1. Changi Prison, or Changi Prison Complex, is
an example of modern-day slavery in the sense that the prison authorities have
treated prisoners as commodities of the prison and that inmates have been routinely
subjected to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment.
2. The prison authorities ought to balance their
obligation to prevent prisoners from escaping and being disruptive against
their obligation to treat prisoners with humanity and fairness. Changi Prison
has place undue emphasis on the safety and good order of the prison. While
prison slavery generally refers to forced labor of prisoners, it is Changi
Prison’s official position to deny prisoners their access to justice when they
have felt being treated unjustly or inhumanly by the prison authorities that has
constituted a form of modern-day slavery.
3. There are very few reports about prison life
in Singapore. Most inmates have a firm belief that they will not go to jail again
after their discharge from prison so they are unwilling to tell the outside
world the brutal reality of living behind bars. Repeat offenders are supposed
to conform to prison culture to make their prison life easier.
4. Contrary to the common misconception that
inmates have a fighting spirit, almost every inmate I encountered or heard of
was inherently weak when facing a prison officer. It is common that inmates
chose to sacrifice their rights to avoid contact with prison staff. Most
probably I am the first inmate in Changi Prison who has refused to leave a
solitary confinement cell after serving my punishment inside in protest of the
injustice of being punished by the prison for an offence I didn’t commit.
5. While in theory both prison staff and inmates
are equally subjected to prison rules and regulations, inmates in actual
practice are only objects but not subjects of prison rules so they are always
at disadvantage compared with staff. The prison authorities generally allow staff
to torture or mistreat inmates in the name of maintaining prison security and
good order to the extent that mistreated inmates are still alive.
6. Inmates are not even put in a position to
seek and obtain a remedy after receiving cruel and inhumane treatment. Inmates’
complaints filed inside the prison about officers’ misconduct are completely
ignored, and no written document including acknowledgement is issued in
response of any complaint. When inmates are taken to the court to attend their hearings,
judges in both the Supreme Court and the State Courts will deliberately turn
their backs on the inmates’ complaints against Changi Prison.
7. The public generally believe that prison staff
have conscientiously helped inmates to transform themselves into responsible
citizens before they enter into society. My experiences have shown that being a
prison officer is just a job for a prison staff member, and officers at all
levels have invariably used deception and violence to do their job to make a
living.
8. A prison officer’s duty is to ensure that
inmates are reasonably healthy while serving their sentences on the condition
that the prison can do no wrong. It is not unusual for Changi Prison to brutally
torture hunger strikers by violating their right to bodily integrity to facilitate
the administration of the prison, even though hunger strikes can be easily
settled if the prison authorities respond to hunger strikers’ complaints in
accordance with the law.
9. The primary goal of rehabilitation programs is
to help them not to reoffend after they are released from prison. Short-time
inmates, or those whose sentences are less than one year, don’t seem to have an
opportunity to get into any rehabilitation program. I cannot recall an inmate
who expressed remorse over his offence, and I would say an inmate was good as
long as he often worried about his future. Most inmates seemed to be more
interested in judging whether the interests he illegal earned worth the
sentence,
10. The duty of the first line staff is to
unconditionally carry out the management’s orders. Senior prison officers,
especially those with a rank of assistant superintendent or above, have no
integrity and could be evil, cold-blooded and snobbish than you could ever
imagine.
11. I will discuss this systemic problem in Changi
prison from 3 perspectives. The first aspect is cruel inhumane or degrading
treatment by the prison to inmates who held a hunger strike. The second aspect
is the discipline and punishment in the prison. The third aspect is about
prisoners’ complaints about mistreatment or torture. The forth aspect is about
the abuse of power in Changi Prison.
Life in Changi Prison
12. Changi prison consists of 4 clusters - Cluster
A, B, C and Operations and Security Command (OSC). Each cluster consists five institutions
- Institution 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5. An institution is made up of four housing units
(HUs) and a HU occupies two floors so each institution is an eight-story
building. One HU consists of three dayrooms that is roughly made up of either
20 cells (8-men cell) or 40 cells (4-men cell) for locking up inmates to serve
their sentences.[1] In
the basement of each institution, there are one disciplinary housing unit (DHU)
for segregating and punishing inmates, and an adjudication room where prison
adjudicators deal with the incident reports filed by prison staff against
inmates.
13. A HU is operated by a member of staff at the level
of Deputy Superintendent. An institution is headed by a senior officer at level
of Superintendent, who is responsible for the administration of the individual
institution. The superintendent of each institution reports to a Commander of
each cluster, who in turn reports to the Commissioner of Prisons.
14. A cookie system has been used in prison. A cookie
refers to an inmate working outside their cells as an errand boy to help prison
officers reduce their workload. A cookie may be required to deliver food to
each cell door, to clean the dayroom yard, to collect and give back laundry
bags from each cell, to distribute basic necessities to inmates, to escort new
inmates to their cells, and to look after inmates who are placed in psychiatric
ward, etc.
Prison admission procedures
15. The admission procedure applies to both
pretrial detainees and sentenced prisoners. After a suspect has been arrested
and charged with an offence, he will be held on remand in Changi Prison for his
trial if his application for bail is rejected. All remand prisoners are held in
Institution B2 for varying periods of time. I heard that one remand prisoner facing
a murder charge had been housed for 8 years in B2, and no one knew how long he
would still be held on remand. Once a remand prisoner is convicted and
sentenced, he usually will be transferred out to other institutions such as B3
or B4 or other clusters such as Cluster A to serve his sentence.
