Hansard, 1981-03-19

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of Singapore, the following Member has been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament for the period stated:- Mr C.V. Devan Nair (Anson) - from 18th to 27th March, 1981. YEOH GHIM SENG Speaker, Parliament of Singapore

asked the Minister for National Development whether the Housing and Development Board plans to replace the communal bin chutes with individual units in some of the one-room housing blocks in Boon Teck Constituency.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Housing and Development Board has no plans to replace the communal bin chutes with individual units. It would be very costly and technically difficult to do so. Besides, towards the end of this decade when the demand for one-room flats is less, these buildings may be demolished or converted to larger flats.

Order read for resumed consideration in Committee of Supply [2nd Allotted Day].

Head Q - 2.32 p.m.

( In Tamil): Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QA-01 of the Main Estimates. Mr Speaker, Sir, in Singapore about 20 years ago the Police and the public did not cooperate well. But once the PAP Government was formed, this situation was remedied progressively. And with more disciplined men working hard in the Force, the Police Department became more sophis- ticated. However, even now, at times, the workers are not very happy about certain actions of the police. In this connection I wish to relate two incidents. We must not forget that the trade unions in Singapore today are not what they were 20 years ago. Through trade union courses and the advice of the trade union leaders, the workers now know their duties better. The police should understand this during the course of their duties. The first incident, Sir, happened on 21st October, 1980, at a shipyard when a foreign ship's officer reported to the Marine Police the loss of certain articles from his cabin. The police, without any evidence, handcuffed two supervisors in the presence of hundreds of workers and took them away. Sir, after having detained them for a long time, they released them, because they had no evidence for their arrest. The two supervisors reported for duty the following day. But how could they face their co-workers? Will they be respected by their families? I do not object to the investigations but they should not be handcuffed in the presence of so many workers and taken to the police station. These two men are honest workers with long service. I hope such incidents will not happen. I hope the Minister will advise the police on this matter. The second incident occurred during the last general elections. The police cooperated very well with us. I thank them for that. However, I wish to bring up a minor incident for the attention of the Minister. Here, I wish to state that this particular incident was not reported to the police. The PAP is the people's organization. It knows what is good and wnat is bad for the people. When the results of the elections were announced, my supporters and I went round in a procession to thank the voters. During that time an empty bottle was thrown at us. Fortunately none of us was injured. I am confident that this was not done by any politician. Maybe it was done by some gangsters. We took part in that procession to thank the people, after having obtained a police permit. I wonder why the police could not take security measures during such occasions. Sir, had such an incident taken place in a procession of a lost Opposition party candidate, it would have been known all over the world. They would have announced to the whole world. Therefore, prevention is better than cure. I hope the Minister will bear this in mind and advise the police accordingly.

Mr Speaker, Sir, it is unfortunate that the Member for Radin Mas did not report the second incident to the police. I was wondering why, because bottle-throwing is quite a se.-ious offence. It could have broken the head of the Member for Radin Mas, and we might have to have a by-electionl Nevertheless I would like to assure the Member that the police is always conscious of the fact that prevention is better than cure. I do not think it is true to say that the police did not send people there when the Member held his victory parade. It is not always the practice to send uniformed policemen. They could have sent plain-clothes policemen there, which is more effective. But as the Member knows, in a high-rise estate it is very difficult to detect the culprit if the bottle was thrown from a height of a 10-storey or 16-storey block. However, if he had reported the matter immediately after the incident, some investigation could have been made and we might be able to apprehend the culprit. With regard to the first incident, I must say that the Member cannot assume that there was no evidence before the two persons were arrested. Why should the police officer waste his time arresting them if there was no evidence? It could be that there was no sufficient evidence. But if there were some evidence, then they have to investigate and make the arrest. But after investigation if there is no sufficient evidence to prosecute the person in court, the person is released. As Members know, our system of law and justice is such that a person is not guilty unless he is proved or found to be guilty by a magistrate or a judge beyond reasonable doubt. So I cannot agree with the Member for Radin Mas that those two persons were arrested without reasonable evidence. Here again, unfortunately the matter has not been brought to my attention much earlier. Had he brought it to my attention we would have investigated the matter.

( In Tamil): Sir, I agree with the Minister on one point. But before deciding the guilt of a person, he should not be handcuffed. There are three or four thousand workers there. If they were to do anything in anger, it will affect the economy of the country. I do not object to taking people away for investigations. I agree that the offenders should be punished.

Sir, as far as handcuffing is concerned, that is the normal practice when they arrest a person. Otherwise if the person gets away because the police officer did not handcuff him, then it would be a case of negligence on the part of the police officer. That is the normal course of things, not only in Singapore but in all countries of the world. Arrest means handcuffing the person, whatever the consequences. But the fact is, and I would like to stress this, that the police must not and they do not make an arrest without reasonable evidence.

Sir, with your kind permission, I would just like to ask the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs one question. What happens in the case of a wrongful arrest, and if the arrest has caused much embarrassment to the person arrested and it is subsequently proved that a wrongful arrest has been made?

Sir, if a wrongful arrest has been made, then the person concerned can sue the police and the matter will be decided by the civil court.

Sir, if the person is not conversant with the law, that's that. He can only complain to his Member of Parliament that he has been wrongfully arrested and the MP puts up a case, and I think at best he gets an apology from the police. It entails a lot of legal costs to bring the case to court. 2.45 p.m.

Sir, I think that is part of the duty of the MP. If the wrongful arrestee goes to the MP, of course, the MP will advise the person concerned one of two things - either employ a lawyer if he can afford it, or if he cannot afford it, the MP can always write to the Ministry or to me, and we will investigate.

Sir, I mentioned this because it occurred to me that there were occasions when I received allegations that the Police had made wrongful arrests and had detained persons for a short period of time for, say, secret society activities. Subsequently, when I wrote in to inquire, some of them were released and a couple of them were detained, so much so that the parents came to me and said, "Look. My son never did those things and he has been detained for so long." What else can we do? I would like to put to the Minister that the police, in the discharge of their duties vis-a-vis law enforcement, ought to be very cautious so as to cause minimum embarrassment to those who have been wrongfully arrested for having allegedly committed some anti-social activities or anti-national activities.

Sir, I cannot agree more with the Member for Punggol that the police must act cautiously and not to embarrass innocent members of the public. But the fact is that if the police officers have been negligent in arresting people recklessly, then action will be taken against the officers concerned. In Singapore today it does not mean that if a person has money, he will be protected from all wrongdoings, and he can employ lawyers. Even if he does not have the money to employ lawyers, there is always the MP who can take up his case, maybe more effectively.

Sir, the Minister said that if the arrest was wrongfully made, the person concerned could always sue the police and that if he had not got the means to sue the police he could approach the MP. But my question is this. If the police knows that it is a wrongful arrest, why cannot they make an apology instead of waiting to be sued?

I question the assumption of the Member for Khe Bong thot the police knows that it is a wrongful arrest. That is an assumption which I question. Of course, if I know that it was a wrongful arrest we shall take remedial measures. But let us be quite pragmatic about these matters. Quite a number of persons who have been rightfully arrested always claim, even to me during my meet-the-people sessions, that they have been wrongfully arrested. Of course, I should not jump to conclusion. I will always investigate the matter and invariably I find that there was no such wrongful arrest.

Sir, take, for example, the case mentioned by the Member for Radin Mas. The two persons concerned were released which shows that it was a wrongful arrest. They were not charged. So did the police make any apology to these two persons concerned or not?

Sir, I have already explained that when a person is arrested and subsequently released, it does not mean that a wrongful arrest has been made. As Members know, our court of justice will not convict a person unless there is sufficient evidence to prove that the case is beyond reasonable doubt. Usually before the prosecution brings the case up to the court, we refer the matter to the Attorney-General's Chambers who will consider the evidence and decide whether it is worthwhile to prosecute even though they may think that the person is guilty but they simply could not get sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the person was guilty. So it does not mean that a person who has been arrested and released after investigation, that arrest has been a wrongful arrest.

Sir, a rather more pertinent question to ask is whether the handcuffing procedure should not be looked into or reviewed so as to make sure that it is not applied indiscriminately and causing unnecessary embarrassment. I think this is the point of the Member for Radin Mas. I am inclined to agree with him that we should perhaps look at the procedure to make sure that in cases where the offence is of a relatively minor nature or where the suspect does not seem to be a person who is in a position to resist, i.e. he is not a violent type, perhaps we could dispense with the use of handcuffs.

Sir, we always review the policy on handcuffing. But the point is this, and I think this is very important and we have to bear this in mind. A person may look harmless -

That is only an assumption.

But if the crime is of such a nature that there is a possibility of his running away, not just resisting arrest, then I think he should be handcuffed. But, of course, the discretion will have to be given to the police officer concerned, and that is the key answer to the guestion, and a good officer will use his discretion wisely.

( In Tamil): Sir, my intention in bringing up this incident was that the supervisors who are very good and honest people should not have been handcuffed in the presence of the other workers. I am not objecting to punishment being meted out to offenders. The Minister's explanation is very satisfactory to me. I thank the Minister on behalf of the workers. As I am a worker I do not want anyone to think lowly of the workers. When they are taken to the police station, the officers should use their discretion. Since the Minister has explained, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QB-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, Ang Mo Kio New Town is almost fully developed with a population of more than 200,000 people but, sad to say, we have only one police post manned by a few police personnel below the rank of Police Inspector to look after the security of more than 200,000 people in Ang Mo Kio. For the past few years, the residents of Ang Mo Kio have suffered considerable inconvenience owing to the absence of a Police Inspector in the Ang Mo Kio police post. Let me elaborate. When a complainant makes a police report at the Ang Mo Kio police post, he is redirected to Paya Lebar Police Station to make his report. This resulted in the residents of Ang Mo Kio having to shuttle between Ang Mo Kio police post and the Paya Lebar Police Station. Sir, you can imagine the time lost and the delay in putting up the police report and the consequences if the cases are of an emergency nature. As the police personnel at Ang Mo Kio police post get their directives from the routine inspectors at the Paya Lebar Police Station, could not a Police Inspector be stationed at the Ang Mo Kio police post so that a lot of unnecessary delays and inconvenience could be avoided? Although the crime rate in Ang Mo Kio is presently not high, I believe the situation in Ang Mo Kio warrants a Police Inspector. Surely, this is not too much to ask: one Police Inspector to cater to the needs of more than 200,000 residents in Ang Mo Kio. I hope the Hon. Minister will consider this request and, at thia same time, assure the House that he will expedite the building of a police station in Ang Mo Kio New Town. Sir, the second point which I would like to raise relates to the release of detailed information by the police to the press on robberies and other crimes committed. It may be necessary for the police to publicize robbery and other crimes with the purpose of informing and educating the public on preventive measures, and in the case of robberies and thefts, to deter the public from keeping large sums of cash or jewellery in the office or at home. But I feel that the police should not release too detailed an information, such as the full addresses of the victims, the actual amounts kept in the premises, the amount taken and not taken, and the victim's personal particulars. By so doing, the police may inadvertently be attracting persons of dubious characters who, with this ready information, may want to try their luck again and the victims may well end up being robbed again or, worse, have injuries inflicted upon them. The police, because of the very nature of their work, needs detailed information about crimes committed, but surely not the public. Sir, would the Hon. Minister care to comment?

