- Joined
- Oct 30, 2014
- Messages
- 36,768
- Points
- 113
In a Facebook post on 6 June, sports advocate and politician Jose Raymond commented how it is unbecoming of the Singapore Police Force to label an ex-offender as being "not a fit and proper person" in lieu of his previous conviction, words which are used in the Private Security Industry Act.
The ex-offender – who is a resident of Potong Pasir SMC where Mr Raymond has been active at – has four very young children to feed and to put through school, was charged in court for assault in 2016 and he duly served his time in prison.
Mr Raymond shared that the resident has not been allowed to drive a taxi because of his criminal record. And even though he passed the course to be a security officer, his application for the licence to be a security officer has also been rejected by the Singapore Police Force (SPF).
Pointing to the photo of the SPF letter, he noted that the SPF has stated that the resident was "not a fit and proper person" in lieu of his previous conviction.
He wrote, "The SPF's labelling of a fellow Singaporean who has duly served his time for a mistake which he committed is unwarranted and uncalled for. If the SPF wanted to reject his application, it could have been done without having to label him as being "not a fit and proper person", regardless of how the Act is worded."
And asked "Whatever happened to giving people second chances and opportunities to make amends and move on after making mistakes? Whatever happened to the Yellow Ribbon Project?"
The post has since been shared over 1000 times, with majority questioning the tone of the reply and decision of the police.
Commenting on a member of public's Facebook page who shared Mr Raymond's post, People's Action Party Member of Parliament for Mountbatten SMC and Deputy Speaker, Lim Biow Chuan wrote:
"I think it is easy to say that the police ought to give offenders a 2nd chance. But if you are a resident at a condo, would you be comfortable with a security officer with a criminal record especially if the record was recent.(2016)."
He further noted,
"Some of us would be OK but some would not be OK. Just like how many people would be comfortable to allow our young child to be taught swimming by a former child molester. I think the reality is that many of us would err on the side of caution. The offender can work in other areas where he is not required to provide security services. There are other job options available depending on what they were working as previously. They can work in the sales service line or F & B industry which is very short or workers. The police also does review such cases after a period of time and will grant approval BUT not immediately after the release. The words used for the rejection could be better phrased but that is probably what the act says and the police needs to give a reason in accordance with the law."
TOC further understands that the said ex-offender, who is in his mid-30s, was a former infantry regular.
He was charged for assaulting a construction worker who accosted his wife and served six-months of imprisonment. The construction worker was said to have suffered from a fractured nose and jaw.
According to Mr Raymond, the resident has been looking for a job for the past six months. During this time, he has been doing odd jobs to fend for his family.
Given the ex-offender's offence is not theft, molestation, robbery nor cheating, but an action which he perceived to have protected his wife but albeit in an illegal manner, one would have to wonder if Mr Lim should have commented after finding out more about the ex-offender's circumstances.
https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/20...l-record-especially-if-the-record-was-recent/