16. After arriving the prison from the State
Courts at around 7pm or 8pm under the escort of AETOS security officers,
inmates will be taken to the admission area at level 2 of institution B2 for
processing. The 1st step of the processing is drug detention by a
sniffer dog. Usually 5 inmates will be ordered to stand in line in front of a
cage bar while they are still wearing handcuffs and leg irons. A prison dog
handler will let a sniffer dog search each inmate from the other side of the
cage bar to detect substances such as illegal drugs. After inmates pass the
test, AETOS officers will unlock their handcuffs and leg irons.
17. The 2nd step is photographing and
strip search. After an inmate is photographed, he will get a medical
examination form in which an inmate by default gives prison authorities his
consent to track his medical records in hospitals outside Changi Prison. A male
nurse usually helps inmates fill out forms and then taken them back. Then officers
will follow the standard procedure to carry out strip searches, and inmates are
required to remove all their clothes. While officers do require inmates to open
their mouths and stick out their tongues, they won’t search inmates body
cavities because all inmate will be required to go through a whole-body scanner
at the end of the processing. After strip searches, officers will provide each
inmate one set of prison clothes (a shirt and a short) and a pair of slippers. A
remand prisoner will get a brown short and a sentenced prisoner a blue short.
All inmates are required to wear a blue plastic wristband with his name and his
inmate number on it.
18. The 3rd step is registration in
which inmates were required to provide their finger prints and double check
their valuables including their Identification Card and money. They will get two
slices of bread at this stage. The 4th step is physical examinations.
Nurses will double check inmates’ medical history, measure their height and
weight and take their blood pressure. Then inmates were ordered to remove their
prison shirts and be handcuffed from behind to see a doctor, who would double
check the inmate’s medical history, asked inmates whether they were feeling
well, and possibly listened to the inmate’s heart and lungs with a stethoscope.
The 5th step is whole body scan. All inmates are required to go
through a body scanner to check for suspicions items inside their bodies.
19. After going through all 5 steps of processing,
inmates would be taken to level 5 of B2 for temporary housing, or one night in
most cases. Remand prisoners and sentenced prisoners will be held separately. Before
they enter their cell, prison will provide each inmate with a straw mat and a
kit box which contained a plastic drinking mug, a toothbrush, a toothpaste, a
soap and a soap box, and two small blankets. Before an inmate was temporally
housed to a standard 4-man cell, he would be given 4 slices of bread as dinner.
For those who have been sentenced to only one day, they will be only required
to take step 1 and 3. Such inmates just need to stay in prison for a couple of
hours and will be released on the same day. They usually don’t even bother to
take two slices of bread as dinner.
The blood test and X-ray
20. On the next morning, all inmates are required
to take an X-ray to ray to detect tuberculosis. Singaporeans and Singapore
permanent residents (PRs) will be singled out for a blood test to look for HIV.
While all inmates are held indiscriminately, inmates of foreign nationalities
are allowed to take the blood test even if they ask for it. After the medical
check-up, all inmates will be led to a holding area to watch a video about ***
prepared by the State Courts. Both inmates and officers have no idea what this
video is about. At this stage, inmates will be asked to get their hair cut. Tattooing
in prison is illegal and can lead to infection or disease from contaminated
needles. Singaporeans or Singapore PRs will be required to declare whether he
has a tattoo on the body. If he does, his tattoo will be filmed by two
non-prison officers so prison could easily identify inmates who have newly got
their tattoos in prison. Foreign inmates will not be required to do so.
21. After finishing all these activities, all
inmate will attend a briefing in which the Superintendent of B2 will explain
prison life to them. The Superintendent will interview each inmate, informing
the inmate of his sentence and his early release date (EDR) and asking whether
he is going to file an appeal. After inmates go through all these steps, remand
prisoners will be assigned to other levels of B2 and most of the sentenced
prisoners will be transferred out of B2.
22. In retrospective, Singapore citizens and PRs
have been discriminated against as HIV-positive and the blood test has effectively
helped the government to accurately obtain the information about a local
inmate’s HIV status. It is evident that the selective blood test is unable to
prevent HIV transmission in prison in any way because HIV can be easily
transmitted from HIV positive inmates who are not allowed to take the blood
test to HIV-negative inmates. As for the tattoo photographing, it is clear that
this regulation will provide no health benefits to foreign inmates who had
tattoos. Such discriminatory prison regulations have effectively denied inmates
their constitutional right to equality before the law so these regulations must
be revised.
Prison cells
23. In Changi Prison, most inmates are locked up
in either a 4-man cell with an area of about 11m2 or an 8-man cell about
22 m2. Everything in 8-man cells is doubled excepted the door. A 4-man cell only contains one squat toilet made
of stainless steel and one stainless steel shower head mounted on the wall. There
is no hot water coming from the shower head and shower water is also for drinking.
Between the toilet and the cell floor is a 1.6m high partition wall. Inmates don’t
get a TV or an air-conditioning in their cells but there is an intercom in each
cell to provide communication between inmates and officers in the central
control station of each HU.
24. A big window incorporated iron bars is placed
high on the wall next to the toilet. The window is covered from both inside and
outside by a metal netting with numerous 5mm diameter holes. Outside cell window
is a corridor. For most inmates, their view through the metal netting of their
cell window is corridor windows and the wall of another institution.