Sir, what the Member for Ang Mo Kio wants is an inspector to be stationed in Ang Mo Kio police post. I am afraid I have to disappoint him because stationing an inspector at Ang Mo Kio police post will not solve the problem which he has posed. Let me explain the structure of the Police Divisional headquarters administrative facilities vis-a-vis the police post. In each police division, we have a headquarters police station and in each division we may have one or more police posts. In the case of Ang Mo Kio, the headquarters station is at Paya Lebar. 3.00 p.m. At the police post we have a very small establishment. It is mainly to provide report-making facilities for the residents around the police post, in this case, Ang Mo Kio. But this is important. The police post does not have any investigative staff stationed there. All the investigative staff are and must be stationed at the headquarters station at Paya Lebar. In the case of a minor complaint to the Police Force, the officer-in-charge of the police post will contact the investigating officer stationed at the headquarters station at Paya Lebar and intimate to him that a report has been made. If it is a minor complaint, the investigating officer will go to the police post and not ask the complainant to go to the Paya Lebar Police Station. An appointment will be made for the complainant to meet the investigating officer at the Ang Mo Kio police post. If it is a serious complaint, then the investigating officer will go immediately either to the police post or to the home of the complainant. It is not strictly correct to say that in every report made to the police the complainant has to travel all the way to the Paya Lebar Police Station. It is the investigating officer who goes to the police post. But the point is this. In instances where it is not possible to deal with the matter in the police post because of the absence of a whole range of investigating officers, then only in such instances will the complainant be asked to go to the Paya Lebar Police Station. An instance of this nature is an identification parade for the complainant to identify the accused person. This procedure cannot be conducted at the police post. It must be held at the headquarters station. Another instance is the identification of stolen property. So only in these instances will the complainant be asked to go to the Paya Lebar Police Station. It is not possible to duplicate the facilities present at the headquarters police station because investigative facilities would mean the involvement of three or four inspectors and sergeants who would otherwise be performing an active 24-hour tour of duty every three or four days. It would also need the support of a handful of detectives who have to carry out inquiries into reported offences and so on. What the Member for Ang Mo Kio has at the moment is only a police post and not a police headquarters station. He may get it sometime in the future. The other point he made concerns the disclosure of sensitive details to the press by the Police Public Relations Officer. As a matter of practice, the Police Public Relations Officer does not disclose specific details of cases which will cause annoyance or embarrassment to the victims or complainants or expose them and their families to any danger. However, there may be cases of public interest whereby the press usually gets information about them, and the reporters will appear at the scene pretty fast. What happens is that the press usually interview the victims of the robbery or house-breaking, and they get the names and details not from the police but from the victims themselves. That is why in some cases the names are published. Having got the names and addresses, the reporters usually approach the Police Public Relations Officer for confirmation of the facts. Normally the Police Public Relations Officer confirms the facts if they are correct, otherwise it could lead to speculation and inaccurate reporting. However, the Police Public Relations Officer usually seeks the cooperation of the reporters concerned and asks them not to publish facts that can embarrass or annoy the victims or jeopardize police investigation. On the other hand, of course, there are some victims who like to have publicity. They may insist on having their names published. That is something beyond the power of the police to prevent if they want to do so. But we do not encourage such a practice. What we do encourage is that if there is a lesson to be learned as to how to prevent such a crime, we would like the press to publicize them. In fact, we always ask the press to publicize them. The other point made by the Member for Ang Mo Kio is that there is a possibility that if such details are published, the robbers may commit the offence a second time. From the experience of the police, that is not often the case. If that is so, I think the robbers are not very bright. Invariably, once they commit such a crime, they know that the place is always being watched. In fact, mbbers are more resourceful than that. The police know that before the robbers carry out a job, they always keep surveillance. Not only do the police keep surveillance, but the robbers also keep surveillance. Sometimes robbery in a commercial premises is committed as a result of inside information having been received. That illustrates the resourcefulness of the robbers. Of course, the police must be more resourceful than the robbers.

Sir, I am not interested in the police structure or organization. From the Hon. Minister's reply, it would appear that, as I have mentioned, if a new town is fully developed with a population of about 200,000, it is only necessary to have a police post manned by one or two officers without any investigating officer or police inspector. So if a person wants to make a report, one of the police officers has to ask the Paya Lebar Police Station to send for an investigating officer. Does the Minister know how much time is wasted? From the Minister's reply it would appear that the police structure or organization is too rigid and inward-looking and not orientated to provide services to the community.

Sir, I wish to ask a question before the Minister replies. I do not have much facts now about vertical policing, because I have just started to ask questions about it over the past few Sundays. I have asked people living on the top floors of HDB flats whether the police personnel do go upstairs and patrol there, but more often than not I get the answer, "Yes, we see the policemen. But they are downstairs. They do not come up." Perhaps the Minister might like to comment on the effectiveness of vertical policing.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I agree with the Member for Ang Mo Kio that Ang Mo Kio New Town needs not just a police post but a headquarters station. In fact, there is a piece of land earmarked for it and we are working towards getting one. Some hon. Members: When?

Sir, the position is this. We have to get the money for it. If we had the money we would have built it. We are not in a position to build a headquamers police station rightaway, and that is why we offered a police post as an interim measure. I agree entirely that it is not satisfactory. So we are on the same side. I am glad that the Member has been strong in his advocacy for a headquarters station here. Unfortunately, the Minister for Finance is not here. But we are working towards having a headquarters station there. With regard to the point made by the Member for Mountbatten on the effectiveness of venical policing, the effectiveness of any type of policing, whether it be ground policing, vertical policing or horizontal policing, we cannot have a set pattern. If we have a set pattern the house-breakers will study the set pattern and that defeats the whole purpose of policing. There must always be a variation in the pattern. But at the same time, I think the Member for Mountbatten will agree with me that even if we deploy the whole police force of 7,000 to 8,000 persons, we will not be able to cover all the housing blocks every day or even once a week. We have to work on priorities. We have to differentiate between areas which are more crime prone and areas which are less crime prone. According to the experience of the police, normally less crime is committed beyond the sixth storey. It is just a general rule that the patrol is carried out only up to the sixth storey. But it does not mean that the police will not go to the 11th storey, if that is necessary. This is no secret that I am revealing to house-breakers. Even robbers and house-breakers want to conserve their energy. They want the maximum results with minimum effort. So if a person can house-break and rob on a lower floor, why go on to a higher floor? On that basis roughly, vertical policing would normally, but not always, be effected only up to the sixth floor.

Mr Speaker, Sir, the House seems to get the same answer as the one which the Hon. Minister gave to me last year when I spoke about the divisional police headquarters. Yesterday I mentioned that the Joo Chiat Police Station was about to go. Now it does appear to us that there is no proper and comprehensive planning as far as building a new town is concerned. I recall the case of Toa Payoh New Town. The same thing is now happening to Ang Mo Kio New Town which has got a population of over 200,000. They have no police station. Now, the Hou Gang New Town is coming up with 26,000 housing units. I do not know whether there will be a police station when some 130,000 people will be moving into this new town. 3.15 p.m. I think the time has come for the various Ministries to sit down together and carefully work out the priorities and plans whereby certain basic amenities like a police station, schools, markets and hawker centres, etc. are provided. But, most important of all, Sir, is a divisional police station. We cannot just have a police station like Paya Lebar, "F" Division, covering almost one-quarter of Singapore. Sir, the Minister in his answer said, "We have got plans, we are looking into it" then after that, what? The Minister should get the Finance Minister to agree to cough out the money. They have to sit down and work it out. The HDB is building thousands of flats in Ang Mo Kio and still there is no police station. That means they have not allocated or even thought about having a police station there. I do not think the answer is satisfactory. I hope my good Friend, the Member for Ang Mo Kio, will persist and try to get the police station built.

Sir, it really gladdens my heart to hear so strong an advocacy for a police station.

It makes your work easier!

Yes, that is why I am grateful. Actually the Member knows it.

Know what?

Actually the Member knows but he pretends not to know. Even with such strong advocacy and support, there is a lack of response as far as money is concerned. It does not mean that we do not have plans. There are plans because a piece of land has already been earmarked for a police station in Ang Mo Kio. I think the Member knows about it. On our part, we are doing -

You are not doing enough!

We are not just sitting around and not doing anything about it. If we are not in a position to convince the Finance Ministry in spite of the strong advocacy of the Member for Punggol, we are proposing to get a team of experts to draw up plans so as to convince the Treasury that police headquarters stations are necessary. This is what we are going to do.

Sir, I was about to speak just now when the Member for Punggol practically took the same words out of my mouth. I think the question here is very basic. Why cannot the Police make it a point to work with the HDB to ensure that police stations are constructed when the new towns are being built? Sir, I do not think it is just a matter of planning. We hear the same story year after year - the Minister cannot get the money from the Minister for Finance. Is the Minister not pressing his case hard enough? Or is it because he does not seem to be able to get along with the Minister for Finance?

No, Sir. May I explain? Perhaps I have not been explicit. There is now a difference of views. The view of the MPs and the view of the Ministry of Home Affairs is that in every new town there should be a police headquarters station. Since Members want it, let me make it public. The view of the Treasury is that it is not necessary and that only a few headquarters stations, say, four or five are enough to serve the whole of Singapore. But we do not agree with that view. So there is an impasse. The next move to cut the impasse is to get experts to put up a report.

You must not ignore the ground reaction.

It is not just ground reaction. The question is: which is the better way of operation, to have a headquarters station for every new town or to have fewer headquarters stations serving the whole of Singapore? There is a genuine difference of opinion here and we have to resolve it. It is not that the Ministry of Home Affairs has not been doing anything about it. We will get the experts to make their recommendations and we will resolve this issue.

Mr Speaker, Sir, if the Minister can just tell us when this meeting between the Police and the Ministry of Finance officials took place, I will persuade the Member for Ang Mo Kio to release the Minister from the horns of his dilemma.

Sir, is that a question or a suggestion?

