Hansard, 2011-03-09

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2011) To (2011) Dr Lee Boon Yang 23 Mar 31 Mar Mr Wong Kan Seng 15 Apr 17 Apr

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

Order read for consideration in Committee of Supply [6th Allotted Day].

Head P – Ministry of Home Affairs (cont.) –

Resumption of Debate on Question [8th March 2011],

"That the total sum to be allocated for Head P of the Estimates be reduced by $100." – [Mr Alvin Yeo].

Question again proposed.

Sir, in the last year, the Home Team has done well. Our crime rate has continued to drop in the past few years. There were 650 crimes per 100,000 population last year. This is the second lowest in 20 years. While incidents of youth violence hit the headlines last year, our crime incidence remains low. We are one of the safest cities in the world. Hong Kong and New York provide useful reference points. Hong Kong has a crime rate of 1,100 per 100,000 population, and the figure for New York is almost four times that of Singapore's, at 2,200.

Public confidence in the Home Team is high. An MHA survey of 2,000 residents last year found that 91% generally felt safe within their neighbourhoods. This is an increase over the 83% result when the survey was last conducted in 2004. More than 92% of the respondents also expressed confidence in the Government's ability to ensure the safety and security of Singapore.

In dealing with security issues, we must try and stay ahead of possible challenges. Many MPs spoke on issues that reflect how Singapore is evolving. We live in a dense urban environment with multi-cultural neighbours. With an increasingly compact society, the community disputes that Mr Hri Kumar describes may become more common.

Second, openness to global markets creates economic growth. However, that also allows criminals opportunities to prosper. As Mr Alvin Yeo and Mr Christopher de Souza have pointed out, organised crime is increasingly transnational. A purely local response is no longer enough.

Finally, it may be a decade since 9/11 but we can never neglect crisis preparedness. Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Arthur Fong both rightly said that the Home Team must continuously invest in Singaporeans' vigilance and resilience.

I will first address Mr Hri Kumar's point on community dispute resolution. He is right that Police's resources should focus on the prevention and detection of crime. That is Police's core responsibility. To this end, we will be augmenting our Police's resources on the ground. For example, we will set up a new Police Land Division Headquarters in Woodlands New Town. We will also add two Neighbourhood Police Centres (NPCs) in Marsiling and Punggol. These are major developments, benefiting residents living and working in Woodlands, Sembawang, Yishun and Choa Chu Kang areas. All three are targeted to be completed by 2015. This is in tandem with the area's rapid development. The north of Singapore is becoming a vibrant hub with a growing resident population. The new Police Land Division and NPCs will provide faster response, increased Police presence and help Police in its fight against crime.

We can increase Police resources, but they are not limitless. Much investment goes into the selection and training of Police officers to be effective law enforcers. We should therefore use them to do the job they have been recruited and trained to do. Currently, the Police are often called to address problems which are neither crime-related nor pose a real threat to public security. Many of these calls are related to noise disturbance, anti-social behaviour and other similar issues – which do not raise any law and order questions. Police are at times even called in to deal with monkeys, snakes, pet animals which are trapped.

To the callers, no doubt, these are urgent and important matters and it is understandable that every caller wants his case to be treated as a priority. But handling such matters diverts police resources which could be better spent dealing with crime and public order incidents. Last year, the Police had more than 430,000 non-urgent calls. This works out to almost 1,200 a day. The Police received three non-urgent calls to every one urgent call by a person in real need of Police intervention.

It is a measure of our success that the Police are seen as a community resource and a means of resolving neighbourhood issues. However, in future, we do need to lessen the non-core work Police officers are performing so they can concentrate on their central mission.

Mr Hri Kumar asked if we will establish a body that will take the place of the Police to resolve such disputes. In his view, Community Mediation Centres (CMCs) are not viable because they do not provide immediate enforcement.

The fact is that such disputes rarely lend themselves to immediate resolution. They often involve grey areas for which there are no clear rules, and each party's perspective could be right. For example, a person intent on spending Saturday afternoon resting may be annoyed by a neighbour who only has time to do home repairs on the weekend. All the Police can do is persuade the disputants to cooperate, and these compromises may not last. The next time there is a disagreement, the disputants may call the Police again to arbitrate.

Since 1998, the CMCs have helped residents address a wide range of social, community and family disputes. There are three such centres which handle about 500 cases a year. Community mediators are well-trained to facilitate lasting settlement agreements. If parties are amenable to compromise, CMCs have seen cases resolved as quickly as in 45 minutes. We encourage Singaporeans to use this resource.

Mr Hri Kumar also states that legal proceedings are required to enforce any settlement arrived at. If settlements are disputed, CMC offers additional mediation as an alternative to court. Last year, 88% of the cases which sought re-mediation were successfully resolved.

For neighbourly disputes in public housing estates, HDB also works with grassroots organisations, Town Councils and other Government agencies where appropriate. For instance, when HDB Branch Offices receive feedback on noise disturbance in HDB flats, they will provide advice to the parties involved. Grassroots leaders may also be invited to mediate. If the disputes remain unresolved, disputants will be advised to seek help with the CMC.

Mr Hri Kumar pointed to the British example where local authorities have powers to address local disputes. We will study the various examples as well as other countries and work with other Ministries to develop the most appropriate approach for us. It has to be borne in mind that the Government cannot intervene in all private disputes. It is neither practical nor desirable to also have rules governing all aspects of private life.

I will now move on to the questions about transnational crime raised by Mr Alvin Yeo and Mr Christopher de Souza. We recognise the threat of cross-border crime and organised criminal groups. Singapore is an open society, as well as a financial and communications hub. We cannot be impervious to the significant challenge posed by transnational organised crime.

Organised crime is not yet a menace in Singapore in the organisationally developed forms that we see in some other places. The local scene involves loose coalitions of hooligans in street gangs and small criminal groups in loansharking and drug activities. The situation has generally been kept under control by our present legal and enforcement framework.

Senior Minister of State Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee will discuss how these have helped our battle against loansharking syndicates. Minister of State Mr Masagos Zulkifli will also outline our efforts to tackle youth gangs.

Though we do not yet have an organised crime problem, we nevertheless need to be alert and take pre-emptive steps to ensure organised crime does not threaten Singapore in the future. The key is to stop foreign groups from penetrating our borders, sinking roots and growing here.

Last year, we signed an agreement with Interpol to establish an Interpol Global Complex (IGC) in Singapore by 2013. Mr de Souza is correct that the IGC will be a vital resource. It will help us deal with the global nature of criminal operations, including those of terrorists. It will enable us to tap international law enforcement networks even more closely to share intelligence and professional knowledge. My Ministry is also studying the introduction of new legislation to deal specifically with organised crime. Senior Minister of State Assoc. Prof. Ho will elaborate on this.

I will now address Members' questions on terrorism. Prevention of terrorism continues to be a key focus of our security forces. On the global front, we continue to face serious threats posed be decentralised jihadist terrorist movements. Al-Qaeda's core leadership cadre may have been weakened considerably but its brand of jihadist ideology continues to inspire new generations of extremists. The global landscape is therefore more fragmented but no less dangerous. Recent developments in North Africa and the Middle East also bear watching because of the importance of that region in the fight against terrorism.

Closer to home, there have been a number of successful counter-terrorism operations by regional authorities over the past year. These successes are positive developments. But, as Mr Alvin Yeo has rightly pointed out, they also show that the threat of terrorism in the region remains real and that Singapore must remain vigilant.

Of particular concern are individuals who are radicalised by terrorist ideology without being members of, or even having physical contact with, any terrorist groups. Such seemingly well-adjusted individuals, embarking on terrorist attacks on their own, pose a particular challenge to intelligence operations.

Often, the path to radicalisation for such individuals is through the Internet. Aside from dedicated extremist websites and online forums, terrorist groups are also increasingly making use of new media tools, such as YouTube and MySpace, to propagate their radical ideologies and groom potential operatives across national boundaries.

Significantly, Al-Qaeda and its affiliates, such as Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), are reaching out to a larger audience of aspiring jihadists worldwide, through the use of English and other languages and the publication of snazzy e-zines. We have also observed an increased sharing on the Internet of technical know-how, including instructions on bomb-making and detailed advice on how to launch terrorist attacks.

Given this context, Mr Alvin Yeo, Mr Christopher de Souza and Mr Hri Kumar are right to assert that we cannot afford to let down our guard even though we have been successful in preventing terrorist attacks in the past. In addition to the threat from foreign terrorist groups, Singapore has not been spared from the threat of individuals who are radicalised through exposure to online jihadist material. We have detained four such self-radicalised individuals so far.

