News

Everything About the ‘K Shanmugam vs Jamus Lim Debate’ That’s Going on in FB Now

2021-02-08 , 11:30 am

A online war of words on social media is as common as Chicken Rice stalls in Singapore, and typically wouldn’t be of interest to anyone other than those involved.

But this time, it isn’t your uncle and auntie arguing on Facebook.

Over a week ago, Sengkang MP and star of the hit reality TV show General Elections 2020, Jamus Lim, asked a parliamentary question about expanding coverage of the Yellow Ribbon Project.

In response, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam pointed out that this may extend to offences like sexual grooming or outrage of modesty.

And since then, the two have been going back and forth on Facebook.

So, how did this all start? And what is this debate all about?

Well, let’s start at the very beginning.

Parliamentary Question

In parliament last week, Dr Lim, from the Worker’s Party, asked if the government would consider expanding coverage of the Yellow Ribbon Project for non-violent crimes.

For those who don’t know, the Yellow Ribbon Project is an existing government initiative to help rehabilitate ex-offenders.

Those who have undergone an extended period of good behavior could have their criminal history expunged from public records, for employment purposes.

Written Parliamentary Response

Then, on 2 Feb, Mr Shanmugam submitted a written response to Dr Lim’s parliamentary question.

In it, he asked Dr Lim what he meant by “non-violent crime”, adding: “There are many offences which are serious but not violent in nature, such as sexual grooming, outrage of modesty, criminal breach of trust, and theft in dwelling.”

If the government, as Lim suggested, were to extend coverage of the Yellow Ribbon Project, this means the public records of such crimes would be expunged.

Consequently, ex-offenders could be employed in roles such as pre-school teachers or security officers without their employers being aware of their history, Mr Shanmugam wrote.

“The Government operates a framework, to rehabilitate, and find employment for most offenders, in a safe and transparent manner. And that framework is being constantly refined,” he said.

He invited Dr Lim to make a more “detailed suggestion”.

Facebook Post No. 1 – Mr Shanmugam

Mr Shangmugam then followed up his written response with a Facebook post on 4 Feb, where he elaborated on the risks of Dr Lim’s suggestion.

He cited a recent court case where a 29-year-old British national was charged with molesting a three-year-old during a class at a language training and literacy centre.

“If the MP’s suggestion is taken up, it means that this man can continue to work with children without employers being informed of his record. Would Singaporean parents be comfortable with this?” Mr Shanmugam.

The Law Minister also gave the example of an offender convicted of housebreaking given the opportunity to work as a security officer in a condominium, without employers knowing about his criminal record.

“Such an approach may not be wise,” he said

“The Government’s approach is to help offenders rehabilitate, find jobs. They have to be given second chances. But this is done in a transparent manner.”

Facebook Post No. 2 – Dr Lim

The next day, Dr Lim responded with a Facebook post of his own, clarifying his comments.

He said his parliamentary question was inspired by his experience with some residents who were trying to obtain security jobs, but were ruled out due to offences perpetrated in their youth.

Dr Lim conceded that there’s an “obvious risk” in allowing a recalcitrant offender to take on jobs where they could pose a danger to society.

At the same time, he said there’s a risk that imposing “permanent labels” on ex-offenders who have remained crime-free could jeopardise their re-integration into society.

“The purpose of my question wasn’t to propose a comprehensive policy—it is, after all, a one-sentence question—but rather to open up a conversation about crime and rehabilitation,” he said.

He also wanted to understand the nuances of the current policy stance, and to enquire if there was room for the authorities to expand the scope of the existing program.

He admitted that if coverage of the scheme were to be extended, certain exceptions would have to be made.

Examples included barring those convicted of sex crimes from working with children, and preventing ex-offenders guilty of substance abuse from working in pharmaceuticals.

“I am certain that additional conditions, such as these, would be of value, and should be considered by the Ministry,” he wrote.

Facebook Post No.3 – Mr Shangmugam

In response, Mr Shanmugam shared another Facebook post on 5 Feb, pointing out that recidivism, the tendency to re-offend after release, is at an all-time low.

“Prisons and Yellow Ribbon Singapore place strong emphasis on rehabilitation and reintegration into the community,” he said.

Facebook Post No.4 – Mr Shanmugam

Then, two days later, Mr Shanmugam said he was puzzled by Dr Lim’s call to open up a conversation on crime and rehabilitation.

“Is the MP aware that we have been having that conversation for decades?” the Home Affairs Minister said.

Having proposed extending coverage of the Yellow Ribbon Project, Mr Shanmugam believes the Sengkang MP now realises there are “difficulties with his suggestion.”

The implication is that Dr Lim initially suggested extending coverage of the scheme, but after realising that there were some factors he hadn’t considered, he is now backtracking and claiming he only meant to open up a conversation on crime and rehabilitation.

Mr Shanmugam retorted that the government has been having that conversation for decades.

“He (Dr Lim) can look up the Parliamentary records. It’s not a new topic, suddenly to be discovered. And our laws, policies have been heavily influenced by our approach to crime and rehabilitation, for more than 20 years.”

Mr Shanmugam pointed out that there have been several discussions in Singapore, leading to legislation focusing on rehabilitation.

He cited the recent enhancements to the community sentencing regime, which gives those who commit minor offences a “good chance at rehabilitation”.

Singapore’s drug laws were also amended in 2019 to remove the criminal stigma from pure drug offenders, he said. Because of this, focus has shifted to treating their habit and rehabilitating them, rather than “treating them as criminals”.

Mr Shanmugam added that the Yellow Ribbon Project, along with other schemes, is the result of a shift in thinking, which is now focused on rehabilitation.

Dr Lim’s post drew only puzzlement from Mr Shanmugam, who questioned the intent behind the Sengkang MP’s suggestions.

“I am not quite sure what the purpose is, in making a couple of general statements and packaging them as new, (“to open up a conversation” as the MP says) – on issues which have been publicly discussed for a long time, and which have been the subject of serious policy debates and legislation,” he wrote.

“What we need are sensible, real world, practical suggestions, or incisive ideas, which will make a contribution to the ongoing conversations on these issues.”

Such ideas and suggestions, Mr Shanmugam said, are welcome.

The Nee Soon MP didn’t end his post there, however, as he added some tongue-in-cheek jibes.

“If the MP believes that ex-offenders (be they child molesters or have convictions for housebreaking and so on, as long as it is non violent), should be allowed (for example) to be security officers in condominiums, (without their conviction record being available to employers), he can make that suggestion. And perhaps suggest some condominiums where the approach can be tested out.”

Of course, it’s unknown if this debate in Facebook has ended…or it’s just the beginning.

Featured Image: YouTube