Sir, I am asking a question. I want to know when this meeting between the Ministry of Finance officials and the Home Affairs officials took place. If the Minister can give us some evidence of the meeting, then we will release him.

Sir, not just one meeting, but several meetings have taken place.

When was that?

In the course of last year.

Mr Speaker, Sir, whether you call it an impasse or foot-dragging or whatever, we have been hearing the same words for more than a year. Last year, the Minister said exactly the same thing. Last year he said that we gladdened his heart, and again this year he says we gladden his heart and we are on his side. But if this matter drags on for another year, the Minister will be on our side! [Laughter].

Sir, I wish to make another point. It is not that we have been having new towns only this year or last year. We have been having new towns for umpteen years. Does the Minister mean to tell me that it has taken the Police and the Treasury so many long years to iron out their differences? Still they cannot come up with a proper agreement as to how many police stations are needed in the new towns.

Sir, it is like knocking your head against a stone wall. But I think things are moving now and I can assure Members that before long a decision will be made. The proposal now is for a team of experts to help solve the problem because there is a genuine difference of opinion. On our side, we are always at the losing end because we have not got the money.

Mr Speaker, Sir, although we are laughing, I think we have to be very serious about this matter. As far as Members of this House are concerned, I think the Singapore Government has the money, plenty of money. Some hon. Members: Yes.

We are not poor. It is a fact that for a new town, we must at least have a police station. Ang Mo Kio New Town has 200,000 people. Does it mean that we cannot afford to have a police station in Ang Mo Kio? The whole trouble is that we always have to call in the experts, the specialists, task force! On this matter, the Minister for Home Affairs is the one who knows best and the Minister for Finance must listen to him and pay. We want a police station in Ang Mo Kio. Some hon. Members: Hear, hear!

I think that is the most forceful advocacy and I thank the Member for Bukit Ho Swee. I hope his loud voice would resound through to the chambers of the Treasury.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I think there is still too much of a delaying tactic here as far as I can see. Probably next year the same words will be said again. I just like to remind the Hon. Minister for the second time that the police post at Ang Mo Kio is the result of the closure of the police post in Yio Chu Kang in my constituency. And today the crime rate in Yio Chu Kang has gone up. What does that imply? I do not think the Police Force monitors very clearly what is going on on the ground. I think the point made by the hon. Member for Bukit Ho Swee is the right one. The Minister is the expert. I do not see how the officials sitting in the Budget Division know what is going on. I think it is about time the Minister forced a decision. This is not the way we run our Government. For the last so many years, the PAP has been building an image of decisiveness because we do not run away from decisions. For a simple project like a police station to serve a population of almost a quarter million people, we seem to be dragging our feet, not able to make up our minds. I do not understand.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as far as the Ministry of Home Affairs is concerned we have made up our minds. We are not dragging our feet. If we have got the money we would have built the police station. It is as simple as all that. The point is that we have not got the money and we cannot build anything without money. I am glad the Member for Jalan Kayu also agrees with the Member for Bukit Ho Swee that our opinion should prevail. That is only a matter of opinion but, as far as the practical realities are concerned, it remains a matter of opinion. To be fair, may I say that there is a genuine difference of approach. The Japanese system has fewer headquarters stations, whereas ours is a British approach where more headquarters stations are needed. That is, in fact, the basic difference. I am sure the matter will be resolved pretty soon. An hon. Member: How soon?

I cannot say when, because the Ministry of Home Affairs is only one side. The two Ministries must resolve the matter. With regard to the crime rate in Yio Chu Kang in the constituency of the Member for Jalan Kayu, may I say that the presence of a police post will not take care of the crime rate very much. If the crime rate has gone up, then what is needed is more police patrols, not only team policing cars but detectives and so on. As I have said, a police post is just some police presence. But in order to curb the crime rate, we must have patrols. And, as Members know, in Singapore we cannot flood the whole place with police patrols. We must have priorities. In areas where crime rates are low, we have to transfer some of the patrols to other areas where the crime rate is going up. 3.30 p.m. This is the first time I hear that the crime rate in Yio Chu Kang has gone up. If the Member had written to me, I would have directed the police accordingly, but they are supposed to monitor every time, not just for one month but every day of the week. The 0C of every Division has to review the crime situation, not just every week, but every day and deploy his forces within his Division.

Sir, I think the Hon. Minister has revealed some every interesting information, i.e. they are looking into the Japanese policing system. It looks like we might be going overboard with "Japanese". Very soon we are going to have Japanese policemen in our streets!

Sir, that is what lawyers would call non sequftur, meaning it does not follow. It does not mean that, if we examine the Japanese system, we will adopt the Japanese system. The point is this. As I said, it is better for us to be objective about this and keep an open mind. We have been following the British system, i.e. we have more divisional headquarters. I am just quoting a contrasting example. We are studying the Japanese system in relation to the British system, and maybe the American system. The Japanese system and the American system are about the same. They have a lesser number of police headquarters but more police cars. The British system is more confined - they have a police division for a population of 200,000 to 300,000. Personally I think the Home Affairs Ministry's view is that if we want to build a new town with, say, a population of 200,000 or 300,000, then we need a system of divisional headquarters station within. As it is r,ow, the 0C of the Division has been interacting with the Residents' Committees and the Citizens' Consultative Committees. So if we want to have a closer community relationship between the police station and the Member of Parliament, the Residents' Committee, and the Citizens' Consultative Committee, we must have more headquarters stations.

Sir, we were told recently that we might in the future appoint expatriate judges to the local Bench. I would not be surprised if we are going to have expatriate policemen policing our streets.

Sir, I am not quite clear on the Minister's explanation about vertical policing. He talks about vertical and horizontal policing. He says that there is no fixed pattern of policing. I have enquired from four or five homes as to whether they have seen the police around, and every one of the four or five homes, said, "Yes, I see them downstairs." Then that means there is a kind of pattern set by the police. Another matter I want to bring up is that of my own personal experience. Every time I go to the East Coast Park for my walk at 9.30 p.m. I very often see a police patrol car driving very faithfully up and down the service track. I do not know what they are doing there. I also see one or two policemen standing very quietly at one of the car parks at about 7.30 p.m. or 8.00 p.m. Very often they are there. However, when I go to my constituency on every first and third Sundays I do not see them there that constantly. There must be some kind of a mistake somewhere.

That was just a general statement. So I cannot answer the Member for Mountbatten except in a general way. In answering in a general way I could perhaps give a thousand and one reasons. Perhaps they are there to protect the Member for Mountbattenf But this is just a guess. His guess is just as good as mine. But as far as patterns of policing are concerned, "vertical" means having to climb up the stairs; "horizontal" means to walk along the corridors, and "slant-wise" is when the staircase is slant-wise. When I say that there is no fixed pattern, it does not mean that they have not worked out several combinations of "horizontal", "vertical" and "ground" policing. They must not be regular or rigid about implementing this combination of pattern in order to allow the evil-doer to expect them. But they must combine the pattern in such a way as to maximize the element of surprise. If there is an element of surprise, that is the best deterrent against evil-doers.

Sir, it appears that the debate that is now going on centres on the question of money and the ability of the Home Affairs Minister to get money from the Minister for Finance. Although I have said this before, I will say it again now. It is well known that there are only two Ministers who can get whatever they want from the Minister for Finance. They are the Prime Minister and the First Deputy Prime Minister. Perhaps a happy solution would be to transfer the First Deputy Prime Minister to the Ministry of Home Affairs and the Minister for Home Affairs to the Ministry of Education. In that way, I think not only the Member for Ang Mo Kio and Member for Jalan Kayu will be happy, but I also will be happy too. [Applause]. Reference was made about studying the Japanese system, getting Japanese expertise, and there was even the suggestion that one of these days we might end up with Japanese policemen. Well, we have been talking about British Judges and Japanese policemen I think one of these days Singapore will have British Judges, Japanese policemen, perhaps American lawyers and local criminals!

Sir, I hope the Hon. Minister will really sit down with his planning boys and work out a concrete proposal to build a police station in Ang Mo Kio, which has a population of 200,000 or more, so that the people living there will find Ang Mo Kio a secure and nice place to live in. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QC-03 of the Main Estimates. Sir, we have just heard a very interesting exchange between the Hon. Minister and Backbenchers about policemen who work on land. I would like now to deal with an issue concerning policemen who are at sea, or the Marine Police. Members of the Marine Police, of course, play a vital role in ensuring our security and safeguarding our territorial waters. It would seem that the Force has done well in pursuing those objectives. The Marine Police is a vital component of our defence system. So I hope that members of the Force are being provided with up to-date equipment so that they can perform their functions effectively. An indication of their effectiveness would be to inform Members of this House of the number of cases of illegal immigrants and contraband smugglers who have been encountered by the Marine Police. From the figures given, it would not be possible to estimate the number of other cases of illegal immigrants and contraband smugglers who have managed to slip the net of the Marine Police. In that respect I would be interested to know what measures the Ministry is contemplating taking to reduce the number of cases connected with illegal immigrants and contraband smugglers.

Sir, can I have your permission to speak on this topic now, because I have an amendment no. (4)* which is on Maritime Policing? *The amendment reads as follows: (4) That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QC-03 Project 8101 of the Development Estimates.

Yes.