Mr Yeo has rightly pointed out that tackling the threat of terrorism cannot be done by any government acting alone. A vigilant and cohesive community plays a crucial role in countering the spread and influence of jihadist ideology. Our community in Singapore must continue to play its part by standing together to reject both terrorist ideologies and activities, as well as remain vigilant against any suspicious happenings. Engaging the community and encouraging public vigilance therefore continues to be a key component of our efforts to maintain national security. Let me outline how the Home Team is doing this in response to Mr Alvin Yeo's question.

Firstly, the Singapore Police Force (SPF) and the Internal Security Department (ISD) conduct security briefings and conferences to reach out to the community to sensitise them to the threat of terrorism. To date, these security briefings have reached out to over 300,000 individuals.

The SPF and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) also leveraged on new media platforms, such as YouTube and Facebook, to spread the message on the need for public vigilance against possible terrorist threats.

In addition, as suggested by Mr de Souza, we have also been conducting regular exercises to expose Singaporeans to emergency situations. For instance, the SCDF conducts scenario-based exercises at various housing estates throughout the year. Referred to as "Emergency Preparedness (EP) Days", these exercises may involve scenarios of a chemical agent attack or a bomb threat, and help to familiarise members of the community with emergency procedures under simulated conditions.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair] ESTIMATES OF EXPENDITURE FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1ST APRIL, 2011 TO 31ST MARCH, 2012 (Paper Cmd. 1 of 2011)

12.15 pm

Another example is the exercise which the Marina Bay Neighbourhood Police Centre conducted with members of the surrounding business community in July 2010. The exercise was based on the scenario of a terrorist bomb attack happening in the heart of the commercial business district and allowed the Home Team as well as the Safety and Security Watchgroup members to test their level of readiness in responding to a crisis situation. We will continue to organise such activities and exercises to raise public awareness and vigilance against terrorist threats.

Mr Arthur Fong asked about the specific public safety and security concerns of Singaporean residents, their security awareness and reactions in times of crisis. Past survey findings suggest that, to the general public, crime is of greater concern than the terrorist threat. This is not surprising, given that we have been fortunate so far to have avoided a large-scale terrorist incident. Past surveys also suggest that there is generally a high level of confidence in the Government and security forces' ability to respond effectively.

In terms of public preparedness for a terrorist incident, slightly more than half of the population indicated that they are prepared for an attack and know what to do in the event of an attack. This is encouraging, but there is room for improvement. Home Team agencies will continue their outreach and educational efforts on this front.

The SPF conducted a recent exercise modelled after the New York Times Square car bomb attempt to get a sense of how the public would react in a similar situation. About 7,200 persons passed within 10 metres of the car. Of the 260 persons who spotted the tell-tale signs emanating from the car, such as smoke coming out from the boot, 52 persons reported the matter to the authorities, while 97 persons expressed their intention to report the matter to the authorities after moving further away from the area. Again, this suggests that more can still be done to enhance public vigilance and involvement. But we should not be discouraged. Given the crucial role of the community, the Home Team will continue its community engagement efforts and find new ways to better prepare Singaporeans for a crisis situation.

As I mentioned earlier, our approach to maintaining national security is multi-pronged, and community engagement is only one part of our efforts. The aspects, besides community engagement, are:

fostering strong intelligence and international co-operation;

ensuring good border security to keep illicit persons and material out of Singapore;

ensuring that our critical infrastructure and other high-profile targets are resilient against attacks through physical security measures or having adequate redundancy to assure business continuity; and

maintaining a swift and effective response capability should an attack occur despite our best preventive efforts.

We have invested in building safety and security capacities, hardening our infrastructure, and preparing for a crisis.

Indeed, in the area of infrastructure protection which Mr de Souza referred to, the Government has taken the lead by requiring all new public sector buildings to incorporate appropriate security features upfront during the design and planning phase. Minimising casualties is a key consideration for these security requirements. Likewise, we are also encouraging private development owners to take responsibility for their own security by incorporating security features during the building design.

Mr de Souza had also asked about the training that our Home Team officers receive to equip them in the fight against terrorism. All Home Team officers are put through counter-terrorism modules in their training at the Home Team Academy. Depending on their deployment, officers may also receive additional specialist training unique to their units. Milestone courses, workshops and briefings are also regularly organised to keep in-service officers abreast of the latest developments in terrorism and counter-terrorism measures. Indeed, given the evolving terrorist threat, MHA must and will continue to invest in the longer term development of our officers.

Let me now turn to border security. Mr Hri Kumar asked what is a reasonable level of security checks and how does the Home Team ensure that tight security is maintained at our borders without significantly inconveniencing travellers or the flow of goods.

What is a reasonable level of security is always a judgment call based on the trade-off between security and efficiency interests. The considerations will vary from country to country based on its operating context and risk appetite. How stringent the level of security measures to be imposed at any point of time is also determined especially by the prevailing threat assessment in the sector in question.

For Singapore, we have a high level of security within Singapore, the country. The threat posed on outbound flights from Singapore is, therefore, generally lower than in many other countries. Nevertheless, when there is a global elevation of the specific security threat level for airports by the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), we will also take the necessary security measures to respond to the heightened threat.

As a transportation hub, hundreds of thousands of people pass through Singapore's checkpoints everyday. Singapore is also one of the world's busiest air and cargo hubs. The high volumes of travellers and goods pose an ongoing challenge in our bid to uphold good security without unduly hurting facilitation.

We have made the point before. We can make it like a fortress, but then can business be conducted? So, it is a balance. Sir, we believe we have gotten the balance right but it is a continuing challenge. Our answer to this challenge, therefore, must be multi-facetted. Let me highlight two ways in which we have addressed the challenge.

The first is the effective use of technology. For example, the Immigration and Checkpoint Authority's enhanced Immigration Automated Clearance System uses biometrics for frequent travellers and Singapore citizens. This automation of the clearance processes has freed up scarce manpower resources which can be deployed to perform other duties. We are constantly on the lookout for new technologies that can help enhance our border security while taking into account potential sensitivities and efficiency needs.

A second component of our response is a concerted emphasis on a risk management approach and an increasing focus on "detection of intent" as a complement to the "detection of means". To enhance the "detection of intent" in a risk-calibrated manner, the Threat-Oriented Passenger Screening Integrated System (TOPSIS) was developed. It involves looking out for Tell-Tale Indicators (TTIs) which could indicate suspicious intent. It has also been designed to systematically co-opt the wider community of stakeholders beyond security personnel to actively contribute to the security screening process. In so doing, the non-security community is able to complement the efforts of the security forces.

Persons displaying TTIs are subjected to more thorough checks, and other travellers do not have to be unduly inconvenienced. TOPSIS adds to our existing efforts to detect "means", ie, weapons or other dangerous items that terrorists could use. This has contributed to a more holistic and robust security framework and helps to address Mr Hri Kumar's concern about screening measures that focus on specific means, particularly after actual incidents.

All these efforts have allowed us to achieve a generally high level of security without severely impeding the movement of people or goods. However, there are limits. During peak periods, about 28,000 travellers go through our land checkpoints every hour. Congestion and delays are therefore inevitable, especially when there are exceptional surges in traffic volume, and particularly on the eves of public holidays and long weekends. This is something we have to accept if we do not want to unduly compromise security.

Singapore continues to be an attractive terrorist target. Mr Alvin Yeo is right to say that the nature of the threat requires that we all pull together and play our parts. There are no absolute guarantees and, certainly, no perfect systems. There will be occasional human lapses. However, I believe that the combined efforts of the Government, the private sector and a vigilant and cohesive community will continue to guard Singapore from the terrorist threat, and continue to keep us safe and secure.

Sir, I will now address the general law and order issues raised by Members, including the suggestions on countering loansharking and organised crime, and enhancing our paramedic training and emergency ambulance service. Although our crime situation is under control, I know that the issues raised by Members, such as crimes against the elderly, loansharking, and crimes relating to the casinos are a concern to the public. Dr Ong Seh Hong is correct when he points out that the elderly are vulnerable to crime. Police works hard to protect our elderly from crime. This includes solving crimes against elderly victims expeditiously and pressing for deterrent sentences when vulnerable groups are targeted. These efforts are bearing fruit. Last year, the number of elderly victims or victims aged 60 and above falling prey to common crimes like robbery, snatch theft and cheating-related cases declined 22%. Lift robberies involving elderly victims fell by 17%. That was a key concern.

Our statistics show that the proportion of victims of crime involving serious hurt who are senior citizens is small. But I agree with Dr Ong that with an ageing population we must monitor crimes against this age group carefully and not rest on our laurels. Part of our efforts must involve raising awareness and educating the elderly on how they can protect themselves against crime. Dr Ong is right that this is best done by working with the community and through their families.

