Louis delivered the following speech on Reducing Drug Recidivism Rates at Committee of Supply 2016.

Louis: In the past three years, over 60% of drug abusers arrested are repeat offenders. This is a worrying trend. For repeat offenders, there is impact not only on the drug offenders, but also their family members who have already suffered previously. There is a tremendous emotional and financial strain on the spouse and the children of drug offenders.

I have seen a few cases now in Nee Soon East, and some have been arrested and sent back to the Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs) more than twice now.

I fully appreciate that it is difficult to fight their addiction. However, with such high numbers of repeat offenders, are there any plans to improve the rehabilitation process at our DRCs and the employability of ex-drug offenders when they are released? Will additional resources be provided to the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) to expand and increase their efforts

Mr Amrin Amin (The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs): I will now touch on our efforts to prevent re-offending, which Mr Louis Ng has asked about.

Our rehabilitation programmes are designed based on evidence to reduce their re-offending. We adopt a differentiated approach towards rehabilitation by tailoring the rehabilitation programmes and aftercare support based on the different risk profiles and needs of the offenders. For example, in the Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs), drug abusers with more severe drug addiction issues will receive higher intensity programmes, such as more counselling programmes. When they are placed on Community-Based Programmes, inmates with higher risk of re-offending would be placed in a more structured environment, such as a halfway house.

We have also started a day release arrangement for a small number of low-risk drug abusers. Under this arrangement, drug abusers are allowed to work or study in the community after two to four months in the DRC. These drug abusers are required to return to a community facility at night and are subjected to supervision, such as regular urine tests.

Mdm Chair, Mr Louis Ng, Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Patrick Tay asked about the employment of ex-offenders, which is key in their successful reintegration.

The Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) plays a key role in reintegrating ex-offenders back to the workforce.

In 2015, SCORE trained more than 5,000 inmates and helped over 2,000 inmates to secure jobs prior to their release. SCORE has also explored new collaboration opportunities with employers and partners.

For example, SCORE has worked with the Restaurant Association of Singapore (RAS) to develop a Train-Place-Retain model to place ex-offenders in the F&B sector. As of February 2016, over 130 ex-offenders secured employment with close to 100 companies from RAS under this collaboration.

In line with SkillsFuture, SCORE has worked with employers in key sectors, such as Logistics, F&B and Hospitality, to update its skills training and coaching programmes to meet the evolving skills needed. Let me highlight three key initiatives.

First, ex-offenders will be cross-trained in skills. For instance, ex-offenders in the F&B sector will be trained in skills required to perform both serving and food preparation functions.

Second, ex-offenders are encouraged to take personal responsibility for their continuous learning with the use of SkillsFuture credits.

Third, SCORE will work closely with employers to identify suitable training for the career advancement of ex-offenders they have hired.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each year of the past three years (a) what percentage of inmates in the Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs) use their entire quota of family visiting privileges each month; and (b) how many requests have the DRCs received for additional family visiting privileges by the inmates or by their family members respectively.

Mr K Shanmugam (MHA): The percentage of inmates in the Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs) who received the maximum allowable two visits per month is as follows:

Requests for additional family visits by DRC inmates or their family members are rare. When requests for additional visits are made, the Singapore Prison Service would assess each request and grant the visit based on the circumstances of the request.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each year from 2012 to 2014 what are the recidivism rates for the release cohorts from (i) the Drug Rehabilitation Centres (ii) the Long Term Imprisonment 1 regime and (iii) Long Term Imprisonment 2 regime, respectively.

Mr K Shanmugam (MHA): The two-year recidivism rates for persons released from the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC), Long-Term Imprisonment 1 (LT1) and Long-Term Imprisonment 2 (LT2) from 2012 to 2014 are as follows.

The recidivism rates in recent years for drug inmates have fallen significantly from the 60 – 70% in the 1990s.

In the past few years, several new programmes were introduced to better support the rehabilitation of DRC and LT inmates.

Singapore Prison Service (SPS) introduced the Enhanced Supervision Scheme (ESS) in 2012 to provide more intensive support for high-risk Long-Term Imprisonment inmates. They undergo a psychology-based programme during incarceration as well as mandatory casework, individual counselling and community supervision after their release. The Prisons Act was also amended in 2014 to introduce the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme (MAS), which provides structured supervision to high-risk offenders as they transition back into the community. In 2014, SPS launched the enhanced Drug Rehabilitation Regime which placed DRC inmates on tailored programmes based on their re-offending risks and severity of drug use.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered the following budget cuts at Committee of Supply 2017.