25. The cell door is made of solid metal with
small holes that are difficult to see through. There is a glass panel located
in the upper part of the door for prison officers to observe inmates’
activities without opening the door. Located at the very bottom of the door is a
slot which is used to pass food to inmates. Prison officers also used the slot
to handcuff an inmate from the outside before they open the door. Both the glass
panel and the food slot are locked from the outside.
Muster check (head count)
26. There was absolutely no clock in prison, so
inmates had no way of telling time exactly. I saw Muslim inmates prayed 5 times
a day. Those who were incarcerated on the top floor simply estimated what time
it was by
using the position of prison buildings’ shadows. Inmate on other floors could
easily follow Muslim inmates on the top floor. When it was raining, they just prayed at roughly
estimated times.
27. Prison officers conduct compulsory muster
checks 3 times a day around mealtimes at 7:30am, 12 noon and 6pm to ensure no
inmate is missing. Before a prison officer count the number of the inmates
through the glass panel of the cell door, prison usually makes a bell sound to
remind all inmates to stand by for the muster check and those who fail to do so
will face disciplinary action. During a muster check, inmates are not allowed
to use toilet and they are required to stand in line and face the door in their
cell, greeting the officer by saying “Good morning/afternoon/evening Sir. Thank
you, Sir.”
Lighting and water
28. A 4-man cell has two fluorescent lighting
tubes and one fluorescent lighting bulb in a mounted light
fixture. The cell is
automatically illuminated by the two lighting tubes for about 8 hours a day,
starting from 6am to 8am, 11:30am to 1:30pm and from 5pm to 9pm. While the two lighting
tubes are controlled automatically by a central control station located in each
HU, the center bulb can be turned on or off any time by a switch outside the cell.
29. Changi Prison generally provides sufficient
water for inmates. One benefit of staying in Changi Prison is that inmates can
take shower any time as long as water is not cut off. Water supply for shower head is cut off
around muster check to ensure no one is using toilet and after 9pm to save
water. Water supply for toilet is generally provided at all times. The prison
provides each cell either a soap or some detergent once a week for inmates to
keep their cells clean.
PI cells and Punishment cells
30. A 4-man cell can be used for multiple
purposes including housing, isolating and punishing inmates. When an inmate is placed
in investigative status by a prison officer who has filed an incident report
against him, this inmate will be isolated in a PI cell “pending an investigation”
into the incident. A PI cell is a typical 4-man cell but it has a surveillance
camera. While the two lighting tubes are controlled automatically as those in
other cells, the center bulb is left on for 24 hours to facilitate surveillance.
The corridor window outside a PI cell had been blocked so inmates inside a PI
cell could hardly see anything through the window. Every dayroom has two PI
cells so there are 6 PI cells in a HU, which is sufficient for holding inmates
under investigation. There is no need to place an inmate under investigation to
a PI cells in the DHU.
31. A punishment cell was also a 4-man cell but
they are all located in the DHU in the basement. The cell window is completely
blocked by metal netting with no natural light entering the cell. A
surveillance camera is installed in a punishment cell, and the 24-hour lighting
is provided by two lighting tubes but not the center bulb, which gives less
light. The lighting in the punishment cell is so bright there is no way to tell
day from night. In fact, an inmate ought to take off his shirt to cover his
eyes.
Prison disciplinary system
32. The disciplinary system of Changi Prison seems
to function on the basis of the doctrine of separation of powers. The reporting,
investigation, and judicial function of prison are independently carried out by
individual institutions, the provost branch and adjudicators, respectively.
33. When a prison officer sees a possible
misconduct by an inmate, he can make a disciplinary report and submit it to his
seniors. Once his report is approved by the superintendent who heads the institution,
the report will be forwarded to the provost branch and the inmate involved will
be isolated in a PI cell. In the next few days, an investigating officer from
provost branch will interview the inmate and take his statement in an interview
room.
34. While the provost officer tells the inmate the
details of the report, he won’t tell the inmate the legal basis of the suspected
offence, or the specific prison rules that the inmate has broken. The interview
usually takes a couple of hours at best and at the end of it, the provost
officer will inform both the inmate and the institution whether the inmate
should be released from the PI cell. In most cases, inmates will be released to
his original cell after the interview because the 24-hours lighting can cause
serious sleeping problems.
35. Within two weeks after the interview, the
inmate will be taken to an adjudication room located in the DHU where a
disciplinary hearing will be held by an adjudicator. During the hearing, the provost
officer will first charge the inmate with certain offence and inform the inmate
of possible punishments. Then the inmate will give a chance to plead guilty. If
the inmate pleads not guilty, the provost officer will inform the adjudicator his
decision on the charge and submit relevant evidence to the adjudicator, who
will give the inmate chance to explain what happened. No witness is summoned
and no cross examination is conducted. Next the adjudicator will inform the inmate
his decision and met out the punishment.
36. Absolutely no legal papers are provided to
the inmate with regard to his punishment. Only inmates involving in major
offences are allow to file an appeal to the Commissioner of prison for a
review. The adjudicator doesn’t allow inmates to challenge adjudicators’ own integrity
or the integrity of either Changi Prison. In no circumstances can a case be
submitted to the court or a visiting justice for a review. In fact, both the
State Courts and the Supreme Court see disciplinary procedures as routine
internal practices and flatly refuse to examine disciplinary hearings. Even if
an inmate files an appeal or complaint to the Commissioner of Changi Prison, he
will not get any reply from the Commissioner because the person the Commissioner
replies to will be the superintendent of the institution where the inmate is
incarcerated.
