach programmes are excellent platforms to help ex-offenders regain their self-esteem. An ex-offender would find pleasure and satisfaction in the programme if he can display his talent: be it jamming in a rock band at a community concert or leading a run on a health awareness day. His positive takeaways will definitely raise his self-esteem, which we hope will encourage him to take charge of other aspects of his life just as earnestly.

Tackling Discrimination

Background

1. About 11,000 ex-offenders are released from the prison system every year. However, many ex-offenders find themselves transiting to a “second prison”, where they are locked up in invisible cells: behind the walls of ignorance, fear, distrust, and stigmatisation.

2. This “second” prison stymies the best efforts of ex-offenders to seek rapprochement with estranged family members, mend fences with their community, seek employment and root themselves as engaging citizens of society. Facing great difficulty in seeking a semblance of a normal life, the allure of crime and the succour provided by their ex-inmates grow all the more tempting.

3. Our ex-offenders are fighting an uphill battle to reintegrate. They have special needs and added difficulties in carrying out day to day activities. We as the more privileged must extend a helping hand where possible, without sapping the ex-offenders’ spirit of self-reliance. Our measure of success would be to help ex-offenders up to the point where they can help themselves.

4. In particular, we applaud the ex-offenders’ willingness to seek employment. A stable and satisfactory job is an anchor in an ex-offender’s efforts to rid himself of the proverbial crutches. It is a major step in his reintegration to society. Our group will therefore focus on proposals that will aid him in his job search, as well as help employers who are willing to give him a second chance.

5. Through our proposals, we seek to redress the spectre of discrimination which hangs over the heads of ex-offenders seeking employment. It is one of the walls of the “second prison” that we have to tear down.

6. We applaud the success of the Yellow Ribbon Project and efforts of the relevant agencies such as the CARE Network in raising society’s awareness of the ex-offenders’ plight. We hope that through increased awareness, the public would be stimulated to alter discriminative mindsets and practices.

7. Our proposals would ride nicely on the success of the Yellow Ribbon Project, as they seek to give ex-offenders the same opportunity as every other job-seeker, and let employers see them for not who they were, but who they are and what they are capable of.

Review of Current Situation

Permanent criminal records

8. Criminal records in Singapore do not expire. In an ideal world where there is no stigmatisation, permanent criminal records do not pose a problem. But we all know that such a world is beyond us. Many a time, ex-offenders are viewed with a raised eyebrow and handled at arm’s length. Through stigmatisation, permanent records become brands that ex-offenders have to bear for life. These brands often reveal themselves when ex-offenders shed their veneer of isolation and are most vulnerable, eg. seeking employment.

Discriminative job interview question

9. The first step in a job application is often an application form. Most, if not all, forms pose a one-liner question which asks if the applicant has ever been convicted in a court of law for any offence in any country.

10. We acknowledge that employers have every right to protect their companies from high-risk individuals. With the declaration, they can screen off recalcitrant offenders who pose a risk to the operations of their businesses. The signed declaration by the applicant also justifies the prompt dismissal of the applicant should he resort to deceit to get the job.

11. While there is nothing wrong with the intent of the question, it can be used to discriminate against all who hold criminal records. Job applicants with records can be screened out regardless of the severity of their offences and their efforts to stay free of crime. We find it disturbing that individuals who have been convicted of minor offences in their youth are being denied interviews along with recalcitrant hardcore criminals who form the minority of job seekers.

Proposals to aid Ex-Offenders

12. As mentioned earlier, the aim of our proposals is to tackle the discrimination faced by job applicants head on. Through our proposals, we seek to adjust discriminative practices. We know that removing discrimination totally is a tall order; what we can do is to put in place practices and policies that help those who can be helped as well as reflect our resolve to redress discrimination.