Strengthening Family Ties during Rehabilitation

Louis: I visited a Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) and saw first-hand the work our Captains of Life do. While the recidivism rate has remained stable at around 26%, it is worrying to me that almost 60% of drug abusers arrested were repeat offenders. Even more worrying is that statistics that the more times we incarcerate someone for drug offences, the higher the chances he or she will be incarcerated again.

A significant focus of the rehabilitation process is to ensure that inmates secure a job when they are released. I feel an equally important factor is whether they have family support when they are released. Only a third of DRC inmates use their full quota of two 30-minute visits per month. This is a clear sign that inmates lack family support and this is a problem that might have existed prior to their drug problem. Strained family ties were perhaps one on the reasons they consumed drugs in the first place. We need to address the root of the problem.

Can the Minister share what plans it has to strengthen family bonds during rehabilitation? Can we provide more classes on parenting, on better communication with spouses and other such classes? Can we strengthen the current family programme, especially the joint session component?

Strengthening Resolve for Rehabilitation

Louis: Next, I recently watched a very touching video of children of prisoners reuniting with their fathers behind bars for a day in an US prison. I watched fathers in tears as they realised how much they missed their children and perhaps how their actions have hurt their children. I saw in the eyes of the fathers the resolve to be rehabilitated so that they can spend not just one day but the rest of their lives with their children. And I also saw what that one day meant for the children as ultimately, they are the real victims. I strongly feel we should introduce this programme in our prisons. With stronger family bonds, a prisoner's rehabilitation process will be more effective.

Will the Minister consider piloting this programme in our prisons? I have seen too many residents whose spouses are repeatedly incarcerated and how their families have been torn apart. A key part of the rehabilitation has to be rebuilding these bonds.

Mr Amrin Amin (The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Louis Ng asked about the role of family support in rehabilitation. Indeed, this is one of the key factors that motivate ex-offenders to rebuild their lives and to keep themselves away from re-offending.

Singapore Prison Service (SPS) partners with Fei Yue Family Services and Lakeside Family Services to provide structured family programmes for inmates −workshops to help better understand the impact of their crimes on their families and build their parenting and communication skills.

The Prison Service also works with community partners like the Salvation Army to conduct family sessions in prison. During these sessions, family members are allowed to enter Prison to spend time with the inmates, and they are designed to encourage bonding between inmates and their children, and they serve as powerful reminders to inmates that they need to turn their lives around. These family sessions are also held during special occasions, such as Mothers' Day, Fathers' Day, and Children's Day.

Other than helping the inmate, Singapore Prison Service also helps their families. The grassroots-led Yellow Ribbon Community Project (YRCP) was established to help the families and children of inmates cope, by connecting them to the national social support networks. YRCP has assisted more than 5,000 families. We recognise that family ties are vital to the inmates' rehabilitation and family support is especially important after the inmates' release, and thus, the community's long-term involvement is vital to ensure continuity in these efforts.

Besides family support, employment is another critical factor for successful reintegration. Employment provides the ex-offenders with a sense of purpose and income to help meet families' needs.

The Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE), its partners, and employers play key roles by providing training and job opportunities for inmates.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each year from 2012 to 2016, what is the percentage of local inmates detained, convicted and imprisoned again for a new offence within five years from their release from (i) the Drug Rehabilitation Centres (ii) Long-Term Imprisonment 1 and (iii) Long-Term Imprisonment 2 regimes respectively.

Mr K Shanmugam (MHA): Singapore Prison Service (SPS) currently publishes two-year recidivism rates, as this is aligned with standard international calculations for measuring recidivism, and allows for meaningful comparison across time and jurisdictions.

Compared to longer time spans, two-year recidivism rates are a more sensitive measure of the effectiveness of prison regimes, including the Drug Rehabilitation Centre (DRC) and Long-Term Imprisonment (LT). After the two-year mark, ex-offenders' behaviour would tend to be influenced more by other environmental factors. Recidivism rates over a longer time frame will hence be higher.

