On 29 January, CNA released a groundbreaking documentary, “Inside Maximum Security”. This documentary featured 6 inmates, incarcerated multiple times and at least once at maximum security. The documentary offered a previously obscured view into the conditions of Singapore prisons, unveiling the shocking treatment of prisoners.
A “substantial rise” in interest regarding the state of Singapore prisons ensued. On July 4th, Minister K Shanmugan delivered a ministerial statement on prison conditions and rehabilitation in response to several parliamentary questions.
In his statement, he claimed that prison conditions in Singapore were “acceptable”, explaining that prison cells do not have fans and mattresses to reduce security risks like suicide or the smuggling of contraband. According to him, mounted fans could be dismantled and weaponised, or act as “potential anchor points for suicide” while mattress posed hygiene risks in our hot and humid climate.
Nonetheless, Singapore prisons’ inhumane conditions still violate international standards. In Changi Prison, inmates can spend up to 23 hours a day inside their cells. They are forced to sleep on straw mats, with scant access to media, work, and recreational activities.
Drawing on the purpose of punishments and ethical standards of other prisons around the world, we will comment on the ethical considerations and principles of a prison system, how a balance between retribution and rehabilitation can be struck, and evaluate our own purportedly “acceptable” system.
The purpose of prisons: retribution or rehabilitation?
The forefront of ethical discourse concerning the treatment of prisoners revolves around the dilemma between the retributive and rehabilitative purposes of prisons. While this debate has often been cast as one between those who fully believe in punishment and those who wish for the complete abolishment of prisons in favour of rehabilitative programmes, most people actually believe in an amalgamation of both. Indeed, a significant number of prisons around the world adopt a two-pronged approach– incorporating rehabilitation into punishment.
Intuitively, this middle ground view seems to be of paramount importance - attempting to dictate punishment on either ideology alone would run into entire hosts of problems. While most view some form of rehabilitation as important, absolving a murderer of any culpability on account of their perceived rehabilitation would only invite much furore in our society. Similarly, the release of a serial killer who overtly harbours murderous intentions would only foment social unrest, despite the fact that the said convict has served their time. Beyond such practical considerations, there also exist numerous ethical arguments regarding the place of punishment in our modern society, ranging from arguments on punishment’s ability to respect people as moral agents, to the view of it simply being an archaic and barbaric concept.
This nuanced view is certainly reflected by most prison systems and authorities around the world. Singapore Prison Service’s mission reads: “As a correctional agency, we enforce secure custody of offenders and rehabilitate them for a safe Singapore”. Norway’s prison system, apart from restricting the freedom of offenders, also attempts to “prevent recidivism by enabling the offenders, through their own initiatives, to change their criminal behaviour.” America’s Federal Bureau of Prison likewise states one of its aims as to “provide reentry programming to ensure their successful return to the community.”
The success of rehabilitation in prisons is often assessed on the recidivism rates - the percentage of reoffenders - in its ex-convicts. This is a fairly logical basis as a proper reintegration of prisoners into society would naturally mean a return to a normal life without crime. We will thus use this metric to assess the success of various prison systems around the world.
Norway
Twenty years ago, Norway transitioned from a punitive “lock-up” approach to “open-style” cells, significantly lowering recidivism from 60-70% to current levels of about 20%. Considered perhaps the most humane prison system in the world, the inside of each inmate’s cell comes with a personal toilet and shower room, a fridge, desk, flat TV screen, forest views, sofas, and a well-equipped kitchenette in the communal common room, allowing inmates to reside in a comfortable lodging while they are serving their time. While all these may seem a little too comfortable for criminals deserving of punishment, Norway employs the principle of normality and believes that the only punishment they should be exacting would be the removal of the inmates’ liberty. Thus, despite serving prison sentences, other rights such as voting, access to education, and healthcare still remain as the inmates are ultimately still citizens of the nation, and are treated as such.
Normalising life within the prison is the key philosophy that underpins the Norwegian Correctional service. In Norway, inmates are provided with a sense of normality by helping them focus on preparing for a new life when they get out by allowing them to work every day. Many inmates will be released from prison as fully qualified mechanics, carpenters, and chefs. Additionally, family contact is maintained too. Once every three months, inmates with children can apply to a "Daddy In Prison" scheme which, if they pass the necessary safeguarding tests, provides them with a few nights of bonding with family members in a cosy chalet within the prison grounds.
While certainly unorthodox, this emphasis on restorative justice and rehabilitation as opposed to punishment has led to stunning outcomes. With the lowest recidivism rate globally at 20%, their prison system into a is now widely regarded as a global exemplar for the virtues of justice and humanity.
‘Murica
On the flip side, we have America with one of the highest recidivism rates, with 76.6% of prisoners rearrested within 5 years of initial incarceration. This could in part be due to the private prisons employed to relieve the burden on state prisons.