Thank you, Sir. I share the sentiments of the Member for Serangoon Gardens on maritime policing. There are a few points I wish to seek clarification and elucidation from the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs. One is the purchase of faster craft to enable the Marine Police to do a better job of policing our territorial waters. We have read from time to time that the Marine Police have been able to apprehend smugglers or even illegal immigrants. We have also read of reports of illegal immigrants who succeed in coming into Singapore. In this respect, I do not know whether the Marine Police is doing enough to patrol our territorial waters so that no illegal immigrants will, if it is at all possible, land in Singapore, and also whether the Marine Police are doing enough to check the smuggling activities that have been going on for umpteen years. 3.45 p.m. Sir, the other point I wish to bring to the attention of the Hon. Minister concerned is this. It appears to me that the Marine Police from time to time would harass fishermen, and these inshore fishermen might not have a fishermen's licence or even a licence for their fishing boat, I have taken up this matter with the Minister for National Development and this matter is being looked into. Under the guise, if I may use the term, of wanting to check whether or not these fishing boats are carrying out smuggling activities, these police checks sometimes affect the livelihood of the fishermen. It does not happen only once or twice. Of course, I do not question the authority of the Marine Police to go around checking fishing vessels which is fully within their right. But what is equally important to bear in mind is that these fishing boats are very small boats, 12 feet or, at the very most, 16 or 18 feet long, and they have very small outboard motors ranging from about 5 hp to about 15 hp. There are two types of Marine Police craft, with PB and PC numbers which are quite fast. I hope the Minister will look into this. Because the Marine Police has a more important role to play in patrolling our territorial waters, such as curbing smuggling and making sure that no illegal immigrants come into Singapore. They should not spend too much time on checking the smaller fishing boats. It is not easy for a small boat to go from, say, Punggol Point across the Straits of Johore to Pasir Gudang on the Malaysian side, or even to Pengarang. Surely they have their own priorities of work, but I think the patrolling of our territorial waters to check smuggling and illegal immigration is more important. On the other hand, I wish to bring the Minister's attention to another point about the Marine Police. Sir, he knows that deep-sea fishing is my only hobby. One night, whilst out fishing, I noticed a police boat anchored to a certain beacon off Changi Point, and I noticed that the whole boat's lights were off. This poses a danger to other boats travelling along this sea-lane. It was only when I got a bit close that they switched on their lights. Other boats are not allowed to anchor at this beacon because it is an offence to do so. The point I am trying to drive at is why the Marine Police anchored there. And what were they doing down there? To use a military term, I think they were just on "Take five", which means they were taking five minutes off apparently. But on that occasion they took more than five minutes off because I happened to anchor my boat over the other side and I was watching them while waiting for the fish to bite. So I think I have to draw the attention of the Minister to matters like this. I know that the Marine Police has done a good job. They have purchased faster craft, PX class which has got, I believe, two twin-engines of 150 hp or so, and they are very fast. I hope the Hon. Minister will enlighten this House in the light of my comments.

Sir, the Marine Police fleet consists of 70 patrol boats. They have, what you call, the PA class, 30 metres long, 21 boats; PB class, 21 metres-long, 29 boats; and speed-boats, 7 metres-long, 20 boats. At any one time, there are 24 patrol boats patrolling the Singapore territorial waters. Each boat has a crew of three to five police officers who are armed to deal with emergencies. The PA class and PB class boats patrol the eastern, southern and western parts of Singapore, while the speed-boats patrol along the Straits of Johore which is very narrow and for which we require speed-boats. The speed-boats have a top speed of 35 knots and can effectively intercept a boat from mainland Johore attempting to bring in illegal immigrants or smuggle goods. Recently, the Marine Police have acquired some new boats with a top speed of 32 knots. These 18 boats are for replacement of the old PB class boats which only have a speed of less than 20 knots. So they are now much more effective. In answer to the Member for Serangoon Gardens about the effectiveness against smuggling and illegal immigrants, I think he is not very clear of the role of the Marine Police. The primary role of the Marine Police is to enforce security, law and order in Singapore's territorial waters. That is the primary role. With regard to smuggling and immigration, they do supplementary enforcement. In fact, the authority that is responsible for smuggling is the Customs and for illegal immigrants it is the Immigration Department. The Marine Police supplement both these bodies with regard to illegal immigration and smuggling and, in their supplementary role, the Marine Police have in the last two years arrested a total of 15 illegal immigrants, mainly Malaysians. But these 15 do not include those arrests made by the Immigration Department which also has its own boats. In fact, the Immigration Department is the authority because they do not only have boats but they also have a task force and they work through intelligence information which is more effective than mere patrolling and spot-checkings to detect illegal immigrants. During the period 1979 to 1980, the Marine Police arrested a total of 33 persons for smuggling and they were handed over to the Customs Department. They were mainly detected by speed-boats cruising in the Straits of Johore. In order to provide effective coverage, patrols have been intensified in the Johore Straits by speed-boats in eastern approaches to Singapore, and look-out posts have been established at vantage points to tighten the security of Singapore waters. Officers on duty at these posts scan the waters to detect suspicious vessels. Perhaps it is these tactics that have resulted in the situation which the Member for Punggol told us just now, i.e. that while he was fishing he saw a boat being anchored at the beacon where nobody was supposed to be there and they were there for more than the five minutes. If it had been brought to my attention, I would have investigated to see whether they were just whiling away their time or they were on duty.

This was not the first time.

Maybe the boat in which the Member for Punggol was in - I do not know the facts - looked very suspicious. They might be watching that boat.

Sir, on a point of order. The Minister is alleging that my boat looked suspicious. May I inform him that my boat is licensed and I carry the licence with me every time I go out. In all fairness, I think he should withdraw that remark.

Sir, I do not have to withdraw the remark because the Member for Punggol -

How can he presume?

I said "maybe the boat looked suspicious." It does not mean that the boat in which the Member for Punggol was in is conclusively suspicious.

Is the Minister trying to make matters worse? If I want to, I can unravel a lot of things which the Marine Police have done wrong. But I just want to highlight the point that their important role is the security of the territorial waters of Singapore. But if they choose sometimes to anchor at beacons without switching on the lights, it creates danger to other seacraft. If the Minister says that my boat was suspicious-looking, or they presume so, let me tell him that my boat is duly licensed, checked and even has an insurance cover. In all fairness, I want him to withdraw that remark, otherwise I would press on with some other things which would not be pleasant for the House.

Sir, I heard the Member for Punggol said that he has got a lot of things to unravel. In the interest of the nation and in the interest of the public, I would like to invite the Member for Punggol to reveal what he has seen.

Sir, if it so pleases the Member for Khe Bong, but I will wait until the Hon. Minister has withdrawn his remark.

Sir, I would like to clarify my statement. I did not make any allegations. What I said was that I have got to be fair to whoever was in command of that boat on the night in question. I think the Member for Punggol has not got my point that if the matter had been brought to my attention I would have investigated the matter. But I cannot jump to conclusion. Neither did I jump to conclusion that it was really the Member for Punggol's boat which looked suspicious. I did not say that. I said "maybe" because they did not know that the Member for Punggol was inside the boat, and also they could not presume. 4.00 p.m. When they are on surveillance, they just watch, and if something untoward happens then they move in. So whether the boat is licensed or not licensed, it is something that happens in the dark of night. If they feel that a boat needs to be kept under surveillance, that is their discretion. That is all I am saying, I am not saying that the boat in which the Member was in is illegal or suspicious. We have got to be fair. I am not making any allegation. I have got to be fair to both sides. I have got to be fair to the police. If it is true that they jump to conclusions which are reckless then, of course, they are to be blamed. If there is unfair imputation, of course, then I withdraw. But I am saying that there is no bad imputation. I am saying that we cannot rule out the possibility that they may have such a conception. I could be fishing. I am also a fisherman. And I cannot say that my boat in which I was in -

But when the Minister goes fishing, people follow him. They know him.

There were times when I went fishing, they did not follow me. So we are on the same sea but not necessarily in the same boat. I think the Member for Punggol should take my answer in the right spirit. If he has anything to say about the Marine Police, I am prepared to answer if he asks me about it. We should not hide anything. We are an open Government.

If that is the case, Sir, here are a few matters. First, on one occasion I noticed a Marine Police boat anchored near one of the beacons off Changi Point. They were not even aware of my boat, although we had navigational lights on, etc. unfil we were very close to them. When we realized there was a dark object in front of us, we veered away. They did not even know it. So what kind of surveillance was that? Do we call that surveillance? They had powerful searchlights and if they were aware of a craft passing by them, they need to switch the lights on. But they did not. On another occasion I was in my boat going towards the Johore Shoal buoy early in the morning. They saw us speeding outwards and they chased after us. I said, "Look, there is police boat coming. We had better slow down." When we stopped, they checked our credentials. Everything was in order. But I found that one of the policemen who was a corporal, was not in uniform. Moreover, he was not wearing a life-jacket. I remember the time we had a misfortune several weeks ago when one police officer was drowned because he did not wear a life-jacket and he could not swim. But on this point I stand corrected. There were other occasions when they would anchor their boats farther out. I thought I need not bother the Minister for Home Affairs with these matters. But to be very honest, I did speak to the officer-in-charge of Marine Police and I think he has tightened up the position. What I wish to emphasize here is that the Marine Police has got a more important role to play. That is why I mentioned their harassment of the fishermen. They know the fishermen. They say that if the fishermen have no licence, they cannot fish there. But they have been fishing there for years. They fish in very shallow waters. I think that clarifies the point.

Sir, I am glad that I have asked the Member for Punggol to reveal, what he calls, the bad things which they have been doing. My only regret is that he has not told me earlier. If they were negligent and they were not doing their duty, I take a very serious view of the matter. I need the cooperation of not only the Members of Parliament to tell me these things but also any member of the public. Not only are complaints such as these from Members of Parliament taken seriously but complaints from members of the public are also taken very seriously. If we do not take these complaints seriously and do not act upon them, then standards will go down. I believe in it very vehemently. I would appeal to the Member for Punggol that if, in the course of his fishing, he sees such behaviour he should straightaway inform me about it. He would help me in my job tremendously if he does that. The other point is about harassment. "Harassment" in the English language could mean checking in the good sense or checking in the bad sense. I have got to be fair. I regret that this matter has not been brought to my notice because I would have investigated it. If it is harassment in the bad senge, that is, the Marine Police were just checking and making things difficult for the fishermen unnecessarily, then that is not conducive to good relationship between the police and the public. But if it is checking in the course of their duty, I think all citizens will have to agree that these inconveniences are now and then necessary. If we were to tell the Marine Police that they cannot check at all, then they may have more time for rest. But here again, if there is a specific case of harassment, it should be reported and we will investigate it. That is a good way to maintain standards of efficiency.

Sir, with your indulgence, when I said "harassment", I have already qualified my statement by saying that I am not questioning the authority of the Marine Police to check on all craft in the Straits of Johore within the territorial waters of Singapore. What I am more concerned about is that those boats were small fishing boats with drift nets and that the Marine Police were going after them once too many. There were only a few fishing boats around that area. In the course of the checking some of the drift nets were damaged. Who is to pay for that? I have taken upon myself to speak to the officer-in-charge of the Marine Police because I do not want to burden the Minister with such details unless he wants to. I will from now on write to him officially rather than spare him the trouble of having to direct it down for an investigation, getting a report up to him and sending a reply to me. That is the position. I always maintain a very close and harmonious relationship with the police officers in charge of the division. From time to time, in the course of our conversation, I would point out to them such matters and asked if they would look into them. They always promise me that it would be done. I just want to highlight the fact that the Marine Police has been doing more than is necessary because their primary role is still to keep a close watch on the territorial waters of Singapore. But if the Hon. Minister so wishes, then from now on I shall write to him as and when I come across cases of this sort.