The two-year recidivism rates for persons released from DRC, LT1 and LT2 from 2012 to 2014 are as follows. The two-year recidivism rates for 2015 and 2016 are not available yet.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered the following budget cuts at Committee of Supply 2018

Initial Incarceration Phrase Programming.

Louis: Sir, current rehabilitation programmes target the needs of ex-offenders in criminal thinking, employment and family support. While the public’s support is important during reintegration, the ex-offender himself must be motivated to change. Inmates are the most disoriented, vulnerable and susceptible to influences at the initial incarceration phase.

This would be the opportune time to render positive and aspirational elements such as talks or programmes by successful ex-offenders who can be role models for inmates during this initial phase.

This would be a more powerful source of influence compared to the counsel of case workers who may seem clinical and unrelatable. This would counter negative influences from fellow inmates discussing past escapades.

Can the Ministry consider including more programmes featuring ex-offenders and imparting life-changing strategies at this initial stage, especially during the initial two to three months when inmates are most motivated to change and commitments are more sustainable?

Family Ties in Inmate Rehabilitation

Louis: I recently had coffee with ex-offenders and the stories they shared with me were heartening and inspiring. They made mistakes but they are trying hard to rebuild their lives and we need to help them. If there is one word they used most frequently in their stories, it is “family”.

As I shared in my cuts last year, I strongly believe we should strengthen family ties to improve the rehabilitation process for inmates. I am grateful that SPS is working with Focus on the Family Singapore on running programmes to strengthen family bonds.

The Children’s Day event at Tanah Merah Prison last year, where 24 inmates were allowed an open visit where they could hug and hold their loved ones instead of being separated by a glass panel, was an excellent event. They were also not in their prison uniform.

Can the Ministry extend this programme to more inmates and conduct more of such visits more often?

In the words of Focus on the Family Singapore "Humans thrive when we know we are loved. When inmates connect and are reconciled with their families, there is a lower chance of them reoffending."

Mentoring Programmes for Inmates

Louis: Next, current in-care programmes for inmates feature psychological and cognitive-based curriculum and counselling, targeting the thinking and behavioural aspects of inmates. Programmes can come across as overly clinical, diagnostic, prescriptive, featuring lecture-style methods.

I hope the Ministry will consider featuring more inspirational, experiential and reflective learning approaches. For example, through mentoring, where community partners or representatives can come in regularly through group or one-on-one mentoring for a period of time.

This could complement the "through-care" strategy of SPS, where the mentoring relationship could carry on into the Aftercare stages of the inmate, making societal reintegration more seamless.

This also provides a more humanistic approach targeting the heart of inmates, creating an authentic and positive relationship of trust.

Mr Amrin Amin (The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Louis Ng spoke about the importance of programmes in prison, and family and social support. He asked if the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) will be extending family programmes to more inmates. SPS works with community partners like Focus on the Family, The Salvation Army and Singapore Children’s Society to conduct bonding programmes for inmates and their families. We have structured family programmes run by agencies such as Fei Yue Community Services and Lakeside Family Services to strengthen family relationships. More than 4,000 inmates benefitted from these last year. SPS aims to extend family programmes to more inmates.

Another factor that can reduce re-offending is social support.

SPS has established a Befriending Programme for trained volunteers to befriend inmates and support them upon release. Since 2010, over 900 inmates have benefitted from this.

Mr Louis Ng asked if SPS would consider having more programmes featuring ex-offenders. We agree that sharing by ex-offenders can be very impactful. SPS collaborates with community partners to engage ex-offenders to give monthly motivational talks. In addition to face-to-face talks, the talks are also uploaded on shared tablets which are being piloted for inmates to engage in self-learning.

Louis: Sir, the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that SPS will be extending family bonding programmes. Can I check specifically if it will be extending the programme where they can have visits when they are not separated by glass panels from their families? Secondly, for the mentorship session with ex-offenders, can I check how regular is this and whether it is open to all inmates? And for the initial incarceration phase, can I just confirm that programmes are offered to inmates during this first to three months when they are incarcerated? Lastly, I just want to share that public servants I have spoken are very appreciative of the Parliamentary Secretary's efforts and how hands on he is at the Prisons. 