After the establishment of the first private prison in 1983, the number of for-profit prisons has since grown to house 8% of the US prison population. This is immediately problematic once considering the nature of profits in private prisons. Private prisons typically negotiate contracts with the government, being paid a certain amount for each prisoner housed each day. Officially, the US prison system endorses rehabilitation and reintegration of prisoners. However, if US prisons were actually effective in their goals, most if not all private prisons would soon go out of business. As such, instead of promoting rehabilitation and aiming to reduce incarceration rates, prison corporations often lobby for harsher laws and longer sentences to bolster the prison population, leading to more profit.
Furthermore, this business model for prisons provides much incentive for prisons to cut costs by reducing the quality or quantity for their services. For example, prisons may opt to cut cleaning services or reduce the number of guards, leading to poorer sanitary conditions and security. The impacts of these conflicted interests are indeed reflected in the actual conditions of American prisons
There, many inmates suffer from physical mistreatment, excessive disciplinary sanctions, barely tolerable physical conditions, as well as inadequate medical and mental health care. Additionally, surging prison populations and public reluctance to fund new construction produces dangerously overcrowded prisons. Violence and extortion continued to be pervasive, maybe even commonplace. Most inmates have scant opportunities for work, training, education, treatment, or counselling.
Many local jails are also dirty and lack essential amenities such as exercise spaces. Some jail authorities placed inmates in restraining devices for long periods far in excess of legitimate safety considerations. Severe overcrowding coupled with inadequate manpower in many jails birthed dangerous conditions reflected in the numbers of injured inmates and escapees.
Quite evidently, while the US does strive for rehabilitation and restoration, the structure of its system does much to hinder progress towards that goal. The political difficulties surrounding its system make reform and progress difficult, condemning their prison population to current conditions.
Singapore
Singapore however, poses an interesting conundrum. While our prison systems are generally considered inhumane and violate international standards, we have an official recidivism rate of 27%, one of the lowest globally. This data contrasts with many scientific studies which have proved that inhumane prison conditions reduce the chances for ex-offenders to reintegrate into society. While verifying the official statistics may be difficult due to limited freedom of speech in Singapore, increasing the rate by about 10% to account for underreporting still puts recidivism rates in Singapore among the lowest in the world. How is this the case?
A little known, or perhaps overshadowed fact about Singapore’s prison system is that it places a huge emphasis on rehabilitation of inmates through its employment of community outreach programmes. Community corrections programs, which allows suitable inmates to serve up to two-thirds of their sentence in community-based programs, provides many opportunities for reintegration. Family programs which help inmates with strained family relationships also allow them to form meaningful connections and maintain them after serving their sentence.
Most notable is perhaps the Yellow Ribbon program. By allowing inmates to receive training to ease the task of finding employment after release, it allows ex-offenders to become contributing members of society again, giving them purpose and more reasons to not re-offend. While generally glossed over by the public, as seen through the low recidivism rates, the effects of the efforts by the Singapore Prison Service (SPS), far from being insignificant, are tangible and wide-ranging.
Mr Shanmugan also partially credits the strict regime in Singapore prisons with the low recidivism rates. He contrasts prisons with inmate hierarchies and gang violence to the ‘zero tolerance’ stance in Singapore prisons, saying of other countries that “inmates who go in the first time could come out as even more hardened more brutalised,” as well as giving examples of black markets in prisons trading contraband like drugs and mobile phones.
While the prevention of gang activity and the trade of illegal goods in prisons certainly plays a role in ensuring a safe environment for inmates, the poor conditions still leave much to be desired. With the shining examples of prisons in Norway and other Scandinavian countries boasting even lower recidivism rates, one is naturally led to wonder if our prisons can be improved.
While there is little doubt that prisons in Singapore fulfil their pragmatic purposes, the poor conditions and demeaning practices reported by CNA show that it is often done in a way not respecting each prisoner’s rights as a person. While the spartan conditions -- no beds, pillows, chairs, or even a toilet bowl -- are odd at best, other practices like the frequent strip searches and the shower being captured by CCTV infringe heavily on each prisoner’s right as a person to privacy. The one-man cells were also reported as restrictive and quite suffocating, with inmates potentially being locked into them for 48 hours at a time over weekends. Indeed, an inmate in CNA’s documentary says of the conditions that “it really disturbs the mind and the body as well”. These conditions are disturbingly similar to that of solitary confinement, which has been linked to increased rates of anxiety, depression, suicidal thoughts, and psychosis.