The National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) has appointed more than 180 senior citizens as Crime Prevention Ambassadors. Through informal chit-chat sessions, the elderly are reminded to take precaution against some common crimes, such as phone scams, robbery, theft and pick-pocketing. As for working with younger members of the family, Police, like Dr Ong, sees value in this approach too. It is, therefore, increasingly including in the school talks crime prevention information that students can share with their grandparents. For instance, phone scam was something of concern last year, so the topic of phone scams was included in SPF's school talks so that the students can teach their grandparents how not to fall prey to such scams.

Going forward, Police will continue to work closely with partners on the ground to spread its crime prevention messages to the elderly. There are plans, for example, to work with the National Council of Social Services to engage more VWOs on elderly crime prevention education and also to work with the grassroots. Sir, on loansharks, Mr Heng Chee How, Mr Ang Mong Seng and Mr Christopher de Souza are concerned about the situation. First of all, let me say that our relentless fights against loansharking has yielded positive results. The number of moneylending and harassment cases declined 9.7% from 18,649 cases in 2009 to 16,833 cases last year, reversing an upward trend over the previous few years. In particular, Police received 13% fewer harassment reports. So, given the huge spike in cases from 2007 to 2009, I think these are significant developments. One reason for this improvement are the stiffer penalties introduced by the Moneylenders (Amendment) Act last year. The Courts mete out deterrent sentences, particularly against harassers who damage property or hurt others. These stiff penalties make people think twice before they assist loansharks. Sir, Police has also stepped up enforcement efforts leading to more arrests last year – 1,506 persons, compared to 965 the year before, up 56%. Greater community action has also helped, such as when residents and neighbours remain vigilant, mount patrols and provide useful information to aid intelligence and enforcements. Mr Heng asks if the trend of loansharks using debtors as runners has continued. Sir, the answer is, "yes". Although circumstances for debtors doing so may be diverse, I agree that we must maintain our strong position on this. Debtors who assist loansharks in their illegal activities can expect to face the full brunt of the law. Indeed, every case of loanshark harassment is one too many. Sir, let me now address the suggestions made to fight this scourge. On Mr Heng's suggestion that we issue Community Work Orders against convicted loanshark runners: in our scheme of things, Community Work Orders are generally intended for those who have committed less serious offences where imprisonment is not mandatory. Nevertheless, I agree that they can have a deterrent effect and will not rule out having them as additional sentencing options against loanshark-related offences, going forward. Mr Heng also suggests making convicted loansharks and harassers compensate innocent households and Town Councils for the damage, distress and costs incurred. Sir, with the recent Criminal Procedure Code amendments now in force, I believe the Courts will assess each case on its own merits and may make an order for a convicted loanshark or runner to provide compensation, if appropriate.

12.30 pm

Sir, Mr de Souza expresses concern over the harassment tactics of some loansharks. I agree that being subject to loanshark harassment can indeed be harrowing. Loansharks mainly resort to traditional, cowardly tactics like vandalism, usually turning up when residents are not at home or are fast asleep. Therefore, our challenge is to catch them in the act.

This is why more CCTVs have been judiciously deployed. But let me assure Mr de Souza that, notwithstanding a car-burning case, on the whole, there is no trend to suggest that loansharks are resorting to more aggressive harassment tactics. I agree with him that borrowers must bear some responsibilities for feeding the loansharking industry. Mr de Souza is right that education should be a key focus. As such, we have in place a number of initiatives to educate the public, including potential borrowers, on the negative consequences of borrowing from loansharks.

Family Service Centres organise workshops to help affected loanshark borrowers and, at community outreach events, flyers are distributed and posters put up to spread the message that curbing the loansharking problem is a shared responsibility. VWOs, such as One Hope Centre, Care Corner Counselling Centre and Christian Care Service, are also key partners in deterring potential borrowers because they are there on the ground.

Mr Heng repeats the call to criminalise borrowing from loansharks. Sir, I have dealt with the pros and cons of this before in this House. Our approach is to closely monitor the overall effectiveness of all our enhanced measures before deciding if there is a need to go further by criminalising borrowing. Some have argued that criminalising borrowing may not necessarily solve the problem but instead make it worse. Let us continue to monitor the situation and assess the need for doing so.

Finally, Mr Ang Mong Seng suggests enhanced checks to ensure that requests from persons seeking to change their address at the police stations are legitimate. He opines that this will prevent borrowers from making use of another person's address to borrow money from loansharks.

Sir, first, let me say, it is not easy to falsely declare one's address when purporting to change it. Our regime is sufficiently robust. Indeed, it is an offence to do so. Moreover, the harassment of innocent homes is less likely to be because a false address is given. Rather, harassment is more often the result of a borrower who has moved, leaving the new owner to bear the brunt of the harassment. Indeed, the latest Moneylenders Act amendments last year made harassment resulting from a falsely declared address, a specific offence. We will press for a deterrent sentence should an offender be convicted. Nevertheless, I would like Mr Ang to know that MHA will review with HDB the viability of on-the-spot cross checking.

Sir, despite our best efforts, Police cannot be everywhere all the time to spot and catch loanshark harassers or, for that matter, criminals of other varieties. The community must be vigilant, a theme also propagated in Mr Shanmugam's speech. The community can play its part and watch out for crime in the neighbourhood and alert police where necessary. Mr Arthur Fong and Mr de Souza have also alluded to this point.

Mr Arthur Fong highlights a good example of the community's close involvement and partnership with the Police in taking charge of the security in the neighbourhood. I commend him for taking the lead in this. The Delta Citizenry is part of Clementi's Community Safety and Security Programme (CSSP) which aims to build awareness and mobilise residents in the fight against crime.

Police provides the members in Citizens-On-Patrol (COP) teams with training before they are roped in to conduct regular patrols. In the three months following the inception of the programme to spot and deter loanshark harassers through these residential patrols, loanshark harassment cases declined some 57%.

My message is: everyone can join in the fight against loansharks, either on the ground or, for example, through inputs given to a hotline called the "X Ah Long" hotline launched by the National Crime Prevention Council last year which enables members of the public to provide loanshark related information to the Police.

Indeed, to date, Police have received more than 700 calls, gleaning valuable intelligence on dealing with the loansharks scourge in the local community. Besides the Neighbourhhood Watch Zones and Citizens-On-Patrol teams, which are key pillars in the local community, there are also Safety and Security Watch Groups in the business community.

The numbers of such groups have been increasing. The groups continue to encourage mutual support and assistance amongst stakeholders, like residents, neighbours and businesses. These efforts further enhance the security presence on the ground to ensure the continued safety and security of the community.

Like Mr Arthur Fong, I urge more residents to step forward to contribute proactively to fight crime. There are many models and approaches that residents can take and Police will certainly support these efforts. In this way, together, we can foster an environment where our citizens can feel even safer and more secure.

Sir, Mr Alvin Yeo and Mr de Souza warn that with the casinos, we must remain vigilant against organised crime groups such as drug, vice and money laundering syndicates taking root in Singapore. Let me assure them, firstly, that the casinos have not led to any significant increase in crime, whether organised or otherwise. Since early last year, when the casinos started operations, fewer than 300 casino crime cases have been reported, accounting for only about 1% of overall crime islandwide. The majority of these cases are theft related and cheating cases, involving isolated individuals.

There is no evidence of organised criminal activity in our casinos. Still, the Members are right. We must remain vigilant against organised criminal activity infiltrating the casinos. We have, therefore, put in place a number of robust measures to deter and detect them.

Firstly, under the Casino Control Act and its regulations, casino operators are required to keep the casino operations free from criminal influence. They are required to file reports of suspicious or large transactions by patrons which the Commercial Affairs Department then scrutinises so that any sign of money laundering can be detected early. Failure to do so is cause for disciplinary action which may jeopardise their casino licence.

Second, persons with prior involvement with secret societies, drug trafficking syndicates and vice-related activities are banned from entering the casinos via Police Exclusion Orders to reduce the likelihood of them being involved in crime there.

Sir, as Minister Shanmugam has said, Singapore is susceptible to organised crime taking root here. Hence, whilst our crime situation is now under control, we cannot assume that this will always be so. As Mr Yeo and Mr de Souza pointed out, we need to constantly keep abreast of the situation and ensure that our legislation is up to date. Indeed, even one step ahead. As such, we are exploring the introduction of an Organised Crime Act as a pre-emptive measure. Such a legislation will complement our current levers and strengthen our overall framework against organised crime, especially those with international links. Indeed, we had introduced some features of such an Organised Crime Act in the Moneylenders Act last year. And as mentioned earlier, the establishment of the Interpol Global Complex will be a useful additional resource.