Mr Amrin Amin: Thank you for the question. On the first point about family programmes, not all family programmes are unsupervised or free in the sense that they do not have barriers. It varies. We have had some programmes recently, there was a Children's Day event, where the families can get together and meet and talk. But not all programmes are like that and we work with various family centres to provide the family structured programmes. 

On the second question on whether the talks by ex-offenders are offered during the initial phases. The initial phases have got a different set of programmes. The Prisons focuses on getting the inmates used to prison life. And so during that stage of orientation, a different set of programme is being offered to them.

SPS collaborates with various community partners to engage ex-offenders and we will endeavour to make it a monthly motivational talk. And we will have more programmes that are available for inmates across the different incarceration periods.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs for each of the past three years (a) how many inmates go through divorce proceedings while in the Drug Rehabilitation Centres, or while undergoing incarceration under the Long-Term Imprisonment 1 and Long-Term Imprisonment 2 regimes respectively; (b) how many go through divorce proceedings within two years of release respectively; and (c) what is the recidivism rate of inmates who have undergone divorce during incarceration and following release respectively.

Mr K Shanmugam (MHA): The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) does not maintain records of inmates undergoing divorce proceedings, nor after they are released.

Regardless of marital status, inmates undergo programmes based on their risk of re-offending and their needs. These include family programmes to address transitional issues for inmates and their families, and to equip them with knowledge and skills that will help strengthen their relationships with each other. More than 4,000 inmates benefitted from family programmes in 2017. SPS aims to work with community partners to extend family programmes to more inmates.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs for first-time offenders in Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs) (a) what are the top three reasons they consume drugs; and (b) what is their median per capita household income.

Mr K Shanmugam (MHA): The most commonly cited reasons for drug consumption by first-time offenders include (a) to cope with stress, (2) out of curiosity, and (3) due to peer pressure.  

Based on the data provided by first-time offenders admitted to DRC in 2017, the median monthly individual income is about S$1,600. We do not track the household income of drug offenders.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

(Supplementary Question) Louis: The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned just now that we are currently not collecting data on the generational-correlated offenders. So, I am just wondering whether MHA can start collecting such data, so that all the programmes that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned, we can see whether it is working, and we can start to see whether the trend is going up or going down as well.

Mr Amrin Amin: I thank the Member. We are definitely looking into that but it is quite a challenge because some of these families, there has been a breakdown in family relationships. For some of them, they have not been in touch with their spouses and may not know where their children are. But we are, nevertheless, trying. We have a rough sense but we are not able to share because there needs to be more work put in into this.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis delivered his speech and suggestions in support of Misuse of Drugs (Amendment) Bill as follow:

Louis: Sir, I stand in support of the Bill. It is important to review the existing framework to ensure that we are up to date with the evolving drug landscape.

I would like to seek a few clarifications and offer some suggestions. 

I am happy to note that the proposed amendments, as a whole, reflect a move towards strengthening rehabilitation for drug offenders, and the whole-of-family approach especially when it comes to younger drug offenders.

Just last week, at a visit to the new Selarang Halfway House, Minister Shanmugam announced a three-pronged approach to better rehabilitate ex-offenders. This includes assigning inmates to the same case officer for the entire period of incarceration, focusing more on correctional programmes targeted at individuals, and getting more family and community support. These amendments will codify the rehabilitative approach and align our legislative framework with ground initiatives.

I note that section 33 will be amended to introduce mandatory minimum sentences for offences of consuming controlled or specified drugs, failing to provide urine specimens and failing to provide hair specimens. Further, section 33A on enhanced penalties for repeat offenders will be expanded.

In light of the refocus on rehabilitation, can the Minister clarify the rationale behind introducing mandatory minimum sentences and enhanced penalties and how this might be consistent with the broader strategy for addressing repeat commission of drug offences? Both legislative and executive action should be aligned to present a coherent message on our renewed commitment to rehabilitation and re-integration.

The family as is an important part of the rehabilitative process. At the DRC, I understand that only a third of inmates use their full quota of two 30 minutes visits per month. This is already a clear sign that inmates lack family support and this problem might have existed prior to the drug problem. Strained family ties were perhaps one of the reasons they consumed drugs in the first place. The new section 34A will require parents and guardians to undergo mandatory counselling together with young offenders. This is a positive step forward.