Despite this, Mr Shanmugam claims that "Our assessment is that the conditions are acceptable,”, and that “The essential needs of our inmates are also met." Clearly, his definition of “essential needs” refers to the physical needs of the inmates, that of food, water, and a toilet, while neglecting the mental and emotional health, as well as the rights of the inmates. While it must be conceded that the documentary covers the conditions in a maximum security prison, and is thus not reflective of conditions in all Singapore prisons, Mr Shanmugam’s assertion that this “fits in with our philosophy of how prisons ought to be” suggests the disregard of a prisoner’s individual rights being acceptable to be consistent throughout the prison system.
Unsurprisingly, this is fairly reflective of our society’s views towards ex-convicts. As seen in comments in the YouTube upload of Mr Shanmugan’s parliament address, there is a sizable portion of people who similarly view these inhumane conditions as acceptable for prisoners, with the idea that they are somehow deserving of them. Many people are also ignorant of the social and financial factors that may drive people into crime, seemingly viewing it as a personal choice (just don’t do crime!) or a trait (the most evil ones).
Benny Teo, owner of Eighteen Chefs, a prominent restaurant chain well known for its reintegration efforts, was quoted in a 2015 radio interview as saying: “In my lifetime, I will never be able to see Singapore society really helping ex-offenders, hiring them, helping them integrate and giving them a chance.”
This shows that despite the efforts of SPS and initiatives like the Yellow Ribbon Project, there still remains a large social stigma attached to ex-offenders. It suggests that while these initiatives have been successful in rehabilitating ex-offenders in the sense of preventing recidivism, they fail in truly reintegrating them back into society, where many people still view them as societal ‘others’ for their past mistakes.
What Should We Do?
Quite clearly, if further recidivism rates were to be achieved, societal sentiments towards ex-offenders must be changed. While there have indubitably been efforts made by SPS in the past, most do little to address the root cause of this problem. Employment initiatives encourage rehabilitation and have changed public perception of inmates to some extent, but alone they are insufficient, as evidenced by the views of the public. The 2005 amendment to the Registration of Criminals Act allowing those convicted of minor crimes to clear their records after a period of staying ‘clean’, likewise does nothing more than to sweep it under the carpet, ignoring instead of addressing these sentiments.
Therefore, in light of recent interest surrounding the topic, we propose that the best way forward for the government now would be to publicly commit to improving the conditions of prisons.
The change would also hold symbolic weight, sending a strong message that prisoners are deserving of basic rights and respect, going a long way towards changing societal attitudes. By humanising them and respecting their status as people, it would allow for the general public to better empathise with them, allowing them to be viewed as individuals past the banner of ‘criminals’. Such a view would make it easier for people to acknowledge the circumstances behind each individual crime and person, understanding their actions as products of their circumstances instead of defining traits of ‘bad’ or ‘evil’. This would raise public perception of their capacity to change, dispelling the social stigma against them.
Objections from the public that better conditions may lead to more crime are inevitable. However, it is of our opinion that such objections are unfounded and come more from a place of prejudice against offenders instead of fact. Research has shown that on the contrary, harsher prison conditions have little to do with preventing re-offending, and has in fact been correlated with higher recidivism. While Mr Shanmugam explained their strict regime as essential for prison security, it is unclear how some of the more unusual practices like the weekend lockup or only having 2 meals a day shown in the documentary play a part towards that. Many of the practices or rules currently in place for our prisons serve little purpose, and would have no drawback being removed. Furthermore, keeping in mind the end-goal of combatting societal stigma, such objections will simply be unavoidable, and it will be the task of the government and SPS to engage and change them.
The surfaced evidence of poor conditions, while damaging and damning, also serves as an opportunity to move past our primarily pragmatic views and to aim for higher ideals. Prison and punishment should not only serve their traditional purposes of retribution, but should also provide offenders with the opportunity to redefine themselves and set a new course for their lives. People are ends in themselves — we should view prisoners as fellow citizens and treat them with the same respect we do our neighbours and family, instead of viewing them simply as problems to be fixed through our systems of rehabilitation and reintegration.
As one of the most successful nations in the world, we ought to develop our culture as much as we have our infrastructure and economy, lest we become a first world country with third world morals.
References:
https://theconversation.com/why-rehabilitation-not-harsher-prison-sentences-makes-economic-sense-132213
https://onepoll.com/blog/2015/09/25/public-attitudes-towards-criminal-punishment-rehabilitation-and-reform/
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/prison-conditions-singapore-jail-cells-fan-mattress-shanmugam-2788236
https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/private-prisons-united-states/?eType=EmailBlastContent&eId=9118c83e-6507-45dc-a91b-3441e9a7b817
Written by: Matthew Eng Jin Yiok (22A10), Emily Wenqi Perera (22A15), Reyess Peh Qi Xun (22A15), Charmaine Lee (22S77)
Edited by: Chiang Xin Ni Nicole (22S73)
Comments