Sir, I think the Member for Punggol has not understood me clearly. If, as he says, it is a serious matter, then he can write to me. But since he has close rapport with the officer-in-charge of the Marine Police and he can straightaway direct his complaint to him, which can be taken care of, then, of course, that is something which we want to encourage, that is, close relationship between Members of Parliament, community leaders and the Police Force. Perhaps I can ask him a question whether, after his complaint to the officer-in-charge of Marine Police about their lapses, matters have improved.

Sir, matters may have improved somewhat. But there are some red-herrings. Now I have to take up the issue of fishermen's licence and fishing boat licence with the Hon. Minister for National Development. The Port of Singapore Authority main- tains that the sea-bed and the sea are under their jurisdiction. The Ministry of National Development has a department called the Primary Production Department under which there is the Fisheries Division. The Fisheries Act was passed in the 60s and the Fisheries Division is, therefore, the licensing authority for fishing rights. The Department is sceptical of granting a licence because of their contention on this point, "What can we do? The fish is to be found in the water." Therein lies the dilemma. Who is the issuing authority now? The Port of Singapore Authority says that they have to license all craft, including pleasure craft. Pleasure craft cannot be used for fishing as a livelihood. It can only be used for pleasure-fishing, i.e. with a hand-line, not with drift nets, etc. The position has improved somewhat. But, as I have said, other problems have cropped up. But it will suffice if I make this clarification, so that the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs will not think that I am confused. I do not think I am confused.

Mr Speaker, Sir, when I moved this amendment concerning the supplementary role of the Marine Police, I did not realize that the House would be treated to so many revelations. We now know that the Hon. Minister and the Member for Punggol are fishermen, and being fishermen they must be very patient. They have their differences and I hope that both of them will now decide to solve their problems at sea and that they go out fishing together in the same boat. Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 4.15 p.m.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head a be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QD-01 of the Main Estimates.* *The same amendment also stood in the name of Encik Saidi Shariff.

Sir, in moving this amendment on Patrols and Policing under the Crime Control Programme, the Member for Mountbatten has already touched on some of the issues that I intend to raise. But in any case, as I understand it, the prime objective of the programme is to prevent and reduce crime. The Hon. Minister for Home Affairs has, in reply to a Question the other day on the spate of resignations in the Police Force, dealt at great length on the success of the Home Affairs Ministry in its efforts to recruit staff. On this matter, I would like to raise a few points. Recruitment of staff for the increasing responsibilities in the Police Force is an important part of the whole process. But after the recruitment, there is the question of training. On the one hand, we lose some experienced staff and, on the other, we have to recruit staff to fill the vacancies. And if more vacancies arise, they need to be filled. Therefore, Sir, my question is: with a total of some 8,000 men in the Police Force, how successful are the training programmes? From the latest available statistics of the 1980 census, we have got close to 2.4 million people. Just now the House spent some 45 minutes on the question of a police station in Ang Mo Kio which has got a population of 200,000. The Minister went on to discuss the pros and cons on the need or otherwise of a police headquarters station to be sited in Ang Mo Kio. Here, I question the number of policemen for a station. As I understand it clearly from the Member for Ang Mo Kio, the Ang Mo Kio police post has got two or three policemen. What can two or three policemen do? When we talk about vertical policing or policing on the ground, have we got enough staff to do the rounds? Over the last few months, we have read of robbery, theft and even murder, I only hope that the Hon. Minister would be able to get more staff for the Police Force. I see a long list of national servicemen doing police work, etc. There is a whole range of descriptions regarding their roles. I am wondering whether we are making use of national servicemen to serve as policemen. Are they, in the first instance, properly trained or not? Secondly, as regards junior officers who are promoted from Lance Corporal to Sergeant, are they allowed to bring home the small firearm that is issued to them? Or do they draw it from the armoury only when they report for duty and return it on going off duty? I remember reading a report in the papers recently about a detective or policeman whose small firearm was used by an unauthorised person and death had resulted. If that is the case, Sir, my concern is that for plainclothes policemen, i.e. detectives, or the like, we have to consider very carefully whether they should be given such arms for any length of time or to restrict the carrying of such arms to their duty hours only. Otherwise, we are in for some trouble. I can only express my concern in this respect. So we have to definitely increase the staffing of the Police Force because, after all, the role of the police is to enforce law and order and they have come up with so many descriptions under the Home Affairs Ministry.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I just add on to what has been said by the Member for Punggol on policing and patrolling by policemen. I hope that the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs can at least enlighten me on the methods, the manner and the frequency the Police Force conducts its patrolling and policing of housing estates by its mobile policing teams. I am confident that if patrolling and policing by the police have been effectively carried out, there could have been less crimes in the housing estates. But this is not so in my Constituency, especially in the new neighbourhoods 6 and 7 of Bedok North. I have had numerous complaints from my constituents about robberies and thefts committed in the area. And I have been reliably informed that from January up to the 15th of this month, five cases of robbery and 23 cases of different kinds of theft have been committed and reported to the police. There may be many more cases which have not been reported. I was told that the number of crimes committed, as I mentioned just now, is high in comparison with other housing estates. The Hon. Minister has earlier said that the police carry out their work according to the principle that prevention is better than cure. I wonder what are the problems faced by the police to implement the present patrolling and policing system, especially in new neighbourhoods where residents who are strangers to one another are still coming in to occupy the flats. I am told that there is a manpower shortage in the Police Force. I think this point has been mentioned by the Member for Punggol. But surely adequate numbers of national servicemen have been recruited into the Special Constabulary, and I am aware that there is the Vigilante Corps, the Community Security Force, who could be mobilized for the job of patrolling and policing. If they have been mobilized, then I suppose they have not been properly trained, directed, supervised or managed by the full-time personnel. In my interview with my constituents who reported to me about cases of robberies, thefts or other criminal offences, they mentioned that these crimes are normally committed between 10 a.m. and 4 p.m. during the daytime or after 10 p.m. at night. May I therefore suggest that the time of patrolling or policing be looked into and in order to ensure that the presence of the police is felt by residents and would-be thieves or robbers, the Hon. Minister should probably consider - just now there was a request for a police station in every new town - the setting up of mobile police posts in every neighbourhood of a new town. Can I have the assurance of the Hon. Minister that he will look into the whole system of pattolling and policing so that our HDB residents will feel secure and safe, especially those living in new neighbourhoods?

Mr Speaker, Sir, on the first point made by the Member for Punggol with regard to Police manpower visa-vis the policing duties, he did imply that there are now more and more areas to be patrolled because more and more housing estates have been built. If we have to saturate all the housing estates with police patrols indiscriminately, we can double, treble or even quadruple the Police Force, even that will not be sufficient. So the strategy must be to raise the quality of the members of the Police Force and also to enhance the patrol strategy. At the same time, we should mechanize as much as possible. In fact, mechanization has been carried out because years ago there were a lot of foot patrols. Now they patrol in team policing cars. So we have mechanized in that direction. Then the other case of improving the effectiveness of the Police Force with smaller numbers is through computerization, and that is also being done in the Police Force. If we use computers to do a lot of the routine work that is being done by the constables, this will free them for patrolling duties. Therefore we have to make-do with the numbers that we have by doing these things to raise the effectiveness and efficiency of the Police Force. With regard to patrols, as I have mentioned earlier in answer to the Member for Mountbatten, the strategy on patrol patterns must not be too rigid but to alter the combinations in response to the crime pattern in each particular area, particularly in the Housing Board estates. As far as Kaki Bukit is concerned, the Member for Kaki Bukit mentioned that the crime rate there has gone up. May I say that the patrolling policy is being reviewed daily or even weekly in response to the rising or lowering of crime rates within a police division by the OC Division and OC Crimes. If the crime rate is going up in the area of Kaki Bukit, then patrols from other areas where the crime rate has gone down will be diverted to Kaki Bukit. The strategy is being reviewed time and again. The Member suggested the setting up of mobile police posts. It is not that we have not thought about it. I think it is not feasible. What is a mobile police post? It is just like a mobile blood transfusion van or something like it. That is not feasible. If there is a need for a police post there, then it must be a static post. As I have said in reply to the Member for Ang Mo Kio, there are limitations to the functions of a police post. I think our team policing strategy is mobile enough for police cars to be diverted to one area if the need arises because they are in constant communication through the walkie talkie with the police divisional headquarters. With that, I think it should be sufficient to meet the problems at hand. 4.30 p.m. With regard to the question whether police national servicemen have been patrolling the housing estates in his constituency of Kaki Bukit, I can tell the Member that we have used full-time national servicemen to do some of the vertical and horizontal policing between the hours of 10.00 a.m. and 6.00 p.m., i.e. during the day time. The Member mentioned about burglars breaking in when the residents are away at work. So we have made use of the full-time national servicemen to patrol during the day. We deploy the part-time national servicemen between the hours of 7.00 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. They are part-time because they work during the day. In addition to these part-time and full-time policemen patrolling the area, we have regular police officers patrolling in team police cars. Generally speaking, the crime rate in housing estates is low compared to the crime rate outside housing estates, in spite of the fact that the number of blocks of flats have been going up. When I say "housing estate" I mean the HDB as well as the JTC housing estates. For robbery in H DB and JTC estates, there were 292 robberies in 1978 whereas in non-HDB and JTC areas there were 578. So in HDB and JTC estates the percentage is 33.6%. Robbery in actual numbers in HDB and JTC estates in 1980 grew to 436, whereas in non-HDB and JTC areas it grew to 828. So the percentage in HDB and JTC estates is 34.5%. The crime rate in HDB and JTC areas has therefore remained low compared to non-HDB and JTC estates. Besides police patrols, we are encouraging residents to take crime prevention measures. As we have announced, we will be forming crime prevention councils with sub-committees, to push our crime prevention effort. But this has already been done to some extent in the housing estates. In fact, there is close liaison between the officer-in-charge of each division and the Residents' Committees and the CCCs. Either the officer-in-charge or his representative attends meetings of the CCCs and RCs. In fact, there is very close liaison. So it is not necessary for someone to just write to me or to the Ministry or to the Commissioner of Police. The matter is taken up between them. Since the last three years there has been a close rapport between the police and the residents. Because of the close rapport, the police have been able to organize, through the Citizens' Consultative Committees and the Residents' Committees, a number of crime prevention exhibitions in the void decks of the HDB estates. This is done not even through the police headquarters but through the headquarters divisional stations and the RCs or CCCs concerned. This is a matter which should be decentralized, and we have decentralized it. In oiher words, the divisional headquarters personnel together with the officer-in-charge is slowly building up a very close relat!onship with the community leaders and residents in the housing estates. To some extent this has made it possible to keep the crime rate low in H DB estates. That is an area which, I think, we should push forward very actively to solve our problem of crime in H DB estates. If we can do so, we would have solved the problem of crime among, I think, 70% of the population in Singapore, and particularly in the residential areas of Singapore.