37. It was stated in the prison’s annual reports
that “Provost Branch is an independent unit made up of dedicated and
experienced investigation officers reporting directly to the Deputy
Commissioner of Prisons / Chief of Staff” [2]
and “Guarding the line between right and wrong, Provost Branch upholds the
integrity of the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) by conducting fair and
transparent investigations into breaches of discipline. This safeguards public
confidence in SPS and maintains high levels of safety and security for inmates
and staff within our institutions”. [3]
38. My experience with investigating officers and
adjudicators show clearly that provost branch simply works for prison officers
in operation divisions. I am not sure whether the adjudicators work
independently but I am absolutely sure that adjudicators are completely lack
judicial skills and abilities. In fact, no one in Changi Prison including
Superintendent Sze Chuck Huang, the Chief adjudicator, is legally trained. In
other words, prison disciplinary system is not meant to protect inmates from
intimidation, threats, harassment and bullying by prison offices but to
maintain prison order at the expense of justice.
Prison daily schedule
39. Life in Changi Prison is extremely boring. Purposeful
activity in prison was defined in one report as “any activity which, during the
working day, encourages the process of improvement. This includes work,
vocational training, education and programmes to address offending behaviour
(such as addictions), access to physical exercise and visits.”[4]
It was also suggested in this report that “prisoners not accessing purposeful
activity were merely being ‘warehoused’.”[5]
40. Regardless of security level of facilities, inmates
in Changi Prison generally remain in their cells 23 hours a day from Monday
through Saturday and have no assignments outside of the prison. All inmates are
locked on Sundays and public holidays. A free-thinker inmate spends on 6 hours a
week in outdoors activities and those who seek religious counselling get one
more hour on Sunday. I didn’t see purposeful activities in Changi Prison.
41. Changi Prison works on strict timetable. The
lights are automatically switched on at 6:00, and inmates are required to stand
for the morning muster check at around 7:30. Cookies will then get out of their
cells to prepare breakfast, or 4 slices of bread with either butter or jam and
a mug of coffee or tea, for each inmate. Shortly after muster check, inmates on
medication will get out of their cells to take morning medications.
42. The breakfast is served at around 8:00. The
first shift inmates go on the yard at about 9:00. Before they do their yard
activities, they will be strip searched by officers. Those who reported sick
the day before will not go to yard but see a prison doctor instead. In the
middle of yard activities, quite a few inmates take their medications,especially
psychiatric medications. At about 10:00, the 1st shift inmates go
back to their cells. They usually put their laundry bags containing their
shirts and shorts outside their cell. Cookies will collect laundry bags later
on and place them into the washing machines located next to the central control
station.
43. Lunch is served at about 12 noon and before
that, inmates must stand in place for afternoon muster check. Shortly after the
lunch, some inmates are required to take afternoon medications. At around 3pm,
cookies will return laundry bags to each cell and ask inmates whether they need
to report sick. Any inmate who reports sick from Monday through Thursday can see
a prison doctor on the next morning, but he will have no access to exercise
yard in the following 5 days. On Saturday and Sunday, doctors will be off duty
and nurses will take care of inmates. At 16:30, inmates on medication take
evening medications.
44. Dinner is served at 17:00 and the evening
muster check is conducted at 18:00. At 21:00, the lights are dimmed for the
night. From 21:00 to 6:00 of the next day, officers will periodically inspect each
cell by briefly turning on the light switch outside each cell.
Yard time
45. For sentenced inmates, they receive one hour
of outdoor time, or yard time, daily from Monday to Saturday to socialize on
either a dayroom yard or an exercise yard. Sentenced inmates don’t get yard
time on Sunday, and remand inmates in B2 stay in their cells for the whole day
on both Saturday and Sunday.
46. A dayroom yard is just the concrete
area/floor in a dayroom, and an exercise yard refers to a piece of enclosed
ground in prison which include a basketball court and a Sepak takraw (Kick
volleyball) court. An exercise yard is not an open-air yard unless it is
located at HU 4, or level 7 to 8 of an institution. In institution B4, inmates
have access to dayroom yard on Tuesdays, Fridays and Saturdays and to exercise
yard on Mondays, Wednesdays and Thursdays.
47. Changi Prison prohibits its inmates from
exercising in their cells and on the dayroom yard. The only time inmates can
legally do some exercise to keep fit is exercise yard time. Inmates usually
spend their dayroom yard time on watching TV or reading newspapers if he is
lucky to get one copy. An inmate can simply talk to other inmates nearby no
matter he knows them or not. On the exercise yard, quite a few inmates
regularly do some jogging or playing basketball. Usually Malay inmates enjoy
playing Sepak takraw.
Prison officers and inmates
48. The prison officers call themselves “Captains
of Lives” because they aim to change inmates' lives and they aim to help inmate
abandon their false belief and build a different value system. The rank of
prison officers from lowest to the highest is as follows: Corporal, Sergeant,
Staff Sergeant, Chief Warder (1), Chief Warder (2), Senior Chief Warder Officer
(1), Senior Chief Warder (2), Rehabilitation Officer (1), Rehabilitation
Officer (2), Assistant Superintendent, Deputy Superintendent, Superintendent,
Assistant Director, Deputy Director,
Director.[6]
49. The education requirement for senior prison
officers, or officers with rank of Rehabilitation Officer (1) and above, is
degree in any discipline and his starting salary is $3,450 - $4,550.[7]
While senior prison officers are involved in setting strategic direction of
many aspects of Changi Prison, I don’t think most of them have a degree from a
university and most likely they have been promoted from junior positons because
of their experience and the limited number of staff in prison.
