Mr Speaker. Sir, first let me say how much I appreciate the interest shown by the Members for Sembawang, Mountbatten, Bukit Ho Swee and Ulu Pandan in the functioning of the police force. The police force, unlike the Army, has no other policemen to look after them: to see whether they do their work or not. For this reason, I appreciate so much more the interest shown by these Members in the functioning of the force. The Member for Ulu Pandan has indicated quite clearly that the police force has, as a whole, done an excellent job and I am quite prepared to substantiate this in figures. How can we measure the efficient performance of the police force? It may astonish Members to know that there is no such thing as a crime-free society. In fact, the only society which is crime free happens to be very primitive society, and I do not think any Member in this House wishes Singapore to move in that direction. In the last ten years, our crime rate has been rather low, fluctuating around 10 crimes per 1,000 of the population, and it has not substantially changed. Last year there were a few cases of rather notorious crimes, like the Chartered Bank robbery, which happened to be the biggest in the history of Singapore. But Members will note that the police within a rather short time caught the criminals. In fact, last year the number of offences per thousand persons in Singapore was 9.
56. This shows an increase of about 0.7 per cent over the rate in 1969. How about the inadequacies? The Member for Mountbatten has quite rightly pointed out that the number of instances where policemen committed rape and robbery did show the police force in a bad light. However, by and large, our policemen are not like this. After all, there are good students and bad students. There are good teachers and bad teachers. There are good and bad Members of Parliament. This is in the nature of things. However, the important point is that we must take the whole picture into consideration and come to the proper perspective. As regards the rudeness and arrogance of police officers, I myself think that such instances do occur, because I have received complaints. I have investigated and sometimes the complaints are true but sometimes they are not. If they are true, disciplinary measures are taken, although I cannot tell Members what they are. The police force is an interesting force. It has different kinds of punishment for different kinds of offences. I am very pleased to note that the Member for Bukit Ho Swee mentioned the case of a police officer in Parliament House who did not recognise him. I will certainly take very stern measures against this police officer if the Member will just give me the specific particulars. This is very important because I will not tolerate any member of the police force not paying due courtesy to Ministers, to Members of Parliament and to members of the Citizens' Consultative Committees. For, as already pointed out by the Member for Sembawang, if the police force is to function efficiently, it must have the support of the community, and discourtesy is one factor which places the force in a bad light. Nevertheless, having said all this, it is also my duty to explain to Members that policemen are instructed to be courteous and they receive lectures on this. And judging by the number of complaints that reach me, it would seem that there have been -occasional lapses in this direction. As regards wrongful arrests. I am not quite sure whether this sort of thing happens at all. In fact, I presume that people are called in for questioning and, after that, they are asked to go home. After all, whether a person is wrongfully arrested or not will finally be decided by the law courts. The Member for Sembawang has suggested that the Ministry should consider having a "Police Week". In fact, I can reveal to Members that such a week will be planned this year and Members of Parliament and members of community centres and the Citizens' Consultative Committees will be asked to participate. This, I think, is very necessary to establish good relations between the police and the public. As regards the question of difficulties of getting telephone calls through to the police, I have not looked up the debates last year and I do not know whether my predecessor did, in fact, make such a promise. But since the Member for Sembawang has said that it was promised, I presume that it is so. At the moment, we are in the process of installing a P.A.B.X. system which will be operational some time this year. We hope that when this is completed, communication will improve. As regards rudeness on the part of the telephone operators, here again I say that it is quite possible that such instances might have occurred. But, by and large, the operators are polite. It is quite possible that there might be some linguistic difficulties in this connection. When someone speaks another language, and not too well, a person well versed in the language might interpret the inadequacy as rudeness. Members must understand that when an operator receives a phone call, he is confronted by people speaking several languages and often dialects. The Member for Mountbatten asked me some very specific questions. Firstly, he asked whether I am satisfied with the police force. I have indicated earlier that the level of our crime rate is relatively stable and low, and perhaps that is really the best criterion of the efficiency of the police force. I think some kind of comparison will bring the state of efficiency of the Singapore Police Force into proper perspective. I have stated earlier that our crime/population ratio has been relatively stable over the last 10 years, fluctuating around 10 per one thousand people. A comparison with Hong Kong will bring the situation into perspective. Hong Kong, like Singapore, is an immigrant society with a similar social structure and crime pattern. In 1968, the last year for which Hong Kong's figures are available, in so far as the Ministry is concerned, the crime/population ratio stood at 10.
33. For that year, the figure for Singapore was 10. It is interesting to compare the position of the ratios for 10 major cities in the United States, another nation of immigrants. For 1969, the ratios varied between 17.5 and 47.3 crimes per one thousand persons with Los Angeles topping the list. I hope the figures will satisfy the Member for Mountbatten with regard to the state of efficiency of our force. As regards corruption, naturally I cannot tolerate it.