Sir, I think the Hon. Minister has left out one small question of mine, and that is the issue of small arms.

May I inform the Member for Punggol that as far as small arms are concerned, there are very strict regulations which the police officers have to observe with regard to the safety of the small arms. If an officer were negligent in observing these regulations, or if he breaks any of the regulations, he can be charged and punished. As far as the uniformed police officers are concerned, they do not bring their small arms home. In other words, when they go on duty they will get their small arms from the armoury of the police station and after they have finished their duty, before returning home, they have to return their small arms. But in cases where there is a need for them to be armed all the time, as in the case of detectives, or plain-clothes policemen, then they are permitted to bring their small arms home. This is where the problem arises. In fact, those who are careless by leaving their small arms on the table or the desk instead of locking them up, will be in serious trouble because they will be punished for negligence. So far, we have very few incidents of detectives who have been negligent, as in the case mentioned by the Member for Punggol, which resulted in the mistress using the firearm to kill another person. But so far there are a few cases. After a certain lapse of time we hear of one such negligent act, and there is a scandal. That will always happen. But as far as we are concerned, there are strict regulations governing the possession of small arms and every police officer who is well trained understands it. They have to observe the regulations well, not only because they fear punishment but it is also for their own personal protection, because small arms are lethal weapons and the officers have been trained to understand that.

Sir, for the first time I am very satisfied and happy with the reply of the Minister for Home Affairs. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The following amendment stood in the name of Mr Tan Soo Khoon -

Sir, I am not moving.

Amendment No. (7), Mr Tan.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QE-01 of the Main Estimates.* *The same amendment also stood in the names of Messrs Rohan bin Kamis and Ho See Beng. Sir, in moving this amendment, I would like to highlight, once again, in this House the problem of road safety. Before I proceed, I would like to say how appreciative I am of the good work that is being done by our Traffic Police in promoting road safety in Singapore. Sir, last year, according to statistics which were very kindly provided to me by the Traffic Police, there were a total of 40,124 accidents on our roads. Fortunately, if this is any consolation at all, the majority of accidents, i.e. 31,076, did not result in any injuries. But what is most unfortunate is that a total of 257 lives were lost on our roads. Sir, in fighting this problem last year the Traffic Police aimed its campaign at the local levels, namely, they concentrated their efforts on exhibitions in schools, in HDB estates, at trade fairs and, of course, we have the Road Safety filmlet shown by the Singapore Broadcasting Corporation. Given the seriousness of this problem and the number of accidents which occurred last year, I am surprised that they did not mount a nationwide road safety campaign. Sir, I remember in the past the Traffic Police used to say that whenever a nationwide road safety campaign was launched, the number of accidents during that campaign would drop. So considering that the number of accidents for last year, as compared to 1979 has risen overall, I would like to know why we did not have any nationwide campaigns? Sir, I have a few more points to raise. Of the 257 lives which were lost on our roads, 96 were pedestrians, and this was an improvement over the last four years. We had a very high figure of 123 pedestrian deaths in 1977, down to 103 in 1978, down to 100 in 1979 and down again to 96 in 1980. While this is definitely the result of the good work of the Traffic Police, it does not tell the whole picture. The number of pedestrians who were really involved in road accidents was very high. Last year there were 2,288 persons who were involved in one way or another in accidents. 4.45 p.m. The two largest groups of pedestrians who were involved in road accidents in both 1979 and 1980 were, firstly, people who were 14 years old and under. The second largest group involved were pedestrians aged 60 and above. Let me just quote some figures. In 1979, 912 pedestrians under the age of 14 were involved. In 1980, the number was 743, and for pedestrians over 60 years old there were 435 in 1979 and 334 in 1980. The fact that these are the two largest groups of pedestrians involved indicates that we have to intensify further our efforts at these two groups. Insofar as those who are 14 years and under are concerned, I think the campaign has to be directed towards the schools. But, very sadly, there were only nine exhibitions on road safety held in secondary schools last year. Sir, if a child is 14 years and under, he will be in a primary school and I think the Traffic Police ought to direct some effort at the primary schools as well. Regarding those who are 60 years and above, I am a bit short of ideas as to how we could reach this group very effectively, but I would think that television would be a very good media. Although there were filmlets on road safety screened last year, perhaps I may suggest that an exception to the Speak Mandarin Campaign be made in so far as such filmlets are concerned - to show some of these filmlets in dialects so that the message effectively reaches across to those who are 60 years and above. Sir, another point I would like to highlight concerns motorcyclists and scooterists. In 1980, 93 motorcyclists and scooterists were killed on our roads. Sir, I would like the Minister to inform the House how many of these motorcyclists and scooterists died or were killed on our roads as a result of their own carelessness. I think this is a very per- tinent point because it is very easy for anybody to ride a motorcycle nowadays. In fact, all this time it has been very easy. All he needs is to pass his Highway Code test, strap on two L-plates which would not cost more than $2 each, and off he goes. What I am trying to stress also is this: is it not possible for us to tighten the regulations in some way to ensure that not only does a person have to pass his Highway Code test but he is also able to handle the machine properly before allowing him to ride his machine on the road? Sir, one last question on the Traffic Police. At the moment, the enforcement of our traffic laws is in the hands of the Registry of Vehicles and the Traffic Police. My question is: is it not possible for one authority only to enforce the laws?

Sir, I wish to pose a question to the Hon. Minister. In view of what the Minister for National Development has said about the high standard and quality of our roads, particularly our expressways, would the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs consider it timely to review the speed limits on these expressways?

Sir, in speaking on this amendment, I would like to draw the attention of the Minister for Home Affairs to matters relating to traffic law offenders. However, I must first say that I am not against the stiff penalty meted out to the law breakers if the offences are really serious, but if they are of a minor nature, the Traffic Police should take into account all extenuating circumstances and treat each case according to its own merit. Sir, I am referring to the demerit points system devised by the Traffic Department to penalize errant drivers. As you are aware, Sir, we have two categories of drivers - the professionals and the amateurs. The former refers to salaried employees, namely, the office and domestic drivers, taxi drivers as well as drivers employed in factories and commercial houses and lorry drivers, while the latter refers to private motor car owner-drivers. Between these two categories, the job of the professional drivers is considered rather onerous and more taxing than the amateurs. Therefore, whenever traffic offences are committed, the traffic enforcement officers should be more lenient in meting out penalty to the professionals due to the nature of their work. Besides this, I feel that the demerit points system also works against them. I say this because the professional drivers are required to do more trips on the road and are, therefore, prone to infringe traffic rules while the amateurs only drive to work and socialize and are, therefore, less liable to make mistakes than their counterparts under the circumstances. Since the demerit points system was introduced, a good number of professional drivers' licences had been suspended. The length of suspension could be as long as six months, and this long period often brought about loss of income leading to financial hardship for the persons concerned. In view of their family hardship, I would like to suggest that the suspension of driving licences should not be more than a week if all the demerit points were derived as a result of minor traffic infringements.

First, may I reply to the Member for Alexandra. The Member for Alexandra quoted certain figures regarding traffic accidents and he has made certain observations. He said that, unfortunately, as compared to 1979, there has been an increase in the number of deaths on the road in 1980. That is correct. But I would like to put the matter in proper perspective. In fact, the situation is not that bad in 1980 as compared to 1979, although the number of deaths has increased.

Sir, on a point of clarification. I did not say that it was an increase over 1979. My point was that there were 257 lives lost on our roads. Whether it is an increase over 1979 or a decrease over 1979 is besides the point. The point is that people lost their lives on the roads.

I accept the point that people have lost their lives. But I want to put it in proper perspective, that the accident numbers are not that bad. That is my point. In 1980, there were 1,497 persons who were seriously injured in road accidents, whereas in 1979 there were 1,660 persons. In other words, for persons who were seriously injured there has been a drop of 9.8%. Thus, if we combine the number of road fatalities and serious injury cases for 1980 as compared to 1979 there was, in fact, a 7.4% decrease. In other words, in 1980, there were 1,754 persons who died or were seriously injured compared to 1,894 persons killed or seriously injured in 1979. For 1981, i.e. this year, the number of persons killed in January and February was 39 persons as compared to 53 killed in 1980 over the same period. There has been an improvement. The reason why I am saying this is to prove the point that the Traffic Police has been quite effective in their educational programme although they had no national campaign in 1980, as they had in 1979. However, they had a total of 64 road safety exhibitions in 1980 - 11 at community centres and shopping centres, 12 at major worksites, nine at schools, five at trade fairs, 16 at HDB estates in conjunction with Residents' Committees. The Member for Alexandra also mentioned that there has been a high percentage of pedestrians killed on the road and what measures have we taken to try to lower the accident rate among the pedestrians. Among those pedestrians killed, quite a large proportion of them are the aged, over 60 years old, and the Member said that he is at a loss as to how we can get through to them. He has suggested filmlets over TV to put across the message. We will do that but, at the same time we have done something more effective. 5.00 p.m. The Traffic Police has organized exhibitions in void decks of H DB estates. These exhibitions are addressed particularly to the aged and their families. In the old days most families did not allow their aged to go out and cross the road alone. They always made sure that there was at least a young man or woman to accompany and to help the aged to cross the road. That is the message we are putting across to the residents in HDB estates. Part of our campaign is not only to teach them to respect the aged but also to protect them. We also held a campaign in one of the constituencies to get the Residents' Committees to set the example for anyone on the road, namely, that if anyone should see an aged person wishing to cross the road, he or she should come forward and help that aged person to cross the road. The other category of those who were killed were school children. Although there were only nine exhibitions in schools to cater for the school children, I would like to inform the Member that road safety education became part of the school curriculum last year. So it is now much more comprehensive than just holding exhibitions in schools. Another important project to cater for the school children is the building of a Road Safety Park at East Coast Park. In this Park, the children are able to learn road safety rules in a more vivid and more interesting way by participating in the traffic games held there. Each day about 400 children practise their skills at the Road Safety Park. Coming to motor-cyclists, I agree with the Member that they are the most vulnerable road users and, therefore, they should be trained before they are allowed to handle motor-cycles. Last year we conducted a total of six safe-riding courses for beginners and qualified motor-cyclists. Altogether 1,500 riders attended these courses. Whether there should be compulsory training before they are allowed to handle motor-cycles is a matter which is still under consideration. We have found out that that has not been done in many countries, but nevertheless, we are seriously considering the matter. With regard to enforcement, the Member pointed out that the enforcement of traffic rules is being done partly by the Traffic Police and partly by the Registry of Vehicles. As far as the Traffic Police is concerned, there is a clear area of responsibility, that is to say, they enforce the traffic laws with regard to people who use the road, that is, pedestrians, motorcyclists, motorists and so on. The ROV on the other hand enforces regulations on the safety of vehicles. There is a broad difference. But the Management Services Department has gone into this matter and they have made recommendations that responsibilities of the ROV with regard to the implementation of the Points Demerit System and the testing of drivers and riders should also be taken over by the Traffic Police. This is also under consideration and a decision will be made in due course. Turning to the Member for Telok Blangah, he wanted to know whether we have speed limits on our expressways. For his information, the speed limit is determined by the Highway Committee comprising members from the Traffic Police, ROV and the PWD. The Committee considers a number of factors before imposing the speed limit on any particular stretch of road. They include the accident rate, the presence of bends, side-roads, traffic lights and the volume of traffic. Speed limits are regularly reviewed by the Highway Committee. At the moment the Highway Committee is drafting regulations on speed limits on our expressways. Coming to the Member for Khe Bong, he has said that since drivers earn their living by driving and, by the nature of their occupation, that is, long hours on the road, they are exposed to a greater risk of being booked by the Traffic Police. They are, therefore, being inconvenienced or they have to suffer suspension under the Points Demerit System. He has appealed, saying that they should be more favourably treated than the other motorists who do not drive for a living. May I point out to him that from our statistics, not only are they more exposed to booking for traffic offences but, what is more important, they are more exposed to the risk of meeting with accidents. In fact, the figures show that drivers of pick-ups and taxi-drivers contribute more than their fair share of road accidents. For example, the accident mte for taxis was about 884 accidents per 1,000 taxis in 1980. It was a very high rate of accident. The figure for lorries and pick-ups was 257 accidents for 1,000 lorries and pick-ups. If we compare them to the other mc;torists, Members will see a marked difference. With regard to the other motorists, there were only 192 accidents per 1,000 motor cars. That being the case, I do not think they should be given special consideration when they commit traffic offences. They shoufd be treated in the same manner as other drivers for the reason that by giving them a concession we may in the long run do a disservice to them. My view is that it is better for the errant drivers to learn to be more careful and responsible on the road, even at the price of being suspended under the Points Demerit System, than to be maimed or killed on the road which is a much greater tragedy to their family. I think that is a very important point to remember. Being suspended is. one thing but being killed or maimed is another. Moreover, killing and maiming other people is still another factor which should be remembered. However, may I say that if the violation of traffic rules by drivers who earn a living by driving is technical and minor in nature, then we can give them special consideration. In fact, they have been given special consideration for minor and technical offences by both the Traffic Police and the ROV. But I do not think we will be doing them a service by giving them a concession for serious offences.