Sir, related to the casinos, Ms Sylvia Lim asks if the Integrated Resorts (IRs) have attracted police officers away from the Police Force and if there has been a brain drain. Sir, let me assure her that this is not the case. Although Police does not track resignations of police officers to join the IRs per se, anecdotal evidence suggests that there have not been many officers joining the IRs. For those who have, this is a positive development as their professional experience and presence will not only keep the IRs safer but also facilitate closer co-operation with the Police. In addition, a few retired officers have joined the IRs as a second career, which is also a positive development.

Sir, the overall manning situation in the Police Force is healthy. It is also the Singapore Police Force's (SPF) continuing priority to attract and retain good police officers. As she knows, SPF conducts regular reviews to ensure that a career with the Force is a fulfilling one, including taking steps to improve career development and academic upgrading opportunities. SPF's resignation rate for last year was a low 2.6%, compared to 4.7% in 2008.

Finally, let me address Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef's point on the out-of-hospital survival rates for cardiac arrests, paramedic training and on plans to work with MOH to improve the Emergency Ambulance Service (EAS). Sir, Assoc. Prof. Fatimah would be aware that the response time of our emergency ambulances is not the only factor affecting cardiac survival rates. In fact, last year, our ambulances achieved the desired response time of 11 minutes for about 85% of the cases, exceeding the target of 80%. Other relevant factors include the patient's clinical history, whether there was delay in calling for the emergency ambulance and whether timely medical intervention could have been applied by bystanders.

Now, on this latter point, the preparedness and capability of bystanders in the community would be crucial to survival rates. Indeed, MHA and SCDF, together with MOH, are working together to invest in our paramedics – and that was the point Assoc. Prof. Fatimah makes – through training and progression options to further enhance their skills and competencies. Under the Continuous Medical Education (CME) programme, regular courses, where lecturers include A&E doctors, are organised for paramedics by the SCDF.

Over the next two to three years, there are also plans to create structured career pathways for the paramedics. This will be a joint effort by MHA and MOH. Sir, our paramedics can rest assured that the SCDF is committed to investing in the individuals' capabilities in tandem with their professional responsibilities.

Sir, technology and infrastructure also play a key role in enhancing the delivery of pre-hospital emergency care. Most ambulances already have direct ECG transmission to emergency departments. SCDF recently launched the DigiPen which allows paramedics to quickly capture case information. Other solutions are currently being developed to support areas such as remote triaging capabilities and a shared electronic healthcare record – an interface between the EAS and the hospitals.

On pre-hospitalisation emergency care: we have been working in close partnership and co-ordination with the relevant stakeholders, including the hospitals, to further strengthen pre-hospitalisation emergency care. There are plans to enhance our existing partnership with MOH to improve the delivery of healthcare throughout the pre-hospital to in-hospital phases. We will continue to leverage on the synergies between the respective strengths of both Ministries to achieve this.

Sir, let me conclude. The Home Team remains resolute in its fight against crime. We will tap technology, train our officers well, keep abreast of trends, and work with the community to achieve this goal. We share Members' commitment to tackling the law and order issues raised today which are close to Singaporeans' hearts.

Sir, I will now touch on the issues raised by Members on traffic, gangs in prisons, initiatives to prevent reoffending and youth offending. Mr Ong Kian Min expressed concern about the number of accidents involving motorcyclists and asked how the take-up rate for the Expressway Familiarisation Ride, otherwise known as EFR, can be improved.

We share Mr Ong's concern about the number of accidents involving motorcyclists. Indeed, he is right to point out that the motorcyclists and pillion riders comprised about 49% of all fatalities and injuries on the road over the five years although, in absolute numbers, there is a downward trend.

This was precisely why we launched the ongoing campaign with Bukit Batok Driving Centre (BBDC) to promote safe riding techniques and introduced a series of "Defensive Riding Theory Lessons" to raise rider competency. We also introduced the EFR last year. The EFR provides all new riders who have just obtained their Class 2B licence with the opportunity to experience riding on our expressways under close supervision of their school driving instructors. Since the launch of the EFR just three months ago, about 40% of newly qualified riders have attended the course. This is encouraging.

There are various incentives in place to encourage the take-up of EFR. Firstly, the course is offered free-of-charge, as pointed out by Mr Ong. Secondly, those who attend the course will also get a faster test date when applying for the Class 2A riding test. Since the EFR was introduced three months ago, Traffic Police have been monitoring the response. Traffic Police will continue to study how we can encourage even more riders to take up the course.

12.45 pm

Mr Ong said that he heard from ground feedback that there is an automatic presumption of fault by the Police against motorcyclists involved in accidents. This is a very serious allegation and I want to assure Mr Ong unequivocally that this is definitely not true. The Traffic Police conduct an impartial and thorough investigation into each individual case to determine the full facts before coming to a conclusion. The parties involved, and witnesses, if any, are interviewed to establish the facts. Traffic Police may, after obtaining all the facts of the case, consult the Attorney-General's Chambers on an appropriate course of action to take. If Mr Ong has any information from anyone to share on cases of unprofessional bias by our investigators, I would be grateful to receive it and to engage such persons.

Sir, ultimately, road safety is everyone's responsibility. All road users, including motorcyclists, must be responsible by following the traffic rules and showing due consideration for other road users. Other road users should also recognise the vulnerability of motorcyclists and keep a look-out for them. With everyone playing their part, we can reduce the lives lost from needless accidents.

I will now address Ms Sylvia Lim's questions on gangs in prisons. The Prison Department has a Zero Tolerance Policy on any conduct that undermines discipline and order of the Prison. All inmates must declare their gang status upon admission and undertake not to participate in gang activities. Prison is constantly on the alert for any gang activity. Former gang members are monitored closely. If they engage in gang-related activities, they will be segregated from the general inmate population and have privileges curtailed. This tough regime curbs gang influence.

The level of gang activity in prisons is low and under control. There is also no evidence to suggest that gang activities are being organised along racial lines, or that Prison has become a recruitment ground for gangs.

Ms Lim cited academic papers suggesting that gangs are still active in prisons. We are not sure how current Ms Lim's information is, as some of the research on this could be dated. As I have mentioned, we have the Zero Tolerance Policy in place and we are determined to ensure that our prisons remain gang-free and safe. We are not naive. There will be some inmates who will try to recruit new gang members in prisons but we will stop them and punish severely those who breach our Zero Tolerance Policy. As I said earlier, the gang situation is under control, and we know that we have not let gangs take control of our prisons. If Ms Lim has evidence to the contrary, we would like her to show us the information and put us in contact with the researchers, so that we can interview them to find out why they think so.

Indeed, the Singapore Prison Service is mindful that prisons are not run along gang rules and have put the proper staff training and supervision in place to prevent and detect gang activities. Gang recruitment within Prison is a very serious offence and prisons will come down hard on any such activity.

As Ms Lim mentioned, Prison has a Gang Renunciation Programme where inmates can publicly renounce their gang affiliations at a ceremony attended by prison staff and other inmates. We have a number of measures to prevent former inmates from being hurt, or victimised by other inmates, or upon their release. Inmates, who have renounced their gang affiliations, can approach Prison officers for assistance if they receive threats or intimidation from former gang members. If they are threatened by gangs after their release, they can get direct help from CID's Secret Societies Branch.

On Ms Lim's final question, it does not appear that gang affiliation has been a major cause of recidivism. In fact, the majority of those who reoffend commit offences that are unrelated to gang activities.

Sir, ensuring that ex-offenders are not pressured by gangs is but one aspect of after-care. Mr de Souza and Mr Hri Kumar have rightly pointed out that ex-offenders may be unable to meet their basic needs after they are released from prison, whether they are youths or adults. We have put in place a comprehensive system to identify the employment, accommodation, financial and family needs of inmates early while they are still in prison and follow through after their release.

For example, the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE), a statutory board under the Ministry, provides employment assistance for offenders and ex-offenders. SCORE provides inmates with employability skills training and job coaching during their imprisonment to prepare them for the workplace. The Industrial and Services Cooperative Society (ISCOS), a co-operative initiated by MHA, also provides employment assistance to ex-offenders through supporting skills training. SCORE and ISCOS proactively reach out to potential employers to source for job opportunities for ex-offenders. Last year, 1,200 inmates were matched to jobs after their release by SCORE. Another 220 secured jobs through SCORE within a month after their release.

Mr de Souza asked if MHA will consider initiating a government-community framework, to provide job assistance for ex-offenders. Prison and SCORE currently work with community partners, such as CDCs and e-2i, to share details of potential employers. We encourage the participation of grassroots organisations and CDCs in this effort, whether by pointing the ex-offenders to where they can get help for skills training, or by broadening the base of supportive employers willing to give ex-offenders a second chance in the workplace. The solution is not just to have a formalised framework but to nurture a community of employers ready to give ex-offenders a second chance. This is what we hope to achieve with the Yellow Ribbon Project.

