Amos Yee to be assessed for reformative training
SINGAPORE — Teenage blogger Amos Yee will spend the next three weeks in jail to be assessed on whether he is mentally and physically suited for reformative training.
SINGAPORE — Teenage blogger Amos Yee will spend the next three weeks in jail to be assessed on whether he is mentally and physically suited for reformative training.
The assessment report was called by a judge today (June 2) after the 16-year-old earlier rejected the probation term sought by prosecutors by refusing to attend interviews with a probation officer.
Amos was convicted of posting an obscene image online and posting content intended to hurt the religious feelings of Christians.
Reformative training is a more severe sentencing option for offenders aged below 21 and are found to be unsuitable for probation.
The offender will be kept in an institution for at least 18 months to undergo structured rehabilitation programmes, including foot drills and counselling.
Under the Criminal Procedure Code, a judge can impose this sentence if he feels that it is the way to reform the offender and prevent crime, after taking into account the latter’s “character, previous conduct and the circumstances of the offence”.
Responding to TODAY’s queries, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said reformative training can be imposed on an offender even if he does not consent to it.
Yesterday, Deputy Public Prosecutor Hay Hung Chun reiterated that a fine or jail term would have no rehabilitative effect on Amos.
The teenager’s unremorseful conduct and “recent developments” amplify the need for rehabilitation and appropriate counselling, he added.
Tendering documents listing the social media posts Amos posted recently, Mr Hay said the teenager not only declared his refusal to remove his offending video and blog post as the court had ordered, he continued to post fresh offending content.
He posted on Facebook on Sunday, for instance, that he would not remove the content “and slip into a corner once it receives hatred and numerous police reports”.
Mr Hay said that Amos’ behaviour clearly demonstrates his lack of remorse, and he is likely to “keep repeating this pattern or conduct”.
He added: “A term of imprisonment or a fine would be simply kicking the can down the road ... they would not have any impact on his insight and self-control; and that is not tenable, because we cannot be popping back into court every other day.”
Defence lawyer Alfred Dodwell, however, argued that reformative training is not proportionate to Amos’ offences.
He also told the court that he had advised Amos on the consequences of not abiding by the court’s orders, but “if he refuses to take (the posts) down, I can’t possibly force him, can I?”.
Mr Dodwell said his client wants a jail term “and is mentally ready to go in”, adding that the prosecution can call for an injunction order to have the offending content removed.
In response to queries, the AGC said the prosecution does not share Mr Dodwell’s view that an injunction, which means a separate civil court order, is helpful.
“Mr Dodwell is suggesting that the prosecution may initiate a separate round of court proceedings to compel Amos to take down the offending material. Breach of an injunction could give rise to contempt proceedings,” said the AGC spokesperson.
Amos’ case will be heard again on June 23.