Sir, Members here who listened to me just now would have heard my first opening sentence, which was, "If the offence is serious . . . I am not against stiff penalty." I have always borne that in mind. I am also not here to advocate two sets of laws. I am only saying that if the demerit points were derived as a result of minor traffic infringements, for instance, if they do not give way, or they drive too slowly, or they do not keep to the left, then they should be given more consideration. I am referring to this sort of minor offences. If the offences are serious, I support stiff penalties.

Sir, I must disagree with the Member for Khe Bong when he said that not giving way to traffic is a minor offence. In fact, many accidents have occurred because motorists do not give way. There is a difference of opinion. But I agree entirely with the Member for Khe Bong when he said that not giving away to traffic is a minor offence. In fact, many accidents have occurred because motorists do not give way. There is a difference of opinion. But I agree entirely with the Member for Khe Bong if the offences are technical and minor, but not in the sense of not giving way to traffic as he has enunciated. 5.15 p.m.

Sir, can I just seek a few points of clarification from the Hon. Minister? First, I think there was mention of the figure of 200-plus accidents and that it was not a really serious figure, or something like that. I would just like to ask this question about motor-cycles and motor-cyclists on the road actually involve motor-cyclists. Am I correct? We have got on television filmlets showing the seriousness of smoking which can cause cancer or diseases related to smoking. Quite a lot of warnings have been given to our viewers. So if motor-cyclists are constantly involved in accidents, I wonder why no warnings of this kind are given on TV, unless I do not watch TV enough. I feel that this figure of 200 can be further reduced. If we can, why not? Another matter is that the Member for Alexandra said something about running short of ideas as to how we can help to prevent people who are over 60 years from getting involved with accidents. And he suggested showing filmlets on TV in dialects so as to get the message across. The Hon. Minister in reply said, "Yes, we will do something about it." Am I correct? If that is correct, then I think we had better be very careful. Let us hold back our horses. If we introduce dialects again, a little bit here and a little bit there, then we give the viewing public the impression that we are endorsing dialects. In the next debate, we may talk about dialects versus Mandarin. Perhaps I would like to suggest that should we have filmlets on TV, we can say, "Sons, daughters, please advise your parents" rather than to use dialects.

Mr Speaker, Sir, can I just clarify the point raised by the Member for Mountbatten? What I said was: could we not make an exception to the Speak Mandarin Campaign for this particular age group, those who are 60 years and above?

Sir, how can we make an exception because once we go on TV that's it?

It has been established that there is a problem reaching people who are 60 years and above, particularly when they do not understand Mandarin. It is for this reason that I suggested that a little exception be made here. I think the Minister has replied that this matter could be looked into.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I do not think we should get involved with the controversy about whether dialects should be used in certain programmes. That is outside my Ministry. The point is this. When we try to put across a message, it must be very clear and concise. Even if dialect is used, it should not be long-winded because then the message will never get through. May I assure Members that if this is done, we usually do it in the form of cartoons where with less words used, the better effect it will have. So I do not think the Member for Mountbatten need worry that we will create a controversy. We will not. If a controversy were created in putting across a simple message to the aged, or whatever it is, then I think we would have failed in our propaganda effort. We have a number of experts to advise us on how to put across a message. In fact, we have been able to put across quite well some of the messages. The only problem is that while we may be able to put across the message will those who have received the message practise it. That is our problem.

Sir, I am grateful to the Minister for his reply and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment (8), Mr Ng Kah Ting.

I am not moving, Sir.

Amendment (9), Mr Tan Soo Khoon.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head Q be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QG-01 of the Main Estimates. Sir, Singapore has gained international fame for her success in fighting drug abuse and, for this, credit must be given to the Central Narcotics Bureau and its officers for their constant efforts and vigilance to eradicate this social menace. In moving this amendment, I would like the Minister to throw some light on the administration of certain aspects of the Misuse of Drugs Act. I would like to draw the attention of the House to two different cases involving my constituents and to what I believe are anomalies in the administration of the Act and in the implementation of justice. Sir, case number one involves a person who was detained and was not given a urine test. This particular person was arrested because one day officers from the Central Narcotics Bureau conducted a raid at a flat in my constituency. This particular person had gone there, so he claimed, to retum a set of keys of a vehicle he had borrowed from someone living in the flat. Knocking on the door of the flat, he was immediately detained by the CN B officers who were already there. Following this, he was sent to one of the DRCs and I understand that up till today he has still not been given a urine test. The only answer I have received from the Ministry of Home Affairs is that medical observation has shown that he is in need of rehabilitation. Sir, case number two is even stranger. This case involves another person who was detained but was given a urine test and the result of the urine test was negative. However, at the DRC, he was asked to sign a document giving his agreement that he be allowed to remain in the DRC to undergo rehabilitative training. So here we have two cases, one of somebody who was not given a urine test which would have proved conclusively and beyond any doubt his guilt or innocence; and in another case, of a person who had a urine test conducted and found negative and yet asked to remain in the DRC. Sir, I would like to ask the Minister to explain this anomaly. Sir, the other point I would like to raise is that when parents of drug addicts come to Members of Parliament for assistance, inevitably most of them tell us that their children are innocent. That is the starting point. And upon inquiries and investigation, we find that in many cases this is not the case. My poil-ii here is that the very word "rehabilitation" implies an effort on our part to bring back these drug addicts into society so that they can lead a normal life. They have been led along the wrong path and they deserve our sympathies. The real criminals here are the drug traffickers and pediars. And in that sense, they are different from common criminals. I think we have to show some sympathy and understanding towards these drug addicts. The job of the MPs would be made a lot easier if the Central Narcotics Bureau would be more helpful to parents. In one of the cases that I have just mentioned, the parents of the boy could not receive any information from either the police station or the CN B for days on end as to where that boy was detained. Nobody could tell them until they received a letter about two weeks later. The other point is that when this boy was transferred to another rehabilitation centre, no notification of any kind was given to the parents of the boy and it was only on one of the scheduled visits when they went to the centre where they thought he was being detained were they told that he had been transferred. Sir, if we are to help these people, the least we could do is to properly inform the parents where the children are being kept.

Mr Speaker, Sir, may I explain to the Member that it is not urine test alone that is used to determine whether a person is a drug addict or not. In fact, the urine test itself is not as conclusive as medical observation. If there is evidence of heroin in the urine after testing, then it is conclusive that that person is a drug addict. But there are many other drugs of addiction, apart from heroin, which do not disclose its presence in a urine test. That is why the law has to use either a urine test or a medical observation. For example, there are addictive drugs that ard used which do not reveal itself in a urine test. It is only heroin and morphine that are revealed. And that is why we use medical observation and, in fact, medical observation in that respect is more accurate. How does the doctor arrive at the conclusion through a medical observation? Usually they do so by observing the withdrawal symptoms which indicate that the person has been addicted to taking drugs. That, in fact, explains the two cases which the Member for Alexandra mentioned. "How is it that he was not given a urine test and yet he has been detained in a rehabilitation centre?" It is from medical observation. In the other case, the person was given a urine test which was negative but he was still detained. May I assure the Member that we do not just detain any member of the public if he is not a drug addict, because our rehabilitation centres are very costly to run, not only in terms of funds but also of manpower. It is only when we are certain through medical observation by a doctor that we detain a person. And mind you, Sir, we do not detain a drug addict and treat him as a criminal. It is unlike the criminal law detention. This is detention for the treatment of the drug addict. As such, in fact, we have been doing our very best to do everything, to rehabilitate him and to bring him back to society. I agree with the Member, therefore, that we should build up rapport with the members of the family because if the members of the family take an interest in the addict or ex-addict during the rehabilitation, then the person has a better chance of rehabilitation. If the Member were to give me details of the case where the person has been transferred from one centre to another, I will look into it. 5.30 p.m.

