A more in-depth look at
our justice system
As far as I know, Straits Times did not report
this story. It appeared in the New Paper and Berita Minggu. This
story is disturbing because it raises all kinds of questions about
what kind of justice system we have in Singapore and if it is
consistent with our vision of a caring society. Here is the story:
From the New Paper
BY IRENE KEW
Jul 24, 2000
SHE faces a $5,000 fine for an IC offence.
An offence that might not come to the minds of many who change homes every few years.
But the law is not a new one. So let Madam Jainab Abdul Majid's story be a reminder to one and all:
If you have moved, make sure you report the change in address within 28 days.
Otherwise, you could be fined up to $5,000 or jailed up to five years or both - if you keep ignoring the law.
It was not Madam Jainab's first offence. She was fined $500 in 1996 for a similar offence.
So why did she repeat the offence?
Her family explained why she repeatedly did not report her change in address:
Fifteen years. Seven different homes. Months of staying with relatives and friends.
Months spent looking for her children. A spell in jail. More months in a welfare home.
And now she could go to jail again.
On July 18, Madam Jainab, 51, was fined $5,000.
She has till tomorrow to come up with the money. Otherwise, it's jail for five weeks.
It is not known why Madam Jainab was fined the maximum $5,000 for her latest offence.
Her three daughters were surprised.
Said her 27-year-old second daughter, who only wanted to be known as Liza: "I know it's wrong not to report the change in address but I didn't know it could be so serious."
Madam Jainab's house-hopping life began when she and her second husband were divorced in 1985.
She left their Teban Gardens home and rented a house at Kampung Sungei China.
The next year, she moved and stayed with a daughter in Marsiling, moving out again six months later.
By then, she had lost contact with her ex-husband, who had also moved out, and their seven children.
Explained Liza: "My mum told us she came looking for us but the flat had new occupants."
Homeless, Madam Jainab relied on relatives and friends for shelter.
She moved from one place to another, staying an average of four to six months in each place, surviving on odd jobs.
Said Liza: "My mum said she worked as a cleaning lady in schools and offices. Life was very hard on her."
In 1996, Madam Jainab was convicted of theft and criminal breach of trust and sentenced to six months' jail.
There was a third charge: Not reporting her change in residence within 28 days when she moved from Teban Gardens to Kampung Sungei China.
She was fined $500. Unable to pay the fine, she was put behind bars for a month.
After her release, Madam Jainab continued her search for her children.
She found her third daughter only in 1997.
Identifying herself as Lina, the 25-year-old was tipped off by a colleague who was then staying in the same welfare home that Madam Jainab was in.
Her mother was working as a cleaner at the National University Hospital, she was told.
Lina met her and took her to her flat in North Bridge Road.
This time, Madam Jainab reported the change in her address.
But more changes were on the way. They moved to Beach Road, then to Bedok.
In May 1998, Madam Jainab remarried again. With her husband, she bought a flat in Boon Lay in July last year.
Madam Jainab then reported her change in residence to Singapore Immigration and Registration last August.
Two weeks later, she was visited by the police.
She was then fined $5,000 in court for not reporting her change in residence within 28 days when she moved out of Kampung Sungei China.
Said Liza:
"We're all jobless. We tried asking our other siblings to help but they didn't believe our mum could be fined for such a thing. I even sold my wedding bedroom set for $800."
Lina added: "We'll do all we can to try and raise the money... We don't want her to suffer any more."
[Ed: The news reports that Madam Janinab was "Homeless" and"relied on relatives and friends for shelter." How does the law treat people like her? Surely this is not the same situation as people who own or rent a home and willfully do not report change of address?]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Most don't realise it's an offence
BY AZHAR GHANI
MOVED recently?
Well, better report your change in address as soon as possible.
Or at least before 28 days are up.
Because if you don't, you're running foul of the law.
Under the National Registration Act, you can be fined a maximum of $5,000 or jailed for a maximum of five years, or both.
I honestly didn't know that it was that serious.
But not many Singaporeans realise the severity of the penalty either, I found out.
We asked 10 people whether they were fully aware of the implications of not reporting a change in address.
Only three people knew that it's an offence not to.
Even then, they weren't too sure of the penalty.
Some mentioned fines of "a few hundred dollars" while only one thought it would involve a jail term.
It's important to make any change in address known.
We know that in emergencies, it's good to know where we can be contacted.
We would want our lives to go on smoothly.
So most of us want our new addresses to be made known to everyone who matters.
Madam Jainab Abdul Majid's is an unusual case, given her nomadic life.
She failed to report a second change in address despite being previously fined for failing to do so.
