SINGAPORE, Mar 7 — The signal from the Home Affairs and Law Minister K Shanmugam that women’s safety comes before the rehabilitation potential of male sexual offenders was welcomed by the Association of Women for Action and Research (Aware) and lawyers who spoke to TODAY.
However, they said that more can still be done to support victims of sexual crime, as well as to intensify efforts to raise awareness about how the law ensures justice is served on such offenders.
They were commenting on a ministerial statement delivered on Friday by Shanmugam on a review of the sentencing framework for sexual and hurt offences.
He said that mitigation pleas based on the offender’s educational qualifications or academic potential should not carry much weight.
In response to queries from TODAY, Aware hailed the statement, noting that other jurisdictions such as Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom do not consider a sexual offender’s prospects as mitigating factors.
“There has long seemed to be an imbalance between the worth accorded to female survivors and that accorded to male perpetrators in the courts.
“The harm experienced by (female survivors) is frequently minimised, while the past record and future potential of (male culprits) is amplified. The lost potential of the survivor is rarely part of the discourse,” the advocacy group said.
Addressing sexual harassment and assault is top of mind for policymakers due to the increased public attention on such acts in recent years, Aware added.
There were several cases involving sex offenders that have generated public discussion over whether the sentencing framework needs a relook, including the 2019 cases of former National University of Singapore (NUS) student Yin Zi Qin, who had tried to choke his ex-girlfriend, and former NUS student Terence Siow Kai Yuan who molested a woman on the MRT.
In Siow’s case, his “good academic performance and their potential to excel in life” were referenced in the probation report. Prosecutors successfully filed an appeal against the probation sentence, raising the penalty to two years’ jail.
Lawyer Amolat Singh from Amolat and Partners said that the proposed changes likely arose due to the increased frequency of such cases that have been drawing the public’s attention.
“Singaporeans want to avoid the sad situation seen in other countries. Women have a right to be in public without fearing for their safety,” Singh said.
Asked why an offender’s educational background was considered a mitigating factor, Singh said that it applied for all cases, not just sexual offences, because people believed that a more educated offender holds a better chance of rehabilitation, all other things being equal.
“Nowadays, the argument is that when one has a better education, they should know better than to commit the crime in the first place.”
Fong Wei Li from Forward Legal LLC agreed, saying this is now seen as an aggravating factor by the public.
Deterrence and punishment comes first
Lawyer Rajan Supramaniam from EPP Law said it was significant that Shanmugam’s statement set out the present-day approach to sexual offences — that the need for deterrence comes before the rehabilitation potential of offenders.
In general, Singapore’s sentencing philosophy seeks to achieve four principles:
● Preventing a criminal from causing further harm
● Deterring others from behaving in a similar way
● Rehabilitating and reforming the offender where appropriate
● Punishing the offender in a manner that is proportionate to the crime
The law minister clarified that for offences of a sexual nature, “the principles of proportionate punishment and deterrence should generally take precedence over rehabilitation”.
Shanmugam emphasised that he was referring to adult offenders who commit sexual and hurt crimes, and that there will be some cases in which rehabilitation should be the dominant sentencing consideration due to “exceptional circumstances”.
“You shouldn’t be able to (go) to court and say you have a bright future, you will go far and so on. You can go far, but first, serve the sentence,” Shanmugam said.
On this, Supramaniam agreed with the need for deterrence for the sake of public safety, though he stressed that each case has to be seen by its own legal merits, which is already the case.
For example, the courts already pay heed to reports by mental health experts and social workers, which seek to evaluate whether there are any underlying issues on a case-by-case basis, Supramaniam said.
“One has to look at the full context before passing a sentence, including whether the offender has a past history of crime, and whether they are youthful offenders,” he added.
“It means that an offender’s academic performance and future contributions to society cannot be the sole or the determining factor. Instead, a holistic view should be taken.”
Supramaniam, who is a former prisons officer, said his experience taught him that rehabilitation is a key pillar of Singapore’s justice system, and that everyone deserves a second chance.
“If a youthful (sexual) offender receives the full brunt of the law in his first offence, then there is very little scope of rehabilitation… The courts have to strike this balance,” he said.
Tougher penalties alone not the solution
On Friday, Shanmugam also set out the Government’s proposal to add another year’s duration to the maximum jail terms for three types of sexual and hurt offences, including outrage of modesty and sex in the presence of a minor.
The lawyers who spoke to TODAY said that the stiffer penalties show an incremental change and are a sign that the authorities want to calibrate its new approach to deterring sexual crime, rather than take a quantum leap.
Singh said: “In a sense, it is like a titration of medicine and the Government is trying to find the right mix.”
Aware said that it has seen calls online from people who want to see increased punishments: “While we agree that the increased penalty may indeed be suitable for egregious cases of the above, we caution against focusing too much on harsher penalties as a means to deter crime and enhance protection for vulnerable persons.”
The prospect of harsher punishments may deter victims from reporting the crimes, Aware explained.
“Some survivors worry about the impact that criminal penalties might have on perpetrator’s lives, for example, if the survivor is related to or otherwise acquainted with the perpetrator,” said the group.
Aware urged more support for victims, such as by making it easier for them to report the crime, which would encourage victims to come forward and also sustain their involvement all the way until the offender is convicted.
The group said: “Improving the chances of securing convictions will do more to promote deterrence and hold perpetrators accountable than imposing harsh penalties.”
Fong, an expert on internet and social media law, highlighted the importance of raising the public’s understanding of legal issues, on top of raising awareness about sexual crime.
He said that the new sentencing guide meant for the general public and sentencing advisory panel would help somewhat with public education efforts.
Both were announced by Shanmugam on Friday.
The sentencing advisory panel, in particular, takes a consultative approach in issuing sentencing guidelines to aid the court, though the guidelines are non-binding. These guidelines will also be made available to the public.
Fong said that it will be a tall order to expect people to want to learn about the law on their own.
“Very few people of their own volition will say they want to learn about the law, whereas it’s very easy for people to become keyboard warriors… And for these kinds of (sexual) offences, we’ve seen how there is bound to be much outcry in what people now call the court of public opinion,” he said. — TODAY