Prison abuse
50. Bullying is very common in prison. I
experienced both bullying by inmates and by officers each time I was sent to
jail. Inmates were housed to their cell for 23 hours a day and had nothing to
do, so it was quite easy for them to conflict with each other over very small
issues. When one inmate decided to dominate another inmate, he didn’t force this
inmate to listen to him in the first place but to test him by asking him to do
some irrelevant small jobs. If this inmate followed office rules and did a
favor to his fellow inmate, his politeness would be treated as weakness and his
fellow inmates would act aggressively on him. An inmate who was a bystander didn’t
care whether the abused inmate was right or wrong. He would either stay away
from the conflict or follow the majority of the inmates in the cell. Compared
to bullying by inmates, bullying by prison officers had much more serious
damaging effect. Officers usually deliberately punish an inmate very strongly
about petty rule violations to make this inmate lesion to him.
Miscalculated prison sentences
51. My prison life is unique in that it started
from a miscalculation of prison term. As far as I know, there is only one
report about sentencing error in Singapore.[8]
In 2007, Dickson Tan Yong Wen received 3 extra strokes of the cane because a
court clerk wrongly recorded the sentence on Tan’s paperwork. Tan brought a
suit against the government and asked for $300,000 but his lawyer later advised
him to seek $3 million as punitive damages. His request was rejected by the
government.
52. In August 2008, Tan was awarded an undisclosed
sum which was believed to be much lower than $300,000 in an out-of-court
settlement. [9] In
2018, I learned in prison from an inmate who knew of Dickson Tan that the
compensation awarded to him was $120,000, twice the amount of money that the
government initially offered to him to make a “fair settlement”.
53. On June 16, 2016, I was sentenced to 3 weeks’
imprisonment by District Judge Jasvender Kaur but Judge Kaur didn’t explain how
the sentence was meted out in the judgment she released on the same day. [10]
At that time, I didn’t even think of sentencing errors and didn’t brother to
read the appeal records provided by the State Courts. On Oct 21, 2016, my appeal
was rejected in entirety by Justice Chan Seng Onn in the High Court. While
serving my 2nd sentence in August 2017, I happened to read Judge
Kaur’s full judgement in the appeal records provided by the State Courts and
immediately identified her mistake.
54. At paragraph 42 of her judgment, Judge Kaur
stated that “The offence under 15(2) POA carries a maximum fine of $5,000. The
accused was sentenced to a fine of $3,000, in default two weeks’ imprisonment. The offence under section 16(2)(a) POA
carries a maximum fine of $3,000. The accused was sentenced to fine of $2,000,
in default one week’s imprisonment.
The aggregate sentence of fine was $5,000, in default five weeks’ imprisonment.” [11]
Judge Kaur went on to explain at Para 45 that “Accordingly, I imposed the fines
which I ordered. As the accused was remanded for psychiatric evaluation for two weeks, I reduced the in default
terms for each charge by one week, giving a total in default of three weeks' instead of five weeks.”
55. It was evident that a fine of $5,000 was
equivalent to 3 weeks’ but not 5 weeks’ imprisonment ($3000 + $2000 = 2 weeks +
1 week = 3 weeks). If 2 weeks’ detention in the Institute of Mental Health
(IMH) was taken into account, the correct sentence should be 1 week but not 3
weeks. In fact, it was clearly stated in the page 4 of the Record of Appeal
that “[t]he appellant was convicted and sentenced as follows: MAC 903277/2016 –
Fine of $3000, in default 2 weeks’ imprisonment; MAC 903278/2016 - Fine of
$2,000, in default 1 week's imprisonment. Total:
Fine of $5,000, in default 3 weeks' imprisonment.”
56. I immediately informed the prison of this
sentencing error but was replied that Changi Prison simply carried out the
court’s order. I clearly highlighted Justice Kaur’s mistake in my appeal papers
submitted in August, however, Justice Chan Seng Onn dismissed my appeal in
entirety on Sep 26, 2017, without even mentioning this sentencing error.
Systematic miscalculations of inmates’
release dates
57. Singapore’s remission system provided that an
inmate would be released when he had served two-thirds of his sentence. On
April 12, a prison guard told me that the prison registry calculated the release
date for each inmate three times. The calculation was firstly done by a
computer program and was followed by two independent checks conducted by prison
officers. It seemed that the calculation was unlikely to go wrong.
58. On April 11, 2018, I was sentence to 4 months
and 17 weeks’ imprisonment and the sentence was ordered to take effect from Feb
23, 2018. On May 7, I was sentenced to 8 weeks so my sentence amounted to 4
months and 25 weeks. It was indisputable that 25 weeks were equivalent to 175
days, the issue was how long the 4 months took.
59. On July 27 in HU1 of B4, a registration
officer checked up with me on my release date.
I claimed that the 4 months started from Feb 23 to Jun 22 and was
equivalent to 120 days. Consequently, my full sentence was 295 days, and my
late release date and early release date was Dec 14 and Sep 7, respectively. This
office insisted that the 4 months’ time were equivalent to 122 days but refused
to set out the start and the end of these 4 months. Instead, he explained that months
and weeks must be calculated together so there were 30 days in a February. As a
result, my full sentence was 297 days, and my late release date and early
release date was Dec 16 and Sep 11, respectively.