As for ex-offenders who are unable to find shelter, the Residential After-Care Support programme funded by the Yellow Ribbon Fund provides temporary shelter for up to a period of six months after their release. This gives them some time to find their own accommodation. Prisons and SCORE actively refer those in need of assistance to the programme.

Sir, institutionalised measures cannot comprehensively address the multi-faceted reintegration needs of ex-offenders. As Dr Maliki pointed out, there are more intangible forms of support that have to come from the family and the community. Thus, the Committee on the Prevention of Reoffending (CPR), which I chaired last year, suggested a number of initiatives to enhance the involvement of families and peers in the rehabilitation of an offender. I will give an update as requested by Dr Maliki.

First, Prison, with the assistance of the Singapore After-Care Association (SACA), piloted the Community Befriending Project in August 2010 to provide peer support for offenders. Under this programme, offenders and volunteers establish a mentoring relationship that begins in prison, through letter-writing and visits, and continues after release. 40 offenders and 38 trained befrienders are currently participating in the pilot. We will expand the project this year.

Second, we are doing more to enhance support for families of offenders. For example, under the grassroots-led Community Outreach Project, coordinated by the Singapore Anti-Narcotics Association (SANA), grassroots volunteers will visit the families of inmates and help them to link with relevant avenues of social assistance. This reassures the offenders that the community is providing support for his family, while he focuses on his rehabilitation in prison. About 50 offenders have agreed to participate in the pilot thus far, and we plan to expand it this year. SACA and SANA will also be shifting towards a more family-centric case-management approach to provide assistance for the offender's family, in addition to the offender himself.

Our after-care programmes rely heavily on the support of the community, especially volunteers, to ensure continuity and effectiveness. When we set out the recommendations, we knew that a key challenge faced in the implementation of the various initiatives is the need for more volunteers to assist in the rehabilitation of offenders. We are heartened therefore that in 2010, we saw nearly 300 new prison volunteers come forward to support Prisons' rehabilitation efforts. We hope to reach out to more volunteers in the coming year.

(In Malay): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A*.] The Malay community has recorded good progress in the efforts to reduce the re-offending rate in the past few years. The solid support from the community, especially volunteers who have lent help to Prison and SCORE in the after-care programmes and in providing moral support to ex-offenders after their release from prison, made this success possible. Last year, the Community on Preventing Reoffending proposed a number of initiatives to mobilise volunteer support more effectively, including a number of initiatives to further enhance the involvement of volunteers from the Malay-Muslim community. The aim is to reach out to ex-offenders, offer them shelter, help them find jobs, obtain social assistance, and offer them the social support and motivation to remain free from crime in the appropriate way, depending on their backgrounds. For example, in September 2010, Pergas and Mendaki launched an intensive religious counselling programme for Malay-Muslim inmates. Under the programme, Pergas volunteers provide counselling services and intensive religious guidance grounded on lifeskills for inmates who want to take part in the programme.

Besides providing for the spiritual needs of the inmates, the programme also helps them build a positive attitude, so that they can re-integrate into the community. Such a programme cannot be conducted without the contributions of volunteers who understand the cultural backgrounds of the inmates and their rehabilitative needs. Furthermore, these volunteers often are also active at Malay-Muslim organisations and the mosques, and these facilities could provide sustained support for the social needs of the former inmates after their release.

There were 44 new Malay-Muslim volunteers in 2010 and we hope more volunteers will come forward to help us further step up our after-care and rehabilitation services for the Malay-Muslim community.

(In English): To make volunteering meaningful, we will provide opportunities for volunteers to develop and strengthen their expertise. Prison, SACA and the Social Service Training Institute have implemented a structured training framework for prison volunteers. Since January 2010, more than 500 prison volunteers have received basic training that equips them with knowledge and skills in working with inmates.

Sir, to fight against crime, it is equally important to tackle problem youths upstream and ensure that they stay on the right path. We have a spectrum of measures calibrated according to the different target groups. First, we regularly disseminate crime prevention messages to youths generally. Second, we proactively identify those at risk of offending and, together with other partners, offer them help. Third, for those who have entered the criminal justice system, we have a range of programmes to reform them and prevent re-offending. Let me now elaborate on each of these and how we interface with the MOE and MCYS, to ensure that our approach is a holistic one.

One way of encouraging youths to stay away from crime is by educating them on the consequences of offending. Our partner, the National Crime Prevention Council, is very active in this. In addition, for schools, the Police Liaison Officers (PLOs) of our NPCs regularly conduct crime prevention talks and road shows for school students in schools. Specially-trained Honorary Volunteer Special Constables are also stationed at schools to manage discipline and extend a symbol of authority. We will do more, to strengthen this cooperation and increase its effectiveness.

In addition, we also have in place mechanisms to identify at-risk youth to offer guidance and support and to intervene early, before they become a social menace. This was a concern raised by Dr Maliki. Indeed, the programmes Mr Hri Kumar illustrated are certainly of interest to us and we will look into them to study whether they are replicable in our context.

First, Police maintains close links with schools to keep abreast of youth trends on the ground, to spot problem youths and intervene early. Mr Liang Eng Hwa will be happy to know that just last month, MHA, MCYS and MOE organised a symposium for more than 400 school principals, youth workers and police officers to share information on youth crime and drug trends. If Mr Liang has any information to share on gangs waiting outside schools to recruit students into gangs, he can pass the information to us for the Police to follow up. We can also extend this network of cooperation that the Police already have with the grassroots in Mr Liang's ward into the tripartite protocol that we are strengthening across these three Ministries.

*Cols. 4527-4528.

1.00 pm

Last year, Police also worked with schools in the Ang Mo Kio area to identify 180 at-risk students who were put through a series of counselling sessions, anti-gang talks and leadership camps. After the programme, the participants were monitored and given additional mentoring where necessary. This project has been successful in helping at-risk youths stay away from crimes. Police will be rolling out similar projects with schools in other areas, including those in Mr Liang's area.

Second, to address specifically the problems of youth gangs, we are exploring giving Police additional powers to disrupt loose gang associations as early as possible. I am chairing an inter-agency working group, comprising members from MHA, MCYS and MOE, to study measures to deal with youth gangs, including the additional powers mentioned. We will announce our recommendations when ready.

Third, as Mr Hri Kumar and Mr de Souza have pointed out, youth crime is as much a social problem as it is a law and order issue. Thus, where necessary, we refer youths to social agencies which are better equipped to tackle the social risks. For an integrated approach, MHA works with the Central Youth Guidance Office under MCYS and the National Committee on Youth Guidance and Rehabilitation to share information, enhance and coordinate preventive and rehabilitative programmes to tackle youth offending holistically.

Lastly, while we do our best to make sure that our youths stay on the right path, we must expect that there are some bad apples who will be undeterred. We will not hesitate to take them to task if they become a social menace. These youths may be sent to the reformative training centre where they undergo a rigorous regime of strict discipline and rehabilitation programmes to address their offending behaviour and enhance their personal development and family relations. Upon release, they are placed on supervision so that any sign of them re-drifting into crimes can be detected and addressed promptly. Last year, Prisons and ISCOS also piloted a Peer Mentoring Programme for a small group of RT releasees where they receive mentoring and encouragement from rehabilitated ex-offenders to remain crime-free. There are plans to expand such mentorship programmes over time.

Sir, while the Government will do its best, parents and families bear ultimate responsibility for keeping their children out of crime. They must pay attention to their children's activities, be alert to tell-tale signs of delinquency, seek help for their children early and play an active role in their children's rehabilitation if they have been caught offending. To this end, my working group is also looking into ways to enhance parents' involvement in upstream intervention measures and rehabilitation.

Sir, let me conclude on these cuts. We will continue to adopt a holistic approach in tackling youth offending and reducing re-offending. Ultimately, the Home Team will need the continued support of the community to keep Singapore a safe home for all of us.

Sir, I just like to clarify the point on the Community Work Orders. I made the recommendation that convicted loanshark runners be made to serve out Community Work Orders not as a softer sentencing option but in addition to any fines, jail or caning they may receive so that they may be unmasked and their identity be known to the public, that is, face social pressure, and they be made to clear up the mess that they create.

I am happy to note the resolute stance outlined by Senior Minister of State on organised crime. I just wonder if he could shed light on any specific measures being taken, for instance, beefing up our Organised Crime section, additional training and intelligence links to combat the new phenomenon of these sophisticated trans-national criminal syndicates.

Sir, as we have said in our speeches, organised crime in the form that exists in many other countries does not exist in Singapore. There is organised crime where you have got criminal syndicates which are well-organised, engaged in diverse activities, connected and also embedded in society. Some countries in South America and Central America are examples. But having said this, we do have organised groups of people in Singapore who perpetrate crime, like loansharks. That is one good example of organised crime, and even illegal betting syndicates. We have taken our approach in fighting loansharks as a forerunner. Our police officers are better trained. Also, we had introduced some features of organised crime in the Moneylenders Act last year. For example, how to get around the layering effect. This is something we have talked about quite consistently. We want to get gang members to squat on one another, especially those who are co-accused persons who would testify against, hopefully, somebody higher up. That is important. And they may be given a certificate of indemnity against prosecution.

