(Paper Cmd. No. 2 of 2000)
I thank the Members for raising their points. Let me deal with a few of the cuts and then I will ask my Minister of State to answer the others. On the question of the illegal immigrant situation, raised by Mr Chng Hng Kok and Prof. Chin, let me report to this House that in 1999, the Home Team arrested about 17,000 immigration offenders. By "immigration offenders" we mean illegal immigrants and overstayers, people who have overstayed in Singapore, overstayed beyond the period stated in their visit passes. This figure of 17,000 is actually a decrease of about 26% of the 1998's figure of 23,000. But this figure is still much higher, about 21% higher than the 14,000 immigration offenders arrested in 1997. The immigration offenders arrested in 1999 came from all over the region - Bangladesh, China, India, Indonesia, Myanmar and Thailand. The number of illegal immigrants arrested in 1999, ie, those who sneak into Singapore either by car, boat, or whatever means, was about 11,500. This is a 22% decrease from the 14,800 compared to 1998. But it is still 51% more than the 7,600 arrested in 1997 and I consider this a very unacceptably high figure. As for the overstayers, 5,400 of them were arrested in 1999 and this is also a decrease of 35% from the 8,300 overstayers arrested in 1998 and a further decrease of 14% from the 1997's figure of 6,300. Sir, to ensure that the immigration offender problem remains in check, the Home Team has taken a multi-pronged approach to deal with this problem comprehensively. For example, we have enhanced our border control. We have continued with intensive enforcement efforts against the traffickers, the employers as well as the harbourers. Police and Immigration have also conducted raids in areas where immigration offenders are likely to gather to work or live. Let me elaborate on this. In the past year, the Police and the Singapore Immigration and Registration raided various immigration offender haunts, including construction sites, workplaces, forested areas and known congregation areas. The Police conducted 15 major island-wide operations throughout 1999, resulting in the arrest of 1,400 illegal immigrants and 185 overstayers. In addition, 17 operations were conducted in the forested areas, with 195 illegal immigrants and 27 overstayers arrested. 4.45 pm The Police also targeted the employers of immigration offenders and the harbourers at their residential premises, such as our HDB flats and also in private estates. Since we stepped up enforcement in early 1998, it is now more difficult to find congregations of immigration offenders at any particular location. The Police has therefore widened its net to include entertainment outlets in the crackdown on immigration offenders. For example, in October last year, 100 immigration offenders were arrested in a discotheque in Orchard Road. Sir, the Police Coast Guard has stepped up both sea and shore patrols to detect those who attempt to enter Singapore illegally by sea. The Police Coast Guard also deploys monitoring posts equipped with surveillance equipment and systems at strategic locations to detect these illegal landings. The Police Coast Guard's enhanced presence has thwarted many illegal immigration attempts. In 1999, the Police Coast Guard foiled 52 attempts and arrested close to 240 illegal immigrants. To stay on top in its fight against immigration offenders and the smugglers, the Police Coast Guard recently added 20 high speed patrol boats equipped with the latest surveillance and digital communication equipment and six highly manouverable speedboats or interceptor speedboats to its fleet. Illegal immigrants and traffickers who try to sneak in by sea will therefore be up against these high performance boats. The Police Coast Guard will continue to upgrade its fleet to ensure that it is sufficiently equipped to handle the threats and the challenges it faces. In July last year, the new Woodlands Checkpoint or land checkpoint came into operation. To address Mr Chng's question, the facilities at this new Woodlands Checkpoint have enabled the immigration to conduct more stringent checks on the people who come in, to prevent illegal entry and departure through the land checkpoints, without adversely affecting traffic flow, because if it starts to check everybody, then I am sure people will complain that there are long queues of vehicles and long lines of people queuing at our immigration counters. Police and the immigration also intensified the intelligence gathering to curb the trafficking of immigration offenders through the land checkpoints and these efforts have yielded positive results. For example, 60 illegal immigrant traffickers were arrested and 52 vehicles seized in 1999, compared to only 42 illegal immigrant traffickers arrested and 23 vehicles seized in the year 1998. Many of these illegal immigrants who were arrested were trying to enter Singapore or leave Singapore by concealing themselves in the car boots or in special compartments of travel coaches, lorries or bus kilangs. The media have highlighted some enforcement successes. In a widely reported case last year, SIR arrested 35 illegal immigrants who tried to sneak into Singapore on the 30th of July, which was the very last day when our old checkpoint was in operation. They were all in a lorry under the canvas sheet and mattresses. This tragic case resulted in four of the illegal immigrants dying of suffocation. This case clearly shows the ruthless nature of the traffickers of these immigration offenders. They will go to no end just to earn a quick dollar without caring for the safety of the people in the vehicle. Police and immigration are also now focusing on crippling the syndicates that are responsible for trafficking these immigration offenders and giving these offenders forged documents. With the stringent checks in place, the syndicates have been finding new ways to send these illegal immigrants through the land checkpoints. From using lorries and buses or hiding in car boots, the syndicates are now resorting to using special compartments in the vehicles or ferrying these illegal immigrants by car or lorry to somewhere near the checkpoint and then ask these illegal immigrants to find their own way into Singapore, or out of Singapore. Such action by the syndicates is a sign of their desperation, in view of the stringent checks and enforcement by the authorities. The evolving nature of the problem means that the Home Team has to be alert and stay on top of the problem and be responsive to the new methods of operation of these syndicates. We will seek deterrent sentences against these syndicate members who are arrested. But the responsibility for tackling the immigration offender problem does not just lie with the Home Team alone. The public, too, has a role to play. Singaporeans should not create the demand for immigration offenders by employing them. That is very important. And neither should Singaporeans harbour them by renting out their premises, flats, private apartments or houses to them. In 1999, 388 employers were arrested, compared to 270 arrested in 1998 for hiring these immigration offenders. 