In the same vein of embracing a more whole-family approach, I hope we will also consider a greater push towards a more forgiving and rehabilitative approach to all drug offenders. Beyond focusing on young offenders, we should also help inmates currently serving their sentence to maintain social connections with their immediate family. The family serves as an important social safety net upon the inmates release. Families help to support inmates’ efforts to change, re-integrate into society as responsible citizens and reduce the re-offending rates. Research has shown that family support is a key factor that prevents inmates from reoffending.

I have suggested this before and I hope that we can consider removing the glass panel between inmates and their children more often. Today, family bonding and interaction with inmate’s children is too limited. Family support, especially interaction with their children, could strengthen the resolve of inmates to change their lives for the better. Stopping parental contact with their child could cause resentment, a sense of abandonment on both sides and weaken the social support structure for an inmate. This works against our objective of a supportive rehabilitation process and also negatively affects the child.

There is precedence to remove the separation by glass panel on special occasions. On Children's Day in 2017, some inmates at the Tanah Merah Prison were allowed an open visit where they could hug and hold their loved ones. Some of the inmate had not seen their children for four years until that visit. Having physical contact with their families can be a strong reminder for inmates to turn over a new leaf for their families. As stated by the spokesperson for Focus on Family Singapore, “Humans thrive when we know we are loved. When inmates connect and are reconciled with their families, there is a lower chance of them reoffending."

I would also like to take this opportunity to applaud MHA for increasing support for ex-offenders. The Development and Re-integration Programme is promising, and aims to help inmates upon their release. It provides continuity of care from prisons to the community, to help the inmates better reintegrate and prevent re-offending. Beyond the support offered after ex-offenders are released, I also hope we can provide more support to inmates while they are in prison, especially during the initial incarceration phase and especially by ex-offenders who have managed to turn their lives around.

I had raised this before during the Committee of Supply debates and I hope the Ministry could consider including more programmes featuring ex-offenders and imparting life-changing strategies at this initial stage, especially during the initial two to three months when inmates are most motivated to change and commitments are more sustainable. Sir, notwithstanding my clarifications, I stand in support of this Bill.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) for each year in the past five years, what is the average number of open visits which an inmate has with their childrens; and (b) whether there are plans to increase the number of open visits which an inmate can have with their children.

Mr K Shanmugam (MHA): In the past five years, an average of around 1,500 inmates each year participated in structured family programmes which have an open visit component. However, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) does not track the number of open visits individual inmates have with their children.

SPS will extend such programmes to more inmates.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

(Supplementary Question) Louis: Thank you, Sir. I would like to go back to the part about rehabilitation. The Senior Parliamentary Secretary mentioned that during the probation, we do get the family involved in the rehabilitation process. But what about those who are incarcerated? Do we get the family involved in the rehabilitation process while they are in prison, as well? I think that is the important part. So, the question is, whether we have family functional therapy for inmates currently incarcerated for sex offences.

Mr Amrin Amin: The intervention programmes are based on research. And in certain cases, it involves families but in most, it involves the offender having to address his or her own criminogenic needs or risks. I think the short answer to the Member's question is yes, there are family programmes, but not all interventions would involve the family. There are different modules and different individuals require different types of treatment.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Health what is the rationale for banning ex-offenders from donating blood within one year of their prison release.

Dr Lam Pin Min (for the Minister for Health): Mr Speaker, to ensure a safe and high-quality blood supply for our patients in Singapore, pre-donation interviews are conducted to screen blood donors for risk factors and blood donations are also tested for blood-borne infections.

However, infections can only be detected some time after the blood donors have been infected. This is known as the window period. Therefore, donors who have been exposed to infection risks will be asked to defer their donation until after the window period.

For this reason, the World Health Organization recommends an appropriate deferral period after ex-offenders have been released from prison before blood donation. HSA has adopted a one-year deferral period, aligned with the practices of other countries such as Australia, Canada and the United States of America. It ensures that the window period after these donors become infected has passed, enabling the screening tests to detect blood-borne infections if any, as patient safety is utmost important and cannot be compromised.

Louis: I do understand we are following WHO guidelines. But WHO says prisons are extremely high-risk environments for transmission of HIV due to over-crowding, poor nutrition, limited access to healthcare, continued drug use, unsafe injecting practices, unprotected sex and tattooing. 