How to disrupt proceeds is another issue that we have thought about in the Moneylenders Act. We will think through further when we enact the Bill. So in the Moneylenders Act, we had introduced a freezing order. We can, for example, enhance that to make it a confiscation order in the Organised Crime Bill. The Organised Crime Bill will have extra-territorial reach and also aspects where countries can cooperate with each other through mutual assistance.

We will do what it takes to send a very strong message – as we have done with the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act – that organised criminal activity should not come in. These are just examples. Another feature that we are looking at will be: if anybody commits an existing offence in the Penal Code that is for the benefit of the organised crime group or in association with organised crime group, he or she will get an enhanced punishment. So, these are some of the features.

Sir, one clarification for Minister of State Mr Masagos. He mentioned in his reply to my cut that the Ministry was not sure how updated the studies that I referred to were, that is, the studies that mentioned gang activities in prison. One of the studies which I have is actually dated 2010 and I will send him the study which is publicly available for his assessment.

Now, one clarification for Senior Minister of State concerning loanshark cases: I appreciate the concerted effort taken to confront this problem. I wonder if he could tell us whether it is standard operating procedure for the Police to attend to every complaint of harassment, that is, splashing of paint or graffiti. I have ground feedback that sometimes the Police does not even attend to the case.

Sir, Police will work together with the community to fight loansharks. It depends on the situation. For example, if a person who has been harassed several times and he calls the Police, Police may not come immediately because, in a sense, the harassment is over. The paint is there on the door. I distinguish that from a call where somebody says "Hey, there is somebody lurking around." Or where people on patrol say that "I have seen somebody who has got paraphernalia that may be associated with loansharks". I think, in those cases, Police will respond very quickly. But the point to note is that Police knows that, especially for innocent households, they face a harrowing experience. Other than just responding to calls, what is a better approach will be a collective effort, including technology, such as judicious use of CCTV. For example, if the household is innocent, or if there are vulnerable victims in the household, or if the harassment features aggressive tactics, then the Police may deploy its CCTV at no cost to the house owner. I will highlight Mr Arthur Fong's input about Delta Citizenry. I think that is the key. If residents in the block show resolve to tackle loansharking, it will have a very strong impact on the ground.

Mr Chairman, Sir, thank you to the Ministry of Home Affairs for its comprehensive reply. I have three clarifications.

The first is in relation to anti-terrorism measures. It is good that we are kept up to date where the officers are concerned with technology. Would the Minister consider sending officers overseas for understudying after a terrorist attack has hit that city there so that we can find out how those anti-terrorism agencies overseas work backwards to detect how the terrorist attack happened and, in so doing, help us in our prevention and detection exercises on local soil?

The second clarification is in relation to unlicensed moneylending. The reversal of the trend is excellent from 18,000 to 16,000, and it also reversed an increase, so that is very positive. However, my clarification is how significant has the legislation been after its enhancement to catch the syndicate operators upstream? If we topple the apex, then the numbers would really decrease significantly.

My third and last clarification, Mr Chairman, Sir, is in relation to organised crime. If I could ask Assoc. Prof. Ho, because of the cross border nature of organised crime, how would the legislation be tweaked to reach out and criminalise aiding and abetting from overseas as the masterminds are always inevitably overseas?

Sir, I would like to thank the previous clarification by Ms Sylvia Lim who pointed us to the study she says that was done in 2010. Just a clarification. We want to know whether it was done in 2010 or published in 2010. Because any study done on prisons and prisoners would have been done with the consent and cooperation of the Singapore Prison services. We would have pointed them to the prisoners that they wanted to interview. And to ensure that there is objectivity in their study, we would have given them the primary data to compare against the situation on the ground, within the prisons, as well as in the society.

Sir, the report is dated 2010. Exactly when the data was collected, I will have to go and search on that. The report is dated 2010.

Sir, I think it would be useful for Ms Lim to confirm that. Because a number of steps that the Minister of State pointed out were put in place over the last few years. So, if you are relying on outdated data, then of course that would not deal with the points he made.

Turning to Mr de Souza's points. The first question was: would we consider sending officers overseas to understudy, as he put it, when terrorist incidents have taken place overseas? The SPF does not quite understudy but we send our team of professionals overseas to both learn from other agencies on a regular basis as well as when incidents have taken place unfortunately. We look at it and go and find out what happened, how it happened and, given our excellent relationships with many international agencies, we are able to get access and use thoes learning points. We certainly do that. I assure him.

Secondly, if I may take the other two questions. On unlicensed money lenders: Mr de Souza pointed out the reversal of the trend and he asked how significant has our legislation been in catching top people. I think Mr de Souza would appreciate, Members would appreciate, that our reach is national. If the masterminds are outside of Singapore, then the reach becomes a little bit more difficult. He has our assurance that this legislation has given us substantial teeth to deal with people who were previously outside the purview and the ambit of the law and that certainly keeps people very alert. It has led to an increased number of arrests. It has led us to becoming more effective. But if it is organised in a way that where some people are outside Singapore, then there is a limitation that we have to acknowledge.

1.15 pm

Thirdly, on organised criminal acts, the Member asked how legislation could be tweaked to reach masterminds outside. I think Mr de Souza and other Members will appreciate these are dependent on the evidence we have, the level of international cooperation but certainly, for an Organised Crime Act (OCA), it will have to have extra-territorial reach.

Sir, I would like to make a clarification about Traffic Police investigation regarding motorcyclists. Some months ago, one of my residents came to see me at the Meet-the-People session (MPS). He was riding on the road on his motorcycle, a car cut into his path and he took evasive action. He landed in the drain, I think. If I remember correctly, these were the facts. He was sent to hospital and was hospitalised. No other party was involved. It was a single-party accident. He was then served with a summons for careless riding. He felt victimised because he was the victim – he was hospitalised – the car sped away. He could not get the vehicle number of the car.

But that was not the case that I was referring to when I raised those points in my speech. Quite recently, I was having a gathering with friends, a motorcyclist friend came late. It was a wet and rainy night. He arrived late, he was bloodied, blood all over his body. Apparently, on the way to the meeting, he skidded on the road markings – single party, no other drivers were involved, he injured himself but he was well enough not to be sent to the hospital. I said, "Look, you are injured. Why don't you go to the hospital." He said he would rather not because his fear was that the Police would give him a summons for careless driving. Someone in the party in my group said "yes", a few months ago he was also injured in a motorcycle accident, broke his ankle in two places but there was a fear and he waited for two days before going to the hospital to seek treatment.

My point in raising this is: among the motoring community there is this fear, whether it is real or perceived, that they should not seek medical treatment immediately in case the Police were to issue them with a summons for careless driving. I want to thank the Minister of State for making that clarification and the assurance to the motorcyclist community.

Sir, I think Mr Ong has given two illustrations. The second seems to be hearsay upon hearsay but let me try and deal with it. On the first, he said somebody was almost hit by a car and he was given a summons and felt upset but that is not the instance he is referring to. It is not unusual that some people who get summoned by the Police feel upset. I can assure him, as I have assured the House, that it is a very serious allegation to suggest that the presumption is used by the Police or the Attorney General's Chambers – who would have to authorise prosecutions – which is not provided for in law. That is illegal and we do not do things like that. I think there is a responsibility to be very careful about looking at these things before raising the suggestion. It cannot be based on the fact that someone felt that he or she was victimised.

Second example that Mr Ong has given, that a friend came late to a party and did not want to go to the hospital because he feared being given a summons. Sir, if anything, the calls have been for us to raise the presumption in favour of motorcyclists. LTA has looked at it, we have looked at it and we found that in about half the cases that have been dealt with, the motorcyclists were at fault and, in the other half, obviously, the others were at fault. And, therefore, we felt that we cannot lay down a presumption in law that the motorcyclists are always right or at least the presumption in law, and that the other party is at fault. It is quite the reverse to suggest that, in practice, we are treating motorcyclists as being at fault.

If Mr Ong wishes to specifically follow up on this case, I suggest that he writes in. We will certainly investigate the specific facts. But even on his recounting, it seems to be a subjective perception by someone who then relies on a few other people saying that they also perceived it in the same way. I think, though, that that is very far away from saying it as a matter of fact.

Sir, on the first case, as I said, my resident approached me at the MPS. I wrote to the Traffic Police to appeal for him. I am sure the Traffic Police would look into that appeal and reply to that resident accordingly.