60. In response to my argument that an inmate was
entitled to serve the shortest sentence possible if a sentence gave rise to varying
lengths of imprisonment, this officer declined to counter but simply left. Changi
Prison refused to accept my complaint about their calculation error but inform
me that I could take legal action after I was discharged. Finally, I was released
on Sep 20, 2018 after an extension of jail term for 11 days as a result of 9 incident
reports I received.
61. I had started to pay attention to other
inmates’ sentence since April 2018. Inmate Dennis who was held in cell 804 of
B4 complained to the prison about the miscalculation of his early release date.
While his sentence was 8 weeks, he was required to serve 39 days in prison. He
first explained to the prison that the two-thirds of 56 days was 37.3 days so
39 days of imprisonment was certainly wrong. The prison didn’t respond.
62. After his lawyer made a formal enquiry with
the prison about his early release date, a prison guard read an email reply to Dennis
on behalf of the prison. In the reply, the prison repeated that Dennis’s early
release date was correct. As for why the detention was not 38 days, the prison
declined to answer but reminded Dennis that he may take legal actions after he
got out of prison. After serving 39 days of imprisonment, inmate Dennis was
discharged on June 11, 2018.
63. After I was transferred to cell 116 of B4 in
late July, I learned that a former bus driver who was sentenced to 8 weeks was
also required to serve 39 days in prison. Deputy Superintendent Calvin Tan, the
person in charge of HU1, was unable to justify the miscalculation. In the same
cell, a Chinese national who was caught for selling contraband cigarettes was
sentenced to 1 year. While his sentence took effect from Dec 9, 2017 and he was
required to serve 8 months in prison, his early release date was calculated to
be Aug 10, 2018. It was self-evident that his EDR should be Aug 8.
64. After checking with quite a few inmates about
their EDRs, I found that the prison invariably detained them a couple of days
longer than two-thirds of their sentences. The prison authorities steadfastly
refused to explain the differences but simply informed the inmates to take
actions after they got out of prison. Although none of inmates has ever brought
a suit against the prison, it is reasonable for me to conclude that Chang
Prison has systematically miscalculated inmates’ release dates.
My 1st prison sentence
65. On June 16, 2016, I was immediately sent to
Changi Prison after I was sentenced to 3 weeks’ imprisonment. On the morning of
June 17, I followed the standard procedures to take the blood test, have an
x-ray on my chest, and declare I had no tattoos. After lunch, I and other
inmates were transferred to Admiralty West Prison (AWP), a military camp before
it had been taken over by Changi Prison. For most inmates, living conditions in
AWP were considerably better compared to Changi Prison because it was much
easier to pass time in AWP by watching TV and reading newspapers.
66. Cells in AWP were not standard 4-man or 8-man
cells but of different sizes. While the cell was much bigger than the standard
8-man cell and used to house more than 20 inmates, it had only one toilet with
no showerhead. While metal bars were installed on the windows, windows were not
covered by metal meshes and thus provided adequate ventilation. Inmates could
easily see trees and grass in the prison and those lucky ones could even see
buses running on the street. Each cell had a TV and inmates were allowed to
watch TV every day in the afternoon and evening. There were also newspapers in
each cell for inmates to read for 24 hours a day.
67. In the morning, the inmates had one hour to
spend on an open-air exercise yard, where they could enjoy the luxury of being
bathed in sunshine. Inmates could only take a show once a day in either a
shower room or on the outdoor shower area just next to the exercise yard. It
was spectacular to see 10 inmates taking shower in shifts in the sunshine while
over 100 inmates running around on the adjacent exercise yard. Unfortunately, AWP was closed down in July
2018 and was relocated to the institution TM2 (Tenah Merah 2) of the Changi
prison Complex.
68. Upon arrival to the AWP, inmates were
subjected to strip search at a holding area. One officer spoke loudly in
English and ordered all inmates to remove their clothes. He angrily shouted at
those who didn’t follow his order due to language difficulties. I had every
intention of beating the system so later complained about his rather abrasive
manner to the management but didn’t get any response. After I was assigned to a
cell with 10 more inmates, I asked a senior officer Z for a hard copy of prison
rules and regulations but was answered there was no such a thing. The blank
look on his face indicated that no one had asked the same question previously.
Officer Z emphasized that inmates should report to officers through intercom in
case of emergency.
69. On the evening of June 18, while all inmates were
standing in the cell for muster check, one strong inmate ordered me to take his
unreasonable instructions but I refused. He used abusive words to me shortly
after the head count. In response, I warned him 3 times to behave himself but
he tried to turn to violence to make me listen to him. Although no violence
occurred, I immediately reported this matter to the officers for assistance
through intercom in the cell.
70. Officer Z, who conducted the evening muster
check, immediately came to the cell and ordered all inmates to squad down and to
put their hands behind their heads. After talking briefly to me and that the strong
inmate, Officer Z ordered me to pack up my things and move out. The escorting
officers first led me to see nurses and then to a solitary confinement cell. Since
I followed the standard procedure to report to prison for assistance, I refused
to go into the cell until the legal basis for the segregation order was
provided. I told the guard he could forcibly moved me in. Later another senior
officer came, and told me the segregation order was directly made by the
Superintendent of AWP but couldn’t answer whether the operation of AWP was
based on the rule of man or rule of law. He insisted that prison had no
intention of using force on me and an investigating officer would talk to me on
Monday. Half an hour later, I changed my mind.
