A CLAIM by Law Society president Michael Hwang that Singapore's penal system lacks transparency and principles has drawn a sharp rebuttal from Law Minister K. Shanmugam, himself a former top lawyer.

The Government's approach to prescribing punishments is a matter of public record, he declared, and has been reiterated several times.

He recapped the principles guiding the penal system thus:

'First, the type and quantum of punishment should provide sufficient flexibility to the courts to mete out an appropriate sentence in a particular case.

'Second, the prevalence of the offence.

'Third, the proportionality of the penalty to an offence, taking into account its seriousness.

'And fourth, the relativity in punishment between related offences.'

Mr Shanmugam was replying in Parliament yesterday to a question by MP for Marine Parade GRC Lim Biow Chuan, who had asked if there was a need to review Singapore's penal policy in the light of Mr Hwang's criticism of it.

Writing in the latest issue of the Law Society's magazine, the Law Gazette, Mr Hwang had suggested that the Government publish more detailed crime statistics so that social scientists could study how effective various forms of punishment had been in deterring crime.

He had also called for a rethink of policies on crime and punishment at a more fundamental level, declaring that 'Singapore was sadly lacking a principled and transparent penal policy'.

Countering Mr Hwang, Mr Shanmugam said: 'Theoretical arguments on our penal policy...may make for good sound bites, but they do not have any real merit.'

He noted that Mr Hwang had not stated exactly what data had not been published.

The Government did publish aggregated statistics on crime and drug offences regularly, he noted. Government agencies also often worked with independent researchers, and provided assistance to serious researchers who wanted to do research on the penal system.

For example, the Prisons Department collaborated with the National University of Singapore to study the aftercare needs of former offenders and their families in 2007.

'To suggest that there are inadequate published statistics and that that has prevented proper research is untenable,' said Mr Shanmugam.

He also responded to Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim, who said the Government had been reluctant to publish figures on ethnicity and crimes.

Mr Shanmugam questioned the need to make such information public. 'How in the world would publishing details on ethnic composition (of prisoners) help in penological research?' he asked.

Serious researchers, he said, could always make a formal request to the prison authorities. They would then be able to visit the prisons in person and compile data directly.

Mr Shanmugam also rejected Mr Hwang's claim that the lack of published statistics had led to the penal system being unprincipled.

He said the system is based on sound principles that have been articulated in public several times before.

They were most recently restated when the Penal Code was amended in 2007, he noted.

These principles apply at all points: From when the criminal is sentenced, to their time in prison, to when they are reintegrated back into society.

In fact, Singapore's penal system has earned international recognition for the emphasis it places on rehabilitation and reintegrating the prisoner into society, he said.

The courts, too, have set out its principles for sentencing clearly. These are based on several factors, including deterrence, potential for rehabilitation and the nature of the offence committed, he noted.

Mr Shanmugam added that judges, including chief justices, have written hundreds of judgments that are on public record. 'In both prescribing punishments and sentencing offenders, much thought has been given to how justice can be best secured for each individual offender,' he said.

Contacted by The Straits Times for a response last night, Mr Hwang declined to comment.

aaronl@sph.com.sg

An open and hard-headed approach, Review