Sir, I am pleased to learn from the Minister that he agrees with me that there should be a closer rapport between the officers at the Drug Rehabilitation Centre and the parents. But I am not so sure that I can agree with him on the point of medical observation. I am given to understand that withdrawal symptoms can be due to a variety of reasons. For example, if we were to take aspirin to relieve our headache continuously, and suddenly we stop taking aspirin we can also have withdrawal symptoms. Therefore, -such withdrawal symptoms would not be due to narcotics. My point therefore is that medical observation need not be conclusive if we do not accompany it with a urine test.

Sir, I do not think I am competent to debate with the Member for Alexandra on this point. I presume that he will admit that he is also not competent to debate on this matter. But the important point is that it is the professional expertise of the doctor in charge that counts. Whether the withdrawal symptom is the result of taking aspirin or whether it is the result of an addiction to heroin is a matter which I do not think I, as the Minister, would interfere. It is a matter of professional competence of the doctor in charge. If the Member says that the person who has examined that relative of his constituent is not competent, then, of course, I will investigate. But if he is a doctor, he knows what he is doing. And he makes a report saying that, "so-and-so, through medical observation, is a drug addict as a result of a sympton which I have observed", then we accept that. It is not only I myself, but the court will also accept it. We have a case where the court has accepted that. We have a court of appeal case on that.

Sir, I am not questioning the competence of the doctors at the Drug Rehabilitation Centre. I am sure they are more than qualified to judge. What I am trying to say is that we have a variety of ways to determine whether a person is addicted. Why do we use only one method? Why can we not be more conclusive and prove his guilt, in the Minister's own words, "beyond all reasonable doubt"?

Sir, as I have said, if a person is addicted to some other drug, besides heroin, it would not show in a urine test. But that does not mean he is not an addict. That is the point.

Sir, I am not entirely satisfied with the Minister's reply. But in bringing up these two cases, I would like to seek an assurance from the Minister that he will personally examine these two cases more closely and give me a reply by letter. This is because I have written to him but I did not get any reply, at least to one of the cases.

I have given him one reply and the other is - An hon. Member: On the way.

Sir, I wrote to him but it was his Permanent Secretary who replied to me. Anyway, Sir, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

Sir, I beg to move, That the sum to be allocated for Head 0 be reduced by $10 in respect of Subhead QH-02 of the Main Estimates*. *The same amendment also stood in the name of Mr Ho See Beng. Sir, in moving this amendment, I have iust two small points on National Registration. In 1948 identity cards were issued and they were replaced by the laminated identity card in 1966 to differentiate Singapore citizens from permanent residents of Singapore. So some 15 years have come to pass. I would like to seek elucidation from the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs as to the number of forged identity cards which have been detected since the replacement of the identity cards with laminated cards. If the number should be too large, may I suggest that from time to time we review this process of issuing personal identity cards.

Sir, may I be permitted to take this amendment with my next amendment No. (11), since the matter under which I wish to raise is inter-related?

Yes.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Minister for Home Affairs that if the Registrar of Births and Deaths in Singapore issued a birth certificate to a person who was born in Malaysia, will such a person be recognized by the Singapore Government as a citizen? Conversely, if the subject cannot be recognized as a citizen, why should the Registrar grant him or her a birth certificate? Sir, this concerns a child who was born in Malacca and was brought to Singapore when she was three months old by a Malay couple who adopted her as their foster daughter. When she reached the age of 12 and, like other children, her foster parents applied to the National Registration Office for an identity card for their foster daughter, but the application was rejected on the ground that she is neither a citizen nor a permanent resident of Singapore. Then they approached me for assistance and I brought the case to the knowledge of the Deputy Commissioner of National Registration with both her birth certificate and adoption paper. Having examined and satisfied himself that both the documents are legal and in order, the Deputy Commissioner recommended the case to the Immigration Department with a view to reinstating the subject's permanent residential status on the ground that she has been legally adopted by a Singapore citizen. However, the Immigration Department turned down his recommendation and said that she came to Singapore after the implementation of immigration control at the Causeway on 1st June, 1967. In view of the advice given by the Immigration Department, the Deputy Commissioner informed me that he is unable to render further assistance on this matter. Sir, I think the Immigration Department is being unduly rigid on a technical matter. Since the Immigration Authority is aware of her entry into Singapore after the implementation of immigration control at the Causeway on 1st June, 1967, why was she not asked to leave Singapore after the expiry of her visa? I believe she was not given a visa at that time. Sir, if this hapless child could not even become a permanent resident of Singapore, she will be a stateless person, and will be greatly disadvantaged in her later life. Therefore, I would like to request the Minister to look into it and to render her the necessary assistance, if possible.

Sir, may I have your permission to join in and speak on immigration?

Yes.

Sir, in last year's Budget debate, in response to my question the Hon. Minister for Home Affairs told the House about the Immigration Department's plan for computerization. In the Home Affairs Ministry's Addendum to the President's Address, it is mentioned that a computerized sub-system is being installed at the Woodlands, Keppel Railway Station and Changi checkpoints and they will be operational later this year. My questions are: when exactly will this be? What will the sub-system involve? How will commuters be affected?

Sir, first, the Member for Punggol. He wanted to know about laminated cards and the number of forgeries that were found. Since the introduction of laminated identity cards in 1966 to 30th December, 1980, 2,078,337 persons were issued with such identity cards. To-date only 384 persons (i.e. 0.018%) have been detected for forgery of identity cards. All these persons have been prosecuted in court and convicted. Therefore, from the negligible number of forged identity cards detected over a period of 15 years, the forgery of identity cards is not a problem. On the other hand, replacing identity cards from time to time is a costly and labour-intensive undertaking. But what is more important is that it will also inconvenience the vast majority of the population. The Member for Khe Bong was wondering why a person born in Malacca, not a Singapore citizen, was given a birth certificate. Although she was given a birth certificate, she was not given a laminated identity card. May I explain this? We do not issue a birth certificate to a person who is not born in Singapore. That is the normal practice. But if a person born outside has been adopted in Singapore, then it is a birth certificate to signify that adoption has been accepted. But that does not mean that the person named in that certificate was born in Singapore and therefore entitled to be either a citizen of Singapore or a permanent resident of Singapore. It is an adoption birth certificate where you put down the name of parents, and when the child goes to school that certificate is produced to the teacher. May I say that the child concerned, born in Malacca of a parent who is a Malaysian citizen, is not stateless. She is a Malaysian citizen. She is not stateless. The fact that she is also not a permanent resident is because she entered Singapore after the immigration control was implemented. Therefore, we cannot grant her permanent resident status. But the fact that she has already been adopted in Singapore, on compassionate grounds we do not ask her to leave. We have given her, on compassionate grounds a six-monthly renewal social visit pass. 5.45 p.m. In answer to the Member for Telok Blangah about the computerized sub-system for the checkpoints at Woodland, Keppel Railway Station and Changi Control Points, this computerized dub-system is part of the Ministry of Home Affairs' comprehensive plan to computerize its operations. A Systems Study Team formed in July 1980 to examine the areas suitable for computerization has recently submitted a proposal for a computerized Home Affairs system. This is now being studied by the Civil Service Computerization Group. In the meantime, preparation for implementing the Checkpoint sub-system is under way. This is in answer to the Member's query. This sub-system is expected to be operational from 1st June this year. The computerized checking system at the checkpoints will: 1. result in a more secure and accurate, substantially larger blacklist; 2. remove tedious and repetitive manual updating of the blacklist; and 3. reduce the problem of illegal employment in Singapore. With the ever-increasing volume of visitors coming through the checkpoints, 14.5 million people in 1980 compared to 13.5 million in 1979, thorough manual checking cannot continue without long waiting time and gross inaccuracies. Therefore, the system will have computer terminals at all the checking counters. Malaysian visitors will be screened by keying in their identity cards. Screening of these Malaysian short-term social visit pass-holders will result in the computation of their period of stay upon each entry into Singapore. As from 1st June this year, their stay will be restricted to 60 days out of any three-month period. The purpose of this ruling is to prevent Malaysians from working here illegally whilst on a two-week social visit pass. Currently, Malaysians can stay here for long periods by going to Johore Bahru and re-entering through the Woodlands Checkpoint fortnightly. The objective of this scheme is to prevent social visitors from working illegally but, at the same time, not to inconvenience the genuine social visitors from Malaysia. With computerization, these short-term social visit pass-holders will be barred from further entry for a stipulated period if their stay exceeds 60 days during any three-month period, that is, the current month plus the two previous months. Those social visitors who intend to work here will have to apply for Work Permits or Employment Passes. This 60-day rule will not apply to holders of long-term passes, like Work Permits, Employment Passes and three-month Social Visit Passes. For speedy clearance, magnetic stripes will be affixed to the coloured disembarkation and embarkation cards of holders of long-term passes like Employment Passes and Work Permit Passes. Screening these pass-holders is done simply by sliding the magnetic stripe through the magnetic stripe unit of the computer terminal. Malaysian social visitors who travel through these checkpoints frequently can avoid completing the white disembarkation and embarkation cards for each entry by applying for Express cards. These cards will also be affixed with magnetic stripes. Holders of Express cards need only present them and their passports to the Immigration Officer for clearance. Their total period of stay in three months will be computed automatically.

Sir, the Minister said that the girl was born in Malaysia and therefore she would not lose her status of citizenship. If I find out that this girl has already lost her citizenship, may I ask whether the Minister will consider granting her permanent stay status on compassionate grounds?

Sir, we have already made a concession by giving a six-monthly renewal social visit pass and I do not think we should concede further.

( In Mandarin): If he wants to be a kind man, he should be kind right to the end!

Sir, of course, it is very nice to zuo hao ren (fit of A ). Everybody wants to be so, but what we must do is to do the right thing and to be fair. But we have tempered our policies with some compassion. That is why we have issued her with a six-monthly renewal social visit pass.

Sir, I think the Minister for Home Affairs has been kind to us and he has given us a satisfactory answer. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment. Amendment by leave, withdrawn. The sum of $230,034,830 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates. The sum of $6,883.800 for Head Q ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Resolved, "That Head I, Ministry of Communications, and Head S. Ministry of Law, be considered after Head T. Ministry of National Development." - [Mr Chua Sian Chin].

With the consent of Mr Speaker and the general assent of Members present, Question put, and agreed to. Resolved, "That, notwithstanding the Standing Orders, progress be reported now and leave be asked to sit again tomorrow." - [Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Thereupon Mr Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Sir, I beg to report that the Committee of Supply has made further progress on the Main and Development Estimates for the financial year 1st April, 1981 to 31st March, 1982 and ask leave to sit again tomorrow.

So be it.

Resolved, "That Parliament do now adjourn." - [Mr Chua Sian Chin]. Adjourned accordingly at Five minutes to Six o'clock p.m.