306 harbourers were also arrested last year compared to 166 in 1998. All these were because of stepped-up enforcement by Police and immigration. Home-owners with premises to let out should be more careful when selecting their prospective tenants, because many of these home-owners claimed that they did not check this or that, or they simply checked the copy without looking at the original copy. What they should do is to check the prospective tenants' original copy of the immigration and work passes and then cross-check to make sure that the particulars on the passports tally with those of the work passes. In addition, where the names of the employers appear on the work passes, then the home-owners should also check with the employers to verify that the prospective tenants are indeed employed by these employers. If not, they will find themselves in great difficulty explaining to the court. If the home-owners are in doubt of the genuineness of the pass or about the status of the person, or even about his work status, then, they should contact the immigration authorities during office hours or check with the information and services counters of the Work Permit Department of the Manpower Ministry to verify the genuineness or the authenticity of these passes. After we amended the law, all work permit holders or foreign workers must carry their work permits with them all the time. So there is no reason why foreign worker would not be able to produce the original copy of their work permits on demand. Landlords should be suspicious if their prospective tenants say that their employer kept the original and that they have only a photocopy, or that their passports are with the employer and they have only a photocopy. When they receive such papers, they should question and insist on seeing the original copies. A home-owner may lose his HDB flat, if he or his spouse or any authorised occupier of the flat has been convicted of harbouring immigration offenders. 14 such errant owners had their flats re-possessed between 1st January 1995 and 31st October 1999. So be careful. A fundamental point I wish to make here is that, like our Members who have suggested, Singaporeans should take an interest in their own safety and security and the public should report any suspected immigration offender as well as harbourers and employers of such immigration offenders. I am told by the Director of Singapore Immigration that there was a recent instance where a member of the public came forward to report a suspected immigration offender who had produced a forged blue identity card. The member of the public saw the forged blue identity card and he suspected that something was not quite right. He called the SIR to look at that identity card and SIR confirmed that that foreigner was, in fact, an immigration offender. Such public spiritedness is to be encouraged. This will further deter anyone who wants to employ or harbour such immigration offenders and in the end, these immigration offenders will find that they have no place to live, work or hide. On the case brought up by Mr Chng of the 120 persons found living in a boarding house in Serangoon Road, I had followed up and checked it out, and I was told that all of them are here with work passes. So they have work permits. But the owner of the property has misused his property. He did not have the permission of the proper authority and I believe URA or BCA has taken action, and so has the Civil Defence Force. Now let me also talk about the Immigration Act which deals with immigration offenders. We have reviewed the Immigration Act quite a few times already to make sure that it is effective in dealing with this problem and now the Ministry is reviewing the Immigration Act based on operational experience to ensure that this piece of legislation continues to remain effective. For example, we are considering introducing new provisions to ensure that the housing agents also play their part in curbing the immigration offender problem. To deter the harbouring of immigration offenders, the current Immigration Act imposes due diligence on the person letting out the accommodation to check and make sure that the prospective tenants are not immigration offenders. But my Ministry will now consider extending this legal requirement for due diligence by the landlords to those who act as facilitators or middlemen in a transaction to rent out the premises as well. But this new provision will not absolve or reduce the home-owners and landlords to conduct due diligence checks as well. Several of my colleagues spoke on the public perception of the police force and Mr Goh Choon Kang specifically referred to the headline in the press report in Lianhe Zaobao and he also explained that the second headline better explains the public perception of the Police Force. Let me say that I am the first person to be concerned about the public perception of the Police Force because, if the public has a poor impression of the police force, I think it will make it very difficult for the Police to operate in this environment. They cannot recruit people to join them because it is a lousy outfit or people think it is a lousy outfit and they cannot do their job well because the public would not cooperate with it. But we must look at the problem that is currently highlighted or reported in the press in perspective, in the total context of the Police Force. From what you read in the papers and what you read about other countries like in the United States, whether it is in New York or Los Angeles, or whether it is in Japan or in Britain, I think the problems we face pale in significance. But still, I am concerned because any black sheep that we have will cast a black mark on the whole force and will make it difficult for us. Let us look at the survey mentioned by Mr Goh Choon Kang first. Generally, the survey has been positive and many of the positive points have been highlighted. This survey was done by a private survey agency, Forbes Research, and it was commissioned by the Police Force. That survey was also reinforced by the results of the Straits Times survey. The significant attributes of the survey were that 90% of the people surveyed felt that the Police is effective in maintaining law and order, and this is an increase of 6% over the previous survey. 