The two other cases were not based on hearsay upon hearsay because those were personal encounters by these two friends. They narrated to me their personal encounters, first hand. The point I am trying to make is that there is a fear, whether it is real or perceived, among the motorcyclist community. I just want to ask the Minister to give the assurance to them that that is not the case. For careless driving offences, these are not serious enough to warrant the matter being referred to the Attorney General. Usually, they are investigated by the Traffic Investigation section in the Traffic Police and the summons would then be issued to the alleged offender. I would like just to ask the Minister to assure the motorcyclist community that the Police would not be making such simple investigations regarding such cases.

Let me assure the Member, Mr Ong, once again, there is no presumption and there is no automatic prosecution by the Police if a person goes to hospital for a motorcycle accident, whatever reason that is. We will only prosecute if there is enough evidence to do so. In fact, my own experience: I fell, skidded on a road once on oil slick, went to hospital, got stitches on my chin and that is perhaps why I keep a beard now. There was no prosecution or any letter from the Police.

Sir, the Minister has mentioned the Home Team is well prepared in terms of training and technological preparation, pertaining to terrorism. Can I just ask the Minister: when it comes to psychological preparedness, how well prepared are we? We know that these situations with terrorism can indeed be situations of high stress. How prepared are our officers to handle these? It is not an easy matter to handle.

Sir, I think Assoc. Prof. Fatimah Lateef is specifically referring to the officers within Home Team and, if that is her question, the way we prepare them is: first of all, when you rise up the ranks, you are assessed on a number of factors, including your abilities but also your psychological ability to respond to crisis situations. By the time you reach a certain senior rank, you are assessed to have those qualities. Second, of course, the training is multi-faceted and would involve dealing with these situations, both in terms of simulating these events and taking the officers through and preparing them. Preparation is vital and key in these things. I can assure Members that this is an aspect that we take seriously.

Mr Chairman, Sir, I thank the Minister, Senior Minister of State and Minister of State for their reassuring replies and beg leave to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $3,029,226,200 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $264,190,600 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.

Head R – Ministry of Law

Legal services sector

Mr Chairman, Sir, I beg to move,

That the total sum to be allocated for Head R of the Estimates be reduced by $100.

The legal services sector continues to play the key role in positioning Singapore as a leading financial hub and international service centre. The rule of law and the breadth and depth of legal talent here are regularly cited in international surveys, ranking Singapore as one of the freest and most competitive economies.

Over the last few years, the Ministry has announced sweeping initiatives to spur the growth of the legal sector. These included the granting of licences to practise Singapore law to qualifying foreign law practices (QFLPs) and measures taken to enhance the attractiveness of Singapore as an arbitration centre. A number of years on, I would like to ask for the Minister's view as to whether these initiatives have borne fruit and whether we should revise, modify or even accelerate them.

Taking the licences granted to QFLPs first. As luck would have it, these were granted at the end of 2008 just as the world was reeling from the global financial crisis. The key factor for the granting of licences was the QFLPs' business plans to increase the manpower base here, the service products they would offer here and the turnover in terms of number of transactions in business from their offices based in Singapore. The crisis has undoubtedly put a dent in those plans but now that the worst is over and most of Asia, including Singapore, have recovered strongly, the question is whether the QFLPs have lived up to their promises or be delayed by the onset of the crisis. After all, it is this concomitant benefit to Singapore from the QFLPs routing more business here that was the rationale for granting them the freedom to practise Singapore law and compete directly with local firms. This should continue to be an important consideration in deciding whether, when and how many more QFLP licences should be issued.

Turning now to Singapore as an arbitration centre. Impressive progress has been made in this direction over the last few years. The International Chamber of Commerce (ICC) opening a regional office here, the arrival of various top-notch sets of English barristers to set up chambers or offices in Singapore, the inauguration of Maxwell Chambers as a venue for arbitration hearings par excellence have given Singapore a significant boost. The number and value of cases that are heard in Singapore, including by the Singapore International Arbitration Centre (SIAC), have grown steadily each year. Singapore has more new ICC arbitration matters than Hong Kong, while disputes from India, in particular, have climbed, indicating that we are becoming one of the venues of choice for India-related arbitral disputes. What more can be done? We need to identify the sources for arbitration work beyond India and try to market our not-inconsiderable capabilities to them.

China-related disputes are not so frequently resolved in Singapore. We should try to improve on that. We need to continuously review our arbitration laws and the SIAC rules to ensure that they stay in tune with modern commercial practice. We must aim to build up the talent pool of lawyers who can act as arbitration counsels or as arbitrators. At the same time, other regional centres like Hong Kong, and even closer home, Kuala Lumpur, are ramping up their efforts. I hope the Minister can enlighten us on the steps being taken to grow our presence as an arbitration centre and to stay one step ahead of the regional competition.

Singapore – a global legal hub

Mr Chairman, Sir, the opening of a dedicated international arbitration facility, Maxwell Chambers, has made Singapore a regional arbitration hub. I have had the pleasure of acting as counsel in Maxwell Chambers and I agree and echo what Mr Alvin Yeo has said of it being an institution par excellence.

Due to our Government's support, excellent infrastructure, our track record in enforcing arbitration agreements and reputation for integrity and impartiality, we are rising rapidly to be a premier arbitration hub in Asia. Many local and foreign law firms have upgraded their arbitration capabilities here. Will the Minister for Law consider leveraging on this development to make Singapore not just a regional legal hub but a global legal hub for arbitration and non-contentious legal work?

1.30 pm

State land

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak on my cut.

In a small constituency like Potong Pasir, we have a few agencies involved in the maintenance and upkeep of State land, HDB land which are classified as non-common property. Agencies involved are namely Land Transport Authority (LTA), National Parks (NParks), National Environment Agency (NEA), Singapore Land Authority (SLA), Housing and Development Board (HDB), Citizens' Consultative Committee (CCC), Public Utilities Board (PUB) and SBS Transit (SBS).

I also understand that one agency may engage other agencies for doing certain maintenance work. My point is that the maintenance and upkeep of land maintained by other agencies might be more cost efficient but it is increasingly difficult to get simple routine works like cleaning and regular maintenance done. The public, including residents, are often mistaken that the Town Council did not pay enough attention to this problem.

I would suggest that for every land site which does not belong to the common property, signboards be placed to state the ownership including contact telephone numbers for any feedback. In particular, LTA, HDB, NEA and NParks should also conduct regular supervision and ensure proper upkeep of their respective areas.

Mr Chairman, may I take my two cuts together?

Yes, take your two cuts together, please.

One Map

Mr Chairman, Sir, I was pleased to learn of the launch OneMap last year. I applaud the SLA for this move. It suggested to me that our public agencies are at the cutting edge of technology as well. Civil servants can no longer be seen as drape and boring. As a result of Civil Service innovations, formerly state and unused premises such as Dempsey, Rochester, are being revitalised with new and exciting eating and drinking places. The OneMap is another pro-business and pro-public enterprise initiative.

More public agencies can take the cue from SLA and introduce such innovations to liven up Singapore. For OneMap, I am particularly pleased that the Government agency is sharing with the public information that they have. What is more noteworthy is that it is easily accessible and user-friendly. Indeed, applying technology to geospatial information can potentially benefit the public and community in many ways. Businesses can take advantage and create value-added services. Indeed, I hope businesses may spin off as a result.

I would like the Ministry to provide an update of the usage of OneMap, if any, to add more services. I personally have put OneMap on my homescreen in my iPhone and found the level of detail to be very high. I have seen on the OneMap SERS flats that have not come up in Clementi already on the application.

I would also like to check with the Ministry on the positioning of OneMap. There are other providers of one online maps and there are businesses which already provide value-added location-based services to the public, for example, Maps Buddy on the iPhone. Can the Minister assure that OneMap would not crowd out these other developers and if there any other collaborations in the works?

Fostering creativity

Mr Chairman, my second cut. As Singapore makes good strides towards being a knowledge-based economy, it is important that we, as a nation, continue to innovate and leverage on our intellectual capital. I understand that towards this end, the Government has invested substantially to help businesses to increase productivity and innovation. But many of our companies, especially the small and medium-sized companies may not fully realise the importance of exploiting their intellectual property rights.

For instance, intellectual property rights is not an everyday issue that companies seek help with at the Chambers of Commerce and industries. If they do, some may not know how to fully do so. I would like to know whether the Government has invested enough to build up the ability of our local companies to deal with intellectual property especially when 99% of our businesses are SMEs.

Also, while help is available for businesses in regard to innovation and increasing productivity, I would like to know if the Government is doing something to help individuals. I believe that Singaporeans are creative lot, increasingly so amongst our youths. I know that many polytechnics students are devoting their free time to create apps compatible with the iPhone. But at the national level, we need a conducive environment and framework to stimulate this creativity. We have in our midst, individual inventors who have ideas but do not know how to develop their ideas so that they can be brought to the market. Does the Government have plans to help them take ideas further? Are there multiple agencies that the individual or companies have to deal with or is there a one-stop shop in the works?