Near Term Proposals

Proposal 1: Wiping slate clean (classifying records as confidential)

Details: We are very encouraged by MHA’s recent announcement that it is in the process of implementing such a programme. We are on a parallel track, pushing for what is essentially a programme that has the power to render offences as “spent” [5] . Once an offence is “spent”, it is classified as confidential and the ex-offender is no longer required to disclose his record history to all except authorised bodies. For example, an ex-offender has to reveal his history to the police if he re-offends. He also has to disclose his record when seeking employment in government agencies/ industries that are sensitive to all offences, eg. security forces, childcare.

Implementation: The programme will be based on merit, the severity of the applicant’s offence, and a minimum time duration to assess the applicant’s successes in staying clean. For example, an ex-offender caught for shoplifting can apply for his record to be “spent” 5 years after his release. Another ex-offender convicted for rioting can apply 10 years after his release. Programme administrators will assess the efforts of the ex-offenders in their reintegration to society. Testimonials from aftercare officers and employers will aid the applicants’ cases.

Rationale: This proposal addresses the problem of permanent criminal records festering as brands that ex-offenders carry for the rest of their lives. We wish to extend a second chance to minor offenders who have shown the will to reform and reengage society. Through this programme, we will also be giving ex-offenders a powerful incentive to work hard and stay free from crime.

Constraints: We acknowledge the concerns that society has in getting an incomplete picture of an ex-offender’s history. However, this proposal is just a part of an overall strategy to combat stigmatisation. The long-term viability of this programme hinges on the success of the overall strategy. To balance the needs to protect both society and the ex-offender, the key to the success of this programme will be the disclosure rights of authorised bodies. This is an implementation detail that is best left to the stakeholders to mull over. The premise behind the detail remains straightforward: Different bodies have different needs for disclosure. A body requires disclosure only if its interests face a realistic threat from incomplete information.

Stakeholders: In light of MHA’s announcement during the Budget Debate ’05 that it is in the final stages of rolling out this programme, we hope that it can incorporate our proposal in its review and consider the Government and Singapore National Employers’ Federation (SNEF) as partners to research into the disclosure rights of different public and private bodies, given the sensitivities of different bodies to different categories of offences.

Proposal 2: Rephrasing of the job interview question

Details: Replace the current one-liner with a structured question that requires the ex-offender to mark the category that his offences fall under, write in the details of his offence, and indicate the year that he committed his offence.

Implementation: To prevent the structured question from blowing up to a long tenuous questionnaire, employers would have to categorise offences according to severity and focus on offences that are more sensitive to the employer’s nature of work. Not only will it limit the length of the question, but it will force the employer to focus on offences that must be declared in detail because of their impact on the employer’s nature of work. For example, a bank would want to list white collar crimes such as fraud and criminal breach of trust (CBT) under the structured question. An applicant who has been convicted of an unrelated offence (eg. rioting) will tick the box that categorises his offence and fill in the details. Conversely, another applicant who has been convicted of CBT will tick the box “Criminal Breach of Trust”, thereby alerting the employer of the sensitive offence.

Rationale: The implementation is a process that we have termed as “industrial differentiation”. This process is a departure from the “one size fits all” one-liner that employers currently use to screen high risk applicants. Since the structured question highlights sensitive offences and relegates other offences into broad categories, it allows the employer to practice selective screening and encourages ex-offenders to apply for jobs that they thought were unrealistic because of the roadblock knowingly or unknowingly placed by the employer. With the implementation of this proposal, employers can depart from a discriminative practice and still guard their interests against high-risk ex-offenders.

Constraints: We understand that workplaces are concerned with the opening up their environments to ex-offenders. Such concerns are within reason as there are recalcitrant ex-offenders who betray the trust vested in them by harming the interests of the company and/ or its clients. As the company bears most of the fallout from the recalcitrance, it is logical for it to screen ex-offenders from its work environment.

That said, the company can seek to protect its interests as well as advance the cause of ex-offenders through the adoption of our proposal. Recalcitrant offenders are a minority, but it is very unfortunate to have the majority of ex-offenders suffer for the actions of a few black sheep.

