SINGAPORE — New laws are being proposed to extend legislative protection provided under the Children and Young Persons Act to cover young offenders who are 16 and older but below 18-years-old, among others.

Previously, the Act covered young offenders below the age of 16.

The aim of this proposed amendment is to allow young offenders, who may lack the “cognitive maturity of adults”, to benefit from more targeted, age-appropriate and rehabilitation-focused options provided by the community and inside a residential facility, said the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF).

In addition, the ministry said that the “identity and privacy of these young offenders will also be protected” as they will not be named in media reports, for instance. This is to help the offenders better reintegrate into society.

This could also mean greater protection for young offenders who commit major crimes such as murder.

However, the MSF said that the changes in age definitions within the Act do not automatically change the age definitions in other legislations. For grave offences such as murder or sex crimes, the young offenders will be tried on a case-by-case basis.

Currently, the Act provides different sentencing options, where appropriate, for young offenders who commit such offences.

First enacted in 1949 and last amended in 2011, the Act safeguards the care, protection and rehabilitation of children and young persons below the age of 16.

It also supports children who have been abused or neglected by their parents or caregivers, those who have committed offences and those whose parents seek the court’s guidance to improve their behaviour.

YAY OR NAY?

The proposed amendment to raise the age limit to cover young offenders below 18 drew mixed responses from lawyers.

Mr Sunil Sudheesan, who heads the Association of Criminal Lawyers of Singapore, said he supported the change, as youth should ideally be rehabilitated “ in non-custodial settings”.

“If one is charged in the adult court, there is a chance of getting a permanent record,” he said.

The change will give young offenders the “short, sharp shock they need” so that they can “wake up” after undergoing rehabilitation and reintegration into society.

Hopefully, the proposed change “reflects a shift in thinking, that jail is clumsy and root causes of offending should be the focus instead”, added Mr Sudheesan.

Mr Amolat Singh, managing partner at Amolat and Partners, said the proposed amendment was a “logical step”.

“Now, if a person is older than 16, he will appear in the adult court. But it doesn’t mean that just because a person is one day older than 16 means he or she is an adult,” he said.

This will provide “greater insulation” for young offenders below 18, he added, as they may come into contact with “older and more hardcore offenders” when in jail or during court proceedings and become susceptible to negative influences from them.

However, Mr Josephus Tan of Invictus Law Corporation did not feel that the proposed amendment would offer better protection to young offenders as rehabilitation for a first-time youth offender between the ages of 16 and 21 currently comes in the form of a probation order and other existing community-based sentencing options.

Both Mr Sudheesan and Mr Tan pointed out that it is more important to ensure that there are enough resources in place — should the proposed amendment be passed — to help more youth offenders.

Mr Sudheesan said that there is “a lot more scope for psychiatric intervention and counsellors to be involved in the rehabilitation process” and that this should be the focus of the MSF moving forward.

Mr Tan added: “While rehabilitation is important, we must be ready logistically, otherwise it is taking a step forward and two steps back.”

LAWS IN OTHER COUNTRIES

The laws for young offenders below the age of 18 differ for other countries such as the United Kingdom (UK) and Japan.

In the UK, children between 10 and 17 can be arrested and taken to court if they commit a crime.

However, they are dealt with by youth courts, given different sentences and sent to special secure centres for young people, not adult prisons.

Those aged 18 and above are treated as an adult by the law. But offenders between 18 and 25 will not be placed in custody in an adult prison.

In Japan, a juvenile offender is referred to as an individual ranging from 14 to 19 years of age who has committed a criminal act. Offenders below the age of 20 receive special treatment under the law, including enrolment in juvenile correctional facilities.

REMOVING STIGMA

The amendment to raise the age limit for young offenders is one of several that the MSF is seeking public feedback on.

The public can submit their views via Government e-consultation portal, Reach, from Feb 8 to March 21.

Another proposed change is to replace the label of youths “beyond parental control” (BPC) to children “in need of statutory supervision” instead.

While the MSF said the change is to remove the stigmatising label of being “BPC”, some lawyers like Mr Tan called this a “cosmetic and superficial change”.

Currently, children who are referred to as BPC — their parents would have applied for a BPC order — are placed under the supervision of a court-appointed person or in a residential setting.

The ministry is also proposing to make it mandatory for parents, guardians and their children to undergo a family programme before they can file a court application for statutory supervision.

This is to ensure that all parties attempt to resolve their differences through community support programmes first before going to court, said the MSF.

The rationale for such amendments, added the ministry, is that it has observed that behaviours of children placed under BPC orders “frequently stem from serious conflicts” between parent and child.

While the MSF is hoping to raise the age limit to better protect young offenders, it is looking to retain the age limit of below 16 for children in need of supervision.

Under the current law, a parent or guardian can make a court application for statutory supervision only if the child is below 16.

While there are some stakeholders who want the age limit to stay, others feel that it should be raised.

Those who support keeping the age limit at below 16 said that older youths — such as those between 16 and 18 — are more likely to resent being brought to court by their parents and that could worsen the “already adversarial” parent-child relationship.

However, others said that 16 to 18 year olds would benefit from the family programme and being placed under supervision — especially in years where the child has critical national examinations — to prevent a worsening of risky behaviour.

OTHER AMENDMENTS:

• The MSF is also proposing to extend legislative protection to children below the age of 18 who are abused or neglected by their parents or caregivers. Currently, this only covers children below 16.

Why?

This is because older youths may not have the physical ability or maturity to remove themselves from harm’s way. This proposal allows MSF and community partners to intervene and protect these older youths, said the ministry.

• Enable the court to grant a Long-Term Care Order (LTCO) for a child who, in spite of best efforts by professionals and the community, cannot be reunified with the family.

• The LTCO authorises a designated person who is not the child’s natural parent or guardian to make decisions on behalf of the child. This person can be a foster parent or head of a Children or Young Person’s Home, for example.

Why?

By providing the designated person with decision-making powers usually reserved for parents or guardians, the LTCO ensures that important decisions affecting a child’s development and welfare, such as medical treatment or participation in school activities, are not delayed. Clear guidelines will be laid down with regard to the types of decision that the designated person is allowed to make.