Legal Aid Bureau

Sir, in 2008 I had raised the issue of the Legal Aid Bureau during the Committee of Supply debates. I had asked the Ministry to consider revising the limits set for the means test that all applicants for legal aid are subject to.

The number of people that are in need of free legal services is on the rise. I frequently find residents in search of legal advice at my Meet-The-People sessions. Some may say that that is because I am a lawyer but the free legal clinics that are organised by the CDCs in conjunction with the Law Society of Singapore and various other legal clinics are also very popular, and the numbers are growing. Clearly, there is a demand. To that end, the Legal Aid Bureau has also seen a steady increase in the number of cases. In order to qualify for legal aid, one must satisfy two tests. The means test and the merits test.

The merits test is a test that determines whether the applicant has good reason to bring or defend a case under the law. The means test determines whether an applicant qualifies for legal aid based on his disposable income and disposable capital. The current limit for each of these is $10,000. The factors which determine whether an applicant qualifies under the means test are fairly complex, and involve a review of the income of both the applicant and his or her spouse, less certain deductions, and the value of the applicant's property. I do not intend to go into the details but I would like to ask the Ministry to consider the following.

First, I would ask the Minister to consider a review of the limit of $10,000. Based on latest statistics, the average income of households is on the rise. This does not necessarily mean that they are better off as inflation is escalating as well. The Budget has set out a slew of measures to help Singaporeans combat the effects of rising costs. This has seen increases in the monthly amount given out under the Public Assistance Scheme and the income limits for KiFAS and CFAC go up. Would it not therefore be a good time to also review the limits for the means test for legal aid applicants?

My second point is to ask the Ministry to consider giving the Director of the Bureau more discretion in certain cases. Take, for example, the case of a housewife who has stayed at home to raise her children while her husband has worked to support the family. If their marriage breaks down and the husband files for a divorce, the housewife may have no choice but to seek Legal Aid. In determining her disposable income, the Bureau will take into account her husband's income, less certain deductions. But when a marriage breaks down, that housewife may no longer have the benefit of her husband's income, and she cannot get maintenance unless she gets legal aid first. Further, even if she may have a life insurance policy purchased by her husband for the benefit of her children, is it fair to take that into account in the situation of a divorce? Is it fair to take into account what little savings she may have put away and which may be the only money she has to see her through after the divorce?

I would ask the Minister to consider giving the Director more discretion to grant legal aid in different circumstances. Alternatively, provide different parameters for different types of cases.

Pro bono legal services

Sir, my next cut. During the recent debate in this House on the Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill, I raised the issue of continuing professional development to be administered by the newly formed Institute of Legal Education. Aside from enquiring as to the format I spoke about pro bono legal work becoming part of the continuing professional development.

The reaction from the legal fraternity was indeed varied. Follow-up reports in the press highlighted that the majority of lawyers interviewed felt that pro bono legal work ought not to be mandated as it should come from the heart. Other lawyers who spoke to me directly felt that it was a good idea. What was heartening to note was that most of the profession felt that lawyers ought to do some pro bono legal work. What we disagreed on was how to accomplish that.

There are several ways in which the lawyers can lend their expertise and provide pro bono legal services. For instance, the Law Society of Singapore operates a Pro Bono Services Office that is an initiative to help bring free legal assistance to people in our community who are in need. Other venues like the CDCs which run legal aid clinics with the Law Society and of course, at Meet-the-People sessions.

The Law Society of Singapore has approximately 3,500 members. In 2006, a collaborative commitment by the Singapore legal profession was made to donate at least 25 hours per lawyer per year towards pro bono work. That works out to about 80,000 hours of free legal services for the community, or less than one hour per month per lawyer. Regrettably, as reported in the Straits Times, figures provided by the Law Society show that approximately 3,500 lawyers declared only some 35,000 hours of pro bono work. That is less than 50% of the target.

I feel that something needs to be done and if it is not to be mandated, then perhaps an alternative proposition might be to allow pro bono legal services to be credited within the professional development framework. For example, if a points system is to be implemented for continuing professional development, can lawyers be given credit for this, say, up to a maximum of 20%? This is one way that we can credit lawyers who are already doing pro bono work and encourage lawyers who are not doing pro bono to do some pro bono work. I hope the Minister will consider this suggestion.

Moneylenders

Sir, the legalised moneylending, apart from financial institutions in Singapore, has its roots in the Nagarathar community. In early days of Singapore, they set up shops and lend money to businesses along Singapore River. These moneylenders would sit crossed-legged next to their pettagam or chests where they kept their money. This was how it looked like in those days [a photo was shown to hon. Members].

The moneylending business has certainly transformed itself. Today, legal moneylenders are regulated by an Act of Parliament – the Moneylenders Act. Indeed, recent amendments to the Act have modernised the moneylending regime. In turn, easier access to licensed moneylenders has helped to stem the scourge of illegal moneylending or "Ah Long ", where as we just heard in the MHA Committee of Supply debate, the number of cases has dropped. However, there is no cap on the rate of the interest and the various charges the legal moneylenders may impose. In my view, the reported interest rate and the various charges charged by some moneylenders are still too high.

In this regard, would Minister re-consider introducing a cap? Without a cap on how much interest or fees moneylenders may charge, some argue that they are no different from "Ah Longs " or loansharks.

Very often, the people who borrow from these moneylenders would have already maxed out their credit lines. They may have also already owed credit card companies a lot of money. As such, would Ministry consider increasing borrowers' education on their rights and what they should know before borrowing, such as pitfalls of borrowing beyond their means? Can the Ministry make this education compulsory?

1.45 pm

Community mediation

(In Mandarin): [For vernacular speech, please refer to Appendix A *.] The Community Mediation Centre (CMC) has been dealing with community disputes for more than 10 years now. But there are some Singaporeans who still do not know that the CMC exists to help them. Would the Ministry consider doing more publicity on the work of the CMC, especially through new online media?

I have come across constituents who are willing to mediate their disputes through CMC. However, the other party simply refuses to attend the mediation session. It can be very frustrating for everybody, including my grassroots’ leaders who chip in to help. Often, only one in 10 cases was satisfactorily resolved. These constituents have no choice but to try other methods of resolving their problems. They would request agencies like HDB, Town Council or the Police to intervene. At times when the nature of the problem did not fall within the purview of these agencies, the constituents ended up coming back to us to vent their frustration. Would the Ministry consider making community mediation compulsory, instead of leaving it voluntary like the way it is now?

*Cols. 4529-4530.

Sir, I thank the Members who have spoken. I will respond to Members' questions on the legal services sector, arbitration and legal aid, and Assoc. Prof. Ho will answer the other questions.

Mr Alvin Yeo asked about the impact of recent initiatives to spur the growth of the legal sector and whether these initiatives should be revised or accelerated. The legal sector in Singapore is an important cornerstone in our efforts to develop as a financial services hub, and as a regional and international base for local and foreign multinational firms. A strong legal services sector is an economic engine in itself; it is also a key enabler for work in many other sectors of our economy.

Over the past few years, we have taken various steps to liberalise the legal sector and make Singapore an important international legal hub. As a result of these measures, we now have a more vibrant and diverse legal sector, with 104 foreign law firms registered in Singapore, and 983 foreign lawyers practising here. Eight of the world's top 10 law firms by revenue now have offices in Singapore.

The foreign firms in Singapore complement our 804 local firms and 3,822 local lawyers. Together, there has been a broadening and deepening of legal services expertise in Singapore, and of the ability of the legal sector to support complex international commercial transactions and corporate transactions, especially in industries important to Singapore such as energy, maritime and financial services sectors. Since 2005, the value-added of the legal sector to Singapore's economy has grown by more than 50%.

With the Qualifying Foreign Law Practice (QFLP) scheme in place, we now have six top foreign law firms practising and promoting the use of Singapore law in permitted areas to their clients. The six QFLP firms have been operating for close to two years now and have done well despite the global financial crisis. In the second half of this year, my Ministry will be reviewing the performance of the QFLP firms at the two-year mark with a view to further liberalisation. The review will also take into account information collected from a broad range of law firms, both local and foreign, as well as data on the supply and demand of legal professionals in Singapore.

Based on the present data available, most of the QFLP firms are well on track to exceed their previously committed two-year manpower and offshore revenue targets. Since the commencement of the QFLP scheme, the six firms have increased their manpower by over 200 lawyers. About two-thirds of these lawyers were hired from overseas, and more than half of these were the result of transfers from the QFLPs' overseas offices.