71. The confinement cell had no toilet or running
water in it, and I was ordered to use a bucket as toilet. The light was always
on. The guard instructed me to fill out a pail with water and to use it as
drinking water. Only one straw mat and one blanket were allowed to brought into
the cell. On of June 19 before breakfast, I was given 10 minutes to wash up, to
fill out the pail again and to clean the bucket at a toilet outside the cell. The
guard then took away the straw mat and the blanket so what I had during the day
were a mug, a pail with water, a bucket, and a cover. In protest of the illegal
confinement, I didn’t stand for muster checks for het whole day. After staying
in such terrible conditions for 36 hours, a provost officer released me on the
early morning of June 20 after he took my statement.
72. On the afternoon of June 20, I filed a notice
of appeal and a formal complaint about mistreatment against 6 officers
including the Superintendent and Officer Z. It was clear that the cruel and
inhumane treatment I received in the confinement cell was caused by Officer Z’s
overreaction and his failure to carry out careful investigation of the spot. There
was no reply but I was transferred to another institution.
73. On June 21, I was brought to the State Courts
where I was released on personal bond pending appeal. On July 18, the prison
authorities responded to my complaint in their letter by saying that “We
have completed our investigations and would like to assure you that the
officers concerned had been professional in their interactions with you.” No justification was provided. Looking back, it
was completely wrong for AWP to put me in a confinement cell which was
equivalent to a punishment cell. An inmate who is placed in investigative status should be put in a PI
cell, where he is entitle to bring all his personal possessions into the cell
and to have access to running water for 24 hours.
74. On Oct 21, 2016, my appeal was dismissed by
Justice Chan Seng Onn. I was immediately sent to Changi Prison where I was
assigned to Institution B4 and was told my early release date (EDR) was Oct 28,
2016. On Oct 27, I was ordered to see prison psychiatrist Jacob Rajesh, who
diagnosed me with “Delusional disorder of persecutory type” after I told him
the Supreme Court was corrupt. The prison authority forcibly sent me to the
Institute of Mental Health (IMH) where I was released on Nov 10 after I went on
a hunger strike for two days.
My 2nd prison sentence
75. On the noon of July 3, 2017, I held
my 4th protest outside the Raffles Place MRT station, and was
arrested on the spot by police. At about 21:00, senior investigating officer
Manveer Singh Jespal released me unconditionally from Police Cantonment Complex
but declined to give me a reason. On July 4 at 11: 40am, I informed the AGC in
an email of my 5th protest and asked for the legal basis for my
unconditional release by the police. I learned in October that the AGC replied
to me at 12:52pm that “We regret to inform you that we are unable to assist
with your requests as the Attorney-General’s Chambers is the Government’s legal
advisor and is unable to render legal advice to members of the public or
private organizations.”
76. At about 1pm, I held my 5th
protest at Raffle Place and was arrested. Police charged me in court on July 5
and the court directed me to be detained in the Institute of Mental Health
(IMH) for two weeks for a standard psychiatric assessment. In response to my
refusal to attend the psychiatric interview, psychiatrist Jaydip Sarkar on July
17 temporarily diagnosed me with delusional disorder shortly before he decided
to forcibly transport me to Changi General Hospital (CGH) where physician Tiah
Ling followed his instructions about a forcible blood draw from me for
psychiatric examinations. On July 18, Dr. Jaydip Sarkar officially diagnosed me
with no mental disorder based on the blood test results and issued a
certification.
77. On July 19, the State Courts ordered me to be
remanded in Changi Prison. On admission to the prison, I told a Dr. Leung
during medical checkup that I was tortured by the IMH but he didn’t appear to
take my complaint seriously. On the morning of July 20, I refused to take the
blood test due to the forcible blood draw made in the CGH, and asked for the underlying
legal basis for the test. In the afternoon, I was sent away to cell 403 where I
was bullied by two inmates who tried to make me listen to them. On July 24,
officers didn’t look into my complaint about the bullying but followed the management’s
order to transfer me to cell 419.
78. Despite my repeated reminder about my normal
mental condition, the nurses had kept asking me to take antipsychotic
medications since July 20 but declined to tell me why. On July 25, I complained
to officer Ng Kian Chye, who later became my personal supervisor, about arbitrary
medication by prison. In the morning of July 26, I was ordered to see a prison
psychiatrist while being handcuffed behind the back. The psychiatrist flatly
told me it was Dr. Leung who I talked to in medical checkup informed him to interview
me. After I told him the IMH’s official diagnosis, he left on the grounds that
I didn’t give him consent for an interview but wouldn’t accept my complaint
against Dr. Leung for misdiagnosis.
79. In the afternoon, officer Ng Kian Chye
responded to my complaints. Regarding the blood test and tattoo photographing,
he explained that the two requirements were mandatory so inmates who refused to
comply with these orders would be placed in solitary confinement for the
benefit of other inmates. He remained silent after I told him he had confused
the purposes of and the legal basis for the two mandatory requirements. In
response to my request to complain the arbitrary confinement to the High Court
or the UNs, he replied that I was not allowed to write the outside
organizations. Regarding the antipsychotic medications, he claimed that the
issue was already settled because the nurses had stopped giving me medications.
Regarding why I was transferred to cell 419, he said Superintendent Tan Bin
Kiat would talk to me later.
80. At about 3:50pm, I was transferred to cell
447 and later found my next-door neighbors were three transgender inmates.
Since then on, I was not allowed to do any outdoor activities.