Stakeholders: We are aware that the Government is open to recruiting ex-offenders. But so much more can be done to reduce discrimination in job applications and judge job applicants according to job fit and merit. We suggest that the Government, being the largest single employer, take the lead in implementing our proposal. We also advocate the partnership of Singapore National Employers’ Federation (SNEF) to sell this proposal to the private sector.

Proposals to aid employers of Ex-Offenders

Employers play a critical role in their support of an ex-offender’s rehabilitation efforts. However, such roles are by no means easy as ex-offenders have special needs and behavioural patterns that can estrange their support structure. Through our proposals, we aim to reward employers who have given ex-offenders a second chance, as well as help employers managing ex-offender employees.

Proposal 3: Incentivising Potential Employers

Details: Provide financial/tax incentives to employers who hire ex-offenders. These could include double tax deductions (of ex-offender employees’ salaries against taxable income) or a reduced corporate tax (e.g. 10%) for employers with a sizeable headcount of ex-offenders and/or with a high ex-offender staff retention rate.

Alternatively, financial grants could be given to employers who add value to their ex-offender employees. These grants could be used to subsidise the cost of training workshops and learning opportunities for ex-offender employees to improve their skills and advance in their professions.

Rationale: We fully recognise that businesses, being businesses, will always be focused on the bottomline.

However, we hope that companies who have stepped forward to balance corporate wellbeing with corporate social responsibility can be rewarded and showcased as model corporate citizens. We would also like to provide incentives to prospective employers, as many companies need to get past the hurdle of fear that prevents them from giving ex-offenders an opportunity to interview or to prove themselves on the job.

Constraints: Budget constraints notwithstanding, we want to emphasise that financial incentives treat only the symptoms and not the malady: discrimination. Incentives would not be effective if employers are not in for the long haul and do not view ex-offenders as long term employees. To strengthen the efficacy of the incentive scheme, it would have to ride on related public awareness campaigns such as the Yellow Ribbon Project.

Stakeholders: This incentive scheme should be administered by SCORE in partnership with WDA and NTUC, so that it can leverage on the job banks of the respective agencies. We would also like to invite MOF to review the possibility of rewarding tax incentives to employers of ex-offenders.

Proposal 4: Supporting employers of ex-offenders

Details: Establish a formalised support system for employers to cope with the unique challenges when dealing with ex-offenders. This system could include dedicated resources and services such as sharing sessions and training for employers, as well as counseling for employers who have trouble coping with their problematic employees.

Rationale: Currently, SCORE conducts periodic site visits and tea sessions to solicit feedback and provide an avenue for closer interaction between some existing employers and SCORE.

However, many employers continue to struggle in the management of problem employees. We hope that through the provision of a more holistic aid package, every employer that is concerned with both the welfare of his ex-offender employees as well as his company can receive the guidance and training he needs to strike a successful balance.

Constraints: The manpower needed to facilitate such workshops might be limited, which is a challenge if the proposal strikes a popular chord when implemented.

Stakeholders: We hope that SCORE, with its incumbent experience, can be given more resources to fine tune and expand the reach of its employer workshops. WDA, NTUC, and PSD (Public Service Division), can help spread the word and train themselves to be proficient in employer counseling.

Conclusion

1. We hope our report has succeeded in apprising the reader of our workgroup’s goals, philosophical references, and proposals.

2. Through this report, each of the three areas of focus: their backgrounds, current situations, and proposals, has been articulated against the theme of reintegrating ex-offenders.

3. While the focus of our proposals is to introduce, enhance, and fix policies and programmes, the altering of our mindsets of ex-offenders and their stereotypes remains the key to success.

4. With the progression from current norms to a more forgiving attitude and the will to differentiate between the reformers and the recalcitrant, our proposals will ride favourably on the winds of a more gracious society.

5. We would like to extend our heartfelt gratitude to the agencies and individuals who graciously offered their advice and support. Our findings would not be complete without their contributions. Our list of acknowledgements is attached as Annex B.

6. In particular, we would like to thank the convicts and ex-offenders who stepped forward with their invaluable insights on the difficulties they faced, as well as the effectiveness on some of our initial ideas. We hope that the proposals in this report will lead to the betterment of their lives on every stage of their journey.