Her offence came to light when she decided to report her most recent address change - a flat she bought with her husband when she remarried.
She must have been relieved to find stability in her life after her third marriage.
But I'm sure she was shocked at the fine that she got for her second offence - the maximum of $5,000.
Hopefully, she has learnt from this - and so have the rest of us.
[Ed: Two important question arises. On a micro level Madam Jainab reported her most recent change of address because she was "relieved to find stability in her life". No longer homeless and nomadic, wondering around from the homes of relatives and friends looking for her daughters, she thought she could finally settle down and dutifully reported her new address. BUT the law decided to give her the highest sentence possible. Why?
On a macro level, is 5 year jail and $5,000 fine a just punishment for not reporting a change of address, however many time one might have moved and not reported? Is our justice system making a criminal out of homelss people and than give out harsher and harsher sentences to "stem the (artificially created) rise in crime"?]
Some research was done:
According to the National Registration Act, the offence carries a maximum fine of $5,000.00 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or both. There is NO mention of a subsequent conviction. Why the lady was given the maximum fine was unknown. Checks with the prosecutor may be helpful. The strange thing is that there is a provision in the Act which states that the Commissioner (of National Registration) may accept from any person who is reasonably suspected of having committed an offence of failing to report his change of residence (the offence for which them lady was charged and convicted) a sum not exceeding $200.00 by way of composition for the offence which may have been committed. Was this option offered to the lady? If not, why? Probably cos she had committed the offence before. Did she refuse the offer as she could not find the $200.00? Maybe we should find out.
This story also appeared in the Berita Minggu
Berita Minggu carries the article today [30 July 2000], Mdm Jainab's daughter was interviewed.
This all started when Mdm Jainab and her 2nd husband divorced in 1985.
In 1986, she was jailed twice, once for not reporting change of address (6 months), the other one, reason not stated (5months).
1996, jailed for 6 months - breach of trust, for selling items she had bought on hire-purchase, obviously not fully paid up yet when she sold them. At the same time, also fined $500 for failure to change address, but went to jail for 1 month because cannot raise the $500. (jail sentence was concurrent I guess)
Daughter further said that mother will buy everything on hire purchase. She even buys breakfast on credit (hutang), simply to feed her 9 children. Husband (3rd one?) did not help in any way to support the children. When in prison, husband divorced her. Children then got all separated.
When she was released in 1997, she had custody of 2, whom she brought to live with her step-daughter. She left soon after due to misunderstanding and her inability to support her children. She continued to wander about, spending some time in Malaysia to support herself, also worked as a cleaner. In the meantime, she also went in search of her other children.
Daughter who gave interview deeply disappointed that her siblings refused to rally around to raise the $5K for the mother. In fact the siblings are distancing themselves, will not acknowledge or associate themselves with their mother, felt 'humiliated' since the mother's in prison for the 3rd time.
And a bit more information from the family:
There was no appeal made for a more lenient sentence. However, Madam Jainab's children found out that they can ask to pay the fine by installment. They brought that to the lawyer's notice and she applied for that. The judge says okay if they pay $2,000 upfront. They couldnt raise the money in time. So Madam Jainab will spend her birthday (next week) in jail. The family have visited and she is fine. When she leaves jail, she will be 'okay' in terms of housing as she and her third husband still have the boon lay flat.
[Ed: It seems we have come to a dead end if our aim is to help Madam Jainab. BUT this incident, besides reminding us to report change of address, has other more serious significance.
We should start asking questions about how our justice system functions. I am not saying that the law should treat poor and wealthy people differently and give Madam Jainab more slack. Differential treatment based on wealth is a slippery slope and is not justice.
It is however the duty of the law to distinguish the circumstances of the offence. For example, a pre-meditated killing of a human being is murder; killing someone when brutally attacked is self-defence. If a law does not distinguish between the circumstances of these two killing, it is an unjust law. My concern is: does our law maintain this distinction when the offence is "minor"? If the law only looks at her previous record and conclude that she is a recalcitrant offender, than it will slap on a deterant sentence. IF the law considers the circumstances -- a woman who has lost contact with her daughter, lost her flat and has to depend on friends and relatives for shelter, who is trying very hard to make ends meet while searching for her daughters -- it would realize that her neglect to report change of address is not willful pre-meditated breach of law, but an over-sight because her life was falling apart. The maximum sentence would proably than not be imposed.
If we are serious about building a caring society, this is as good a place as any to be caring.
If we want responsible and mature press, we should ask why our reporters and editors are not thinking about such issues and the readers has to do all this work.]