78% of the people surveyed found the Police is rational in discharging their duties, and this is also an increase of 5% over the previous survey. 82% found that the Police has done well in solving crimes, and this is also an increase of 3% compared to the previous survey. 76% felt that the Police provides high quality service, and this is also an improvement of 7% over the previous survey. When the respondents were asked to select five out of the 13 statements, whether they are positive statements or negative statements of the Police, the five top attributes or descriptive terms of the Police were that they are respectable, approachable, well-trained, disciplined and capable. So, the public perception of the Police is still generally positive. The fact that the public is willing to come forward and help the Police in solving a number of crimes is testimony to the public's confidence in the Police Force, that Police will act when they make a report. In the instance of snatch theft, motor vehicle theft, robbery, housebreaking, outraging of modesty, murder and rape, 45% of the arrests of people who committed these offences were the result of public cooperation. 5.00 pm The drop referred to in the headlines in Zaobao was in response to respectability, and reliability and trustworthiness, both registering falls to 77%, down by 6% for respectability; and for reliability and trustworthiness, down 4%, at 57% compared to the previous survey. But these reductions, I believe, were due to the recent spate of reports of Police corruption in one major case - the Ah Long San case. But one must not let this one case mar the whole perception and whole performance of the Police Force. Put in context, more than 99.9% of our Police Force officers conduct themselves well. Less than 0.1% of the Police Force officers are charged in court every year. I think we must look at the numbers in perspective. And the Police is serious in weeding out all these errant officers whenever they are found, and although the Police knew that it would attract adverse publicity, it does not hesitate to take these officers to court, even though it may attract adverse publicity against the Police. As regards Mr Sin Boon Ann's suggestion to raise the penalty for Police officers who commit criminal offences such as corruption, yes, I will take note of his suggestion. For now, I believe the courts have enough discretion to impose the maximum penalty. Mr Chng asked how does the Police make sure that it keeps up its image and the performance of its officers. Training is the key, as Mr Chng himself has said, and supervision and management. There are various measures that the Police has put in place to ensure that its officers continue to remain on top of the job. Basic training is definitely a must, and they take a multi-pronged approach in training, inculcating the right values, competencies in discharging their duties, and they also do psychological tests. In other words, before people are recruited, our Police Psychological Unit actually interviews them and, as far as possible, try to sieve out those who are not suitable for the Police Force. There is also continuous training on the job, and the training for the supervisors who, I believe, are the most important people in making sure that the officers under their charge do the job properly. Because without good managers, without good supervision, then I think something will give. So it is important that we also train our Police managers well. On Mr Iswaran's concern about the public sense of safety, let me assure him that generally the public still feel very safe. Otherwise, the results of the survey will not hear this out. But the question he also raises is: do we have a good PR strategy to deal with these problems that crop up from time to time? The Police meets the press very regularly. It briefs them on the major cases. It briefs them on how it handles its cases. And I think the public know from these cases and the handling of the cases and the speed in which the Police solves some of the problems and the cases show the Police has been quite proactive in engaging the media and in sharing with them as much information as possible. But sometimes the Police cannot tell the press everything because some of these are operational trade secrets. We also do not want the people on the wrong side of the law to learn about them and find new ways of beating us. So, sometimes we have to reserve a bit of our position and not tell everything. But as far as possible, the Police tries to manage it and get to the public and tell them as much as they can. By informing the public about what is going on, even by reporting the crimes that are committed, it also serves a purpose to remind the public that although we have a low crime rate in Singapore, it does not mean that there is no crime. So please take the necessary precautions. So, highlighting all these cases is not at all bad, but sometimes we have to hold back some of the information, or even have to ask the press to cooperate not to release the information, as it may jeopardise a case. Last year's kidnapping case is a good example. I know that some journalists got wind of that and, fortunately, they cooperated and did not put out the story. Otherwise, I think the Police operation to catch the culprits would have been in jeopardy. It is only after the culprits were arrested that the story came out. I think that is the way we should manage all these cases. I suppose if you have read about cases in Taiwan, I think the press got to know more than the police, and I do not think that helps the victim at all in solving his or her problem. That is the kind of approach that we want to take. But, of course, I would say also that we can be a bit more proactive and we can find new ways of marketing ourselves. And I have always told my officers that while they may have a good story, a good product, if they have not told people about how and why they do it, then