7. We would like to end off by expressing our gratitude for the exposure to the plethora of national issues, the chance to work with the different levers of Government and civil society, and most importantly, the opportunity to articulate our ideas and nurture them into reality. We are deeply encouraged by the level of inclusiveness the Government is extending to youths and would like to reciprocate by being more actively engaged in the issues that dot our national landscape.

End of Document

Thank you

***********************

Annex A

Individual

Sex, age, health, working abilities etc

Microsystem

(A) Family

(E) Religious groups

(B) Neighbourhood

Mesosystem

(D) Work/ Study environment

Combinations/ Interaction of groups in microsystem

Exosystem

Neighbours

Support systems eg. Social workers, or support groups like SCORE

Labour laws

Government policies

Mass media

Macrosystem

Attitudes and ideologies of the culture

Sociohistorical influences on development eg. Meritocracy, gender differences in employment

Chronosystem

Time

Space-Time Ecosystem based on Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory of Development

Annex A

Microsystem:

This system refers to the individual’s intimate environment. It includes the family, friends, neighbourhood, religious groups, and work/ study environment.

Mesosystem:

This system involves the combination of various Microsystems. For example, secular contacts might have links with various religious groups, thus introducing the ex-offender to various faiths. These systems can interact directly, like the above example, or it can affect one another. For example, having poor relationships with peers might affect an individual’s relationship with colleagues in his work environment.

Exosystem:

This system refers to settings in which the ex-offender does not have an active role. However these systems would affect the ex-offender’s experience and life after prison. For example, if mass media portrays a positive image of ex-offenders, the latter might be more easily integrated into society. Employment laws also have an effect on the success of an ex-offender’s job search, or returning to his previous job.

Macrosystem:

This system refers to the culture in which the ex-offender resides. The culture refers to the behavior patterns, beliefs, and all other products of a group of people that are passed on from generation to another. For example, in Singapore, the culture is more risk averse: employers still need some time to trust ex-offenders before offering them jobs. The extent of this situation might be different elsewhere in the world.

Chronosystem:

This system is the development of the society and its values. For example, when somebody is released after 30 years in prison, many things would have changed, including societal values and mindsets. An ex-offender might be surprised to see many women working and carving out careers, which might not have been the norm before he was incarcerated.

Annex B

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank the following individuals for their invaluable contributions. The insights they have provided were instrumental in the crafting of our philosophies and proposals.

Dr. Ann Wee, Juvenile Court of Singapore

Ms Elaine Loo, MCYS

Ms Ng Chen Hoon, Ms Enon, Ms Goh Bee Shan, SCORE

Residents of Kaki Bukit Prison School

Three Cheers to the Crafters of this report: Youth Reloaded! Hip Hip Hurray!

Thank you, one and all, for the great advice, the endless brainstorming, and the sheer effort of translating random ideas into well-argued proposals. May the passion for advancing the cause of ex-offenders carry us forth into the next phase: Making our dreams a reality!

Dr. Mohamad Maliki Osman, Parliamentary Secretary, WorkGroup Adviser

Mr. Ahmad Nizam Abbas, Co-Chair, Youth Reloaded

Mr. Goh Kim Hua, Co-Chair, Youth Reloaded

Ms. Kong Kum Peck, Senior Assistant Director, MCYS

Ms. Fiona Kanagasingam, MCYS

Ms. Lim Jia Ying, MCYS

Youth Reloaded Sub Group 3: Reintegrating Ex-Offenders

Mr. Samuel Chan Wei Mun, Facilitator

Mr. Sophian Abd Rahman

Mr. Mark Clinton Galistan

Mr. Chong Weien

Ms. Ang Siew Theng

Ms. Juliet Ler

Ms. Teo En Qi

Ms. Agnes Wong

Ms. Mika Yap

Mr. Tan Yong Liang

Mr. Fauwaz Nurhelmy Bin Maaroof

Mr. Chia Poh Meng

Mr. Don Yap

Order Now