Committee of Supply – Head P (Ministry of Home Affairs)

Counter-terrorism

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Madam, I beg to move, "That the total sum to be allocated for Head X of the Estimates be reduced by $100."

Now, more than ever, the threat of terrorism weighs heavily on our minds. The attacks in Ankara and Brussels are still fresh in our minds. Closer to home, a quick look at Malaysia, Indonesia and even ourselves, shows that the threat of domestic terrorism is real. The Jakarta bombings and the rounding up of 27 Bangladeshi foreign workers in January are sobering reminders of this new reality. The threats that Singapore faces are ever-changing, and our Home Team and SAF need to stay ahead of the curve to ensure that it is always, and they are always, prepared to deal with any threat of terrorism decisively.

In light of this, could the Minister provide an assessment of the key challenges faced by the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) at present and those that it anticipates to arise in the near future? Also, how does the Ministry plan to transform and optimise its resources and workforce, including Home Team officers, National Servicemen (NSFs) and NSmen to meet these challenges?

At the same time, the Home Team also needs to provide the everyday services that we have come to expect and often taken for granted – the key role they play in protecting our communities, ensuring low crime rates, providing efficient and speedy responses in situations of emergencies and keeping our border secure. Surely, fulfilling all of these responsibilities will require more resources and manpower.

At present, I believe the biggest challenge facing our Home Team is how it will be able to provide a decisive and expedient response to terrorism. In order to effectively deal with the threat of terrorism on our shores and in the region, we need to have a strong and muscular response to these threats. While deterrence and detection are important pre-emptive tools in our arsenal that must be deployed to combat the threat of terrorism, we must be ready to decisively and resolutely deal with any threat of terrorism that might take place.

In this vein, our muscular response as a nation must be three-fold. First, we must possess strong and decisive security forces that are able to protect Singapore. Second, we must have a pro-active citizenry that is aware and vigilant of impending threats and that is ready to respond to these threats, united as a nation when threats manifest. Third, our security agencies must also continue to work closely with regional and international partners to effectively combat terrorism in the region and on a global scale.

In order to prepare Singapore to respond to any impending terrorist threat, the Government has conducted realistic, counter-terrorism exercises to stress-test how local authorities and the public would react and respond.

On this note, could the Minister highlight some key learning points from the conduct of these exercises and share further areas of improvement that could make our security forces more effective?

In light of the recent announcement regarding the launch of SG Secure by the Minister for Home Affairs just last month, it is heartening to know that the Government recognises the importance of the community's response to a potential attack. Could the Minister elaborate on what measures are being contemplated under SG Secure to unite Singaporeans and to safeguard the social fabric that we have so carefully and deliberately woven together as a nation?

I believe that SG Future must also be a platform for the Ministry to involve volunteers and community partners in its efforts to keep Singapore safe and secure. It is ultimately a whole-of-Singapore effort to counter the threat of terrorism as it is both our individual and shared responsibility to work hand-in-hand with the Government, local authorities and all Singaporeans to keep Singapore safe. And in the event that such threats do materialise, we have to emerge stronger, more united and more determined as Singaporeans and to fight back as one united Singapore.

Question proposed.

2.45 pm

SG Secure

Dr Tan Wu Meng (Jurong): It is good that SG Secure recognises that security is about a whole-of-society approach and mindset. So, we need to start educating people from young, and throughout life, including in our schools.

Building social cohesion, racial and religious harmony and understanding − because values are caught, not just taught. Awareness of the environment: teaching everyone that security is never "somebody else's problem". If we see something suspicious, we have to let the authorities know. And also, emergency preparedness: important that we educate the public on what to do in an emergency. At a basic level, this can be taught in schools, with progressively more detailed teaching as students grow up.

I look forward to hearing the Ministry's inputs and plans on these issues.

Counter-terrorism and the Community

Ms Rahayu Mahzam (Jurong): The threat of a terror attack on our soil is at the highest level that it has ever been. The Minister for Home Affairs had said that it is no longer a question of whether an attack will take place but when an attack will take place in Singapore. Such a firm and ominous statement is necessary to spark vigilance in the community. But aside from vigilance, there also needs to be strong bonds and trust so that vigilance does not develop into unwarranted suspicion and discrimination or, worse, resentment.

I appreciate that the Ministry has enhanced strategy and measures to counter these terror threats. In particular, I welcome the introduction of SG Secure which involves the community; where different groups of Singaporeans will be empowered and enabled to help Singapore stay alert, united and strong.

One unfortunate by-product of terror attacks that we have seen happen in other countries is Islamophobia. I think the fear that Islamophobia will creep into our community is real. I know Singaporeans are different. I have faith that, in general, the non-Muslim community in Singapore knows that Singaporean Muslims strongly reject terrorism and the misguided ISIS actions and, hence, have no reason to distrust or be resentful of Muslims here. But there may be some who have unspoken doubts or questions about Islam and Muslims and, as the Minister has previously highlighted, people may be too politically correct to express their thoughts. The concern is that if we let these sentiments fester, it may grow into resentment and distrust. And some extreme few may take their feelings too far.

A crisis actually presents good opportunities. The community can rally efforts to have candid but respectful discussions to build relations amongst people from different races and religions. This may be an opportunity to learn more about each other and foster stronger bonds to counter terrorism together.

I would, therefore, like to ask the Ministry to elaborate on the key initiatives of SG Secure and whether there will be specific measures that will be taken to preserve and manage multiracial and multi-religious sensitivities in counter-terrorism messaging.

Security Audit of Commercial Buildings

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan (West Coast): Mdm Chair, with SG Secure and the many initiatives being rolled out, I submit that building and commercial properties, such as shopping malls, which attract crowds and are of high risk for terrorist attacks, do more in the areas of building security. Currently, there are building safety codes as well as requirements by the Fire Safety Bureau. But can MHA, via appropriate legislation or regulations, mandate regular security and threat assessments and audits of such commercial premises and properties so that both safety and security are looked into?

Terrorism Threat

Mr Pritam Singh (Aljunied): Mdm Chairperson, the scourge of terrorism does not appear to be going away anytime soon. As quickly as Al Qaeda affiliates, such as Jemaah Islamiyah, faded from the public eye in the decade or so after 9/11 and after the death of Osama bin Laden, the place appears to have been taken over by ISIS-inspired ideologues with shocking rapidity.

It is known that some individuals from Singapore, even our neighbouring countries, have sought to join ISIS in the Middle East and a lot of effort has been put in by Singapore to prevent not just its nationals, but Indonesian citizens, for example, from transiting through our borders to potentially join ISIS ranks.

Unlike the Jemaah Islamiyah movement, there appears to be different opinions with regard to the level of threat posed by ISIS in Southeast Asia. The Prime Minister, in his recent trip to the US, alluded to the fact that ISIS has a battalion-size Southeast Asian arm called Katibah Nusantara. An RSIS commentary last year also reported that about 30 different Southeast Asian groups have pledged allegiance to ISIS. The Executive Director of the International Institute for Strategic Studies which organises the Shangri-La Dialogue in a recent Jane's Defence Weekly article was quoted to have said the threat of Katibah Nusantara seeking territory in Southeast Asia was exaggerated, even if there is some danger nonetheless. In addition, Katibah Nusantara does not appear in the media and in the public consciousness as often as Jemaah Islamiyah did previously.

Can the Minister share details about the evolution and threat posed by Katibah Nusantara and other groups aligned to ISIS and how