I think they have not won the public over. It is not that we want to brag about what we do and gain credos and applause, but really if we have done something good, I think the public ought to know it, so that they know that the Police is actually working hard for them. Let me assure Mr Iswaran that we take safety and security very seriously. But I also want to stress that safety and security is not just the job of the Police Force, or the job of the Home Team only. In fact, the idea that we are trying to propagate is that every one of us living in our community, living in our HDB flats and private estates, actually has a role to play in ensuring that the place remains a safe and secure one for us. So this programme called the Community Safety and Security Programme is one such programme that we put out to engage the community. It is not a programme to pass responsibility to the community, as some would like to believe. The Police will carry on doing its job, so will CNB, Immigration, Civil Defence and all the other departments. But if the residents themselves do not play a role, because they are the ones on the ground who know exactly what goes on, and if they do not play a role in helping to ensure that the place is safe and secure, then it is very difficult for the Police to be there all the time. It is impossible for the Police to be everywhere. This Community Safety and Security Programme, which Mr Goh Choon Kang also said that we should promote and encourage, is indeed something that we ought to do. Since the programme was launched in October 1997, we have, to date, 450 Community Safety and Security Programmes already drawn up by the various committees - RCs, neighbourhood committees, and they are doing it even in private estates. I think this is quite encouraging. The fact that individuals and parents are coming forward, eg, to make sure that the zone around the school is safe for the children, is a good sign. But I think more should be done, not just keeping this programme only within the grassroots committees or only within certain concerned citizens, but all residents who want to make sure that their place is safe and secure should play a role. I think that is the only way for us to drive out the would-be criminals. At the national level, in fact, I take a deep interest in this because wearing both hats in the People's Association and the Police, I think there is a lot of synergy to be derived between the community organisations and what the Police, the Civil Defence and the CNB want to do. It is not just using the vehicle of the grassroots organisations, but because the People's Association is also an organisation that helps to promote community bonding, cohesiveness and self-help among the community. We thought that this is really a practical example of active citizenship. We talk about Singapore 21 and active citizenship, and I think this is a concrete example of what active citizens can do for themselves, for self-interest. As regards the suggestion to extend this programme to schools, we are already thinking about that, but I want to tread a bit cautiously here. Because some may feel, like Mr Iswaran said, that the schools may attract the odium that they have a problem. Let me assure them that this is not the case to highlight a problem in the school, but really to encourage the school community to also care for their own safety and security, within their own neighbourhood. And the students will also, in a way, be involved with the community, not just within the school itself, but also the neighbourhood around them. But we can work with the school, with the parents, teachers and the students, whether it is on juvenile delinquency, street gangs or bullies and so on. I think it is good that they themselves play a role in identifying and finding solutions to solve these problems. And the Home Team will give them the necessary support. I want to tread cautiously here because some teachers may not fully understand this now. Some principals may wonder whether we are giving them more work. So we have taken the first step to brief the cluster supervisors. Let them understand it. Then we are going to have a meeting with some principals so that they can understand what it is all about, and those who are willing can experiment on this, just as we did on the anti-drug campaign. We have got all the schools involved in preventive drug education now, and no school is saying that just because it has got an anti-drug campaign or it has a group of people coming to talk to its students on drugs or drug prevention, the school has got a drug problem. I think that kind of perception is no longer so visible any more. I want to take CSSP one step closer to the schools but, at the same time, I will move it at a pace that the schools are comfortable with. The CSSP is really a project to complement the community with all the Home Team departments, including the Civil Defence. This system of working together with police posts, working together with the police centre, is certainly an improvement over the normal community policing concept that we have implemented for quite some time. We have now moved from NPP to NPC in two of our Police Divisions. The NPC will, since Mr Iswaran asked, let me say to him and all of us here, actually provide more time for the Police officers to do patrols on the ground, because the NPCs can deploy their resources better. The results in the two NPCs have shown that the crime rate is actually lower, and Police time for patrols has actually increased, and the residents are generally happy with the system. And in time, by next year or a year after that, we shall have all our Police Divisions converted to the NPC system. Let me now come to Mr Peh Chin Hua's question whether we are only catching the Tua Pek Kongs and not the masterminds. The Police must be also interested in syndicate leaders, not just only the runners of the syndicates. Wherever possible, they will go after them. The Police has indeed been successful in a number of such cases. One recent example was in December last year when the Police smashed a syndicate which supplied immigration offenders as labourers. The syndicate leader and his associates were all arrested. They were all responsible for managing the illegal workers. They were deploying them to the various companies and worksites and they were also collecting the payments. The syndicate leader has since been charged in court and the case will come up for trial.