This might be representative of other prisons, but can I ask the Senior Minister of State whether this is representative of the Singapore prisons? And having myself visited the prisons, I am quite sure that this is not. If it is not, then why do we follow the WHO guidelines when our prisons are not the same as other prisons?

The second clarification is, if we really do believe that the Singapore Prison is an area where there is high infections, then, surely, MOH should be doing something to protect our inmates against HIV, Hepatitis B which we can vaccinate against, and Hepatitis C, rather than the stigma of the ex-offender coming out and then, going to try and donate blood, and the doctor says, "No, you can't because you are an ex-offender." And that is a real-life example because it was an ex-offender who emailed me after coming to my blood donation drive in Nee Soon East and being turned away.

Dr Lam Pin Min: I would like to thank the Member for those clarifications. As I have mentioned, HSA has very high standards on donor criteria to ensure the safety of blood supply. I think that this is something that all of us do support. We also know that studies have shown that inmates of prisons and corrective institutions have a higher incidence of infections from blood-borne diseases such as Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C. This is a fact.

Although there are no reported instances of inmates contracting blood-borne or infectious diseases while in Singapore's prison – and this is something that we are very proud of as compared to many of the other prisons that Mr Louis Ng has alluded to – we still need to err on the side of caution as inmates may have contracted the infectious diseases before their admission to prison. We also acknowledge that they are considered a higher risk group compared to the population. If I can just quote some statistics: for HIV, for the general population between the age 15 and 45 in Singapore, the HIV prevalence is 0.2% but it is 1.1% amongst inmates or ex-inmates. This is a fact that they are of a higher risk profile.

Like I have mentioned in my reply, they may be in the window period, so therefore, we have adopted what WHO has recommended, taking into consideration all these factors.

I also thank the ex-inmate who came forward to donate. I think for genuine donors, they can still continue to come forward to donate their blood after that 12-month deferral period.

Louis: Sir, the follow-up question to my second point – what is MOH doing to help the inmates who have been released? We are saying that a year from their release date, they have very high potential of being infected with Hepatitis B, Hepatitis C and HIV, surely, MOH should have a programme to help these inmates following their release.

Dr Lam Pin Min: I think we must be cognisant that the reason why they are inmates is because of certain things that have happened, prior to that. That actually pre-disposes them to some high-risk behaviours. While we do not want to say that every single person who has been admitted to prison is considered high risk, we do need to take an approach whereby we have to err on the side of caution. Like I have mentioned, for genuine donors, they are still welcomed to donate after the 12-month deferral period.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what plans does the Ministry have to tackle the transmission of HIV, Hepatitis B and Hepatitis C in our prisons; and (b) whether the Ministry can ensure that all inmates are vaccinated for Hepatitis B.

Mr Amrin Amin (for the Minister for Home Affairs): There are no known instances of inmates contracting HIV, Hepatitis B or Hepatitis C while they are in prisons. Prison officers and medical personnel comply strictly with national healthcare standards and protocols when managing inmates. The prison medical service provider also conducts regular health talks for inmates to promote a healthy lifestyle, including education on personal hygiene and not engaging in risky behaviour. 

On the Member's question about whether all inmates can be vaccinated for Hepatitis B, MHA takes reference from the National Adult Immunisation Schedule (NAIS). Under the NAIS, vaccination for Hepatitis B is not mandatory.

MHA will continue to regularly review the healthcare approach in our prisons through its Medical Advisory Panel.

Louis: Thank you, Sir. I thank the Senior Parliamentary Secretary for the reply. Could I also just take this chance to ask what the Singapore Prison Service is doing to protect our inmates against COVID-19 as well as the prison officers? As I am aware that in prisons in other countries, there has been an outbreak of COVID-19 and some of the inmates have actually died from it.

Mr Amrin Amin: Our prisons have remained COVID-19 free thus far. The Prison Service has taken precautionary measures to protect our staff and inmates. Prisons is closely monitoring the health and well-being of staff and inmates, and they are regularly reminded on the need to practise good personal hygiene and be socially responsible. All newly admitted inmates are housed separately from the general population and monitored for 14 days with their temperatures taken twice daily.