My 3rd
sentence
81. On Nov
23, 2017 at 12 noon, I held my 7th protest at Raffle Place was
finally sentenced to 39 days in prison. I was incarcerated in Changi Prison
from Nov 24 to Jan 2, 2018. I was detained in B2 from Nov 24 to Dec 7 and was
transferred to B4 afterwards. Generally speaking, B2 management didn’t give me
a hard time.
82. On
afternoon of Dec 5 in State Courts lock-up, I reminded a ATOS officer to
respect inmates after I saw him repeatedly shouting at an inmate. While this
ATOS officer didn’t get angry with him, prison officer S shouted at me for
speaking loudly to the ATOS officer. He finally placed me in a single cell but
declined to justify the segregation. I complained to another prison officer but
was not allowed to talk to Superintendent Teo, the person in charge of the
lock-up.
83. When it
was time for inmates to get back to Changi Prison, officer S escorted me to the
main entrance of the lock-up. Then I refused to leave the State Courts until I
talked to Supt. Teo. S ordered me to face the wall and then walked away,
leaving me an impression that he left to report my request to Supt. Teo. From
my left and right side, S and another prison guard from institution B2 suddenly
dragged me by the arms along the grounds and steps towards the prison car. They
completely ignored my resistance and my blame for the use of excessive force. I
felt as if they were kidnapping me.
84. After
forcing me into one of two segregated prisoner compartments in the car, S placed
me on the seat and fasten my safety belt. While still wearing handcuffs and leg
irons, I placed my feet on the inside of the compartment door and pushed the
door forward by straightening my legs so the they were unable to close the
door. Finally, Superintendent Teo came and simply informed me that I could file
a complaint after returning to Changi Prison if I was unhappy with being
segregated in the single cell. As for the use of excessive force, he emphasized
that his duty was to transport me back to Changi prison. Teo finally locked me
into the compartment with other two officers.
85. When I
arrived at the Changi Prison, I reported to an Assistant Superintendent of B2
the use of excessive force and was promised to be given a piece of paper to
file a complaint. I On Dec 6, I was taken to the court in the early morning and
was subsequently sentenced to 39 days of imprisonment. B2 management gave me
two pieces of blank A4 paper for filing a complaint after I returned to prison
in the afternoon. In the morning of Dec 7, I heard I got an incident report for
refusing to stay in the prisoner compartment on Dec 5.
86. Since superintendents were required to inform
inmate of their sentences and their early release date before they were
transferred out of B2, I took this opportunity to ask Supt. Tan Bin Kiat about
the unequal treatment of inmates on the blood test and tattoo photographing but
he simply dismissed me as a trouble maker. In response to my complaint about the
use of excessive force on Dec 5, Supt. Tan explained that prison officers
forcibly put me into the compartment to protect me because my protests were
reported in the newspaper so other inmate may hurt me. He declined to justify
why officers selectively protected me in the evening of Dec 5 but not in the
morning of the same day or at other times. Although Supt. Tan approved my
request to write to the Supreme Court, I hadn’t received the letter form to
write to a government agency. In the afternoon, I was transferred to cell 705
of Institution B4.
87. On Dec
14, provost officer Wang Kia Meng took my statement in response to the incident
report about my disobedient acts committed on Dec 5. While I told him wouldn’t
sign my statement unless I got the letter form to write to the Supreme Court,
however, officer Wang smiled at me and left, without even asking me for my
signature. At the adjudication hearing on the morning of Dec 21, officer Wang
informed Supt. Sze Huck Huang, the long-time adjudicator in Changi Prison, that
I should be found guilty by presenting the pictures taken on Dec 5 from the
camera in the compartment of the prison car.
88. Both
officer Wang and Supt. Sze completely disregard my request for the CCTV footage
taken from camera in the lock-ups of the State Court about how I was brutally
dragged to the prison car by two prison officers. In response to my request to
Supt. Sze to disqualify himself from the hearing due to his questionable
integrity and impartiality, he answered he was not a judge. Supt. Sze
subsequently found me guilty and sentenced me to 3 days’ segregation in a
punishment cell, without giving me any legal papers. As for my request to
appeal against his decision, Supt. Sez answered I should talk to the
Superintendent of B4 about it after the hearing.
89. After
lunch, I was ordered to go down to the DHU in the basement to serve 3 days
segregation. I shouted
My 4th sentence (To be
continued)
[1] Doing the right thing has never been easy for me’: A serial convict’s
journey. Channel News Asia, 21 Oct 2018.
See: https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/singapore-prison-serial-convict-rehabilitation-10843454
[2] Singapore Prison
Service Annual Report 2014. Page. 84. See: https://www.sps.gov.sg/news-about-us/publications
[3] Ibid, Singapore Prison Service Annual Report 2011. Page. 66.
[4] HM Chief Inspector of
Prisons for Scotland Annual Report 2011-12. See : http://www.parliament.scot/newsandmediacentre/57697.aspx
[5] Ibid.
[6] Rank Insignia of
Singapore Prison Service. See http://www.uniforminsignia.org/?option=com_insigniasearch&Itemid=53&result=1773
[7] Prison officer under
Singapore Prison Service. See https://www.sps.gov.sg/career/prison-officer
[10] MAC 903277 &903278
of 2016 Public prosecutor v Yan Jun. See https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BwYGzLoHxGOzamt5OXZTUUtxdFk/view
没有评论:
发表评论
注意：只有此博客的成员才能发布评论。