Since 23 March 2020, inmates who fulfil the MOH case definitions or have chest x-ray findings suggestive of respiratory infection would be tested for COVID-19. Frontline prison officers are issued Personal Protective Equipment, which includes disposable masks and gloves for use when they interact with all new admissions and any suspected case of COVID-19 in the inmate population. Prisons has also implemented compulsory temperature screening for all staff and visitors at all access points into prisons facilities.

From 7 April 2020 to 4 May 2020, Prisons will suspend all programmes involving external partners such as work programmes and family programmes. Essential services such as the bakery, kitchen and laundry will continue. Workshops considered essential services under MTI's guidelines will also continue.

And from 7 April 2020 to 4 May 2020, Prisons will suspend family visits. This covers both face-to-face visits and tele-visits. Visits scheduled on 6 April 2020 will be allowed to continue. In lieu of visits, Prisons will allow inmates to make local phone calls to keep in touch with their families. Overseas phone calls will not be allowed. Inmates can also continue to send letters, including e-letters to their families.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs (a) what progress has the Ministry made on collecting data on the number of drug users whose parents were themselves drug users; and (b) whether the Government will use this information in reviewing its policies to address drug abuse.

Mr K Shanmugam (MHA): The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) and Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) do not collect data on the number of drug users whose parents were themselves drug users.

However, in 2017, SPS conducted a study on how parental drug abuse impacts the next generation. The study investigated the prevalence of offending amongst children (aged 12 years old and above) with drug-abusing parents, based on a 10-year cohort of drug admissions into prison between 2008 and 2017.

The study found that about one in five (21.6%) drug-abusing parents had at least one child who had committed offences (i.e. incarcerated in prison, sent to a juvenile home or placed under probation).

In the study, children with drug-abusing parents reported weakened attachment to their parents due to parent-child separation when one or both parents were incarcerated, and they often felt lonely and neglected. As a result of their parents' drug abuse, the children also reported being exposed to drug utensils and drugs at home. This increased their tolerance towards drug abuse and the likelihood of them abusing drugs subsequently.

The study also revealed several factors that increase the risk of child offending. Children who have offended were found to have engaged in and maintained their offending behaviour as a result of inadequate supervision and control by their parents or caregiver. Further, growing up in a household with drug abuse or having anti-social influences in their immediate circle of friends increased the risk of the children engaging in offending behaviour. The children may also follow in the footsteps of their drug-abusing parents due to a desire to connect with them.

The study identified possible protective factors that could mitigate the impact of parental drug abuse and incarceration on the child. These include having strong social support to ensure that the child remains well-taken care of emotionally, physically and mentally, and keeping the child engaged and occupied with pro-social activities.

The findings of the study affirmed much of SPS's ongoing efforts to reduce the impact of offending on an offender's family. SPS facilitates the prompt identification and referral of the needs of offenders' families, including their children, to resources in the community. For instance, under the Yellow Ribbon Community Project, grassroots volunteers visit families whose loved ones are incarcerated, to assess their needs and concerns, for subsequent intervention. The Family Resource Centres work with SPS to address problems faced by inmates and their family, such as financial, accommodation or familial problems. The Community Action for the Rehabilitation of Ex-offenders (CARE) Network, of which SPS, other government agencies and social services agencies are members, delivers programmes and services aimed at addressing the impact of parental incarceration, such as counselling, tuition assistance, parenting programmes, and family bonding programmes.

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)

Louis asked the Minister for Home Affairs what are the factors in the Ministry’s decision not to collect data on the number of drug users whose parents are themselves drug users.

Mr K Shanmugam (MHA): MHA’s assessment is that the data it collects is adequate for formulating its schemes. Different types of data are collected and research studies are also conducted.  

In 2014, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) conducted a research study on the behaviours of young drug abusers. The study found that young drug abusers were five to seven times more likely to come from a family with a history of drug abuse, compared to non-drug abusers. The findings from the study have been used for further analysis. 

In 2017, SPS conducted a study to understand how parental drug abuse impacts the next generation, whether they were more likely to commit crimes and abuse drugs. The study found that about one in five drug-abusing parents had at least one child who had also committed a crime or abused drugs. The findings of the study also affirmed many of SPS’ efforts to reduce the impact of drug abuse on an offender’s family. 

We will continue to conduct research where useful to inform our policies and programmes to mitigate inter-generational drug abuse and offending. We will also periodically review the data to be collected. 

Source: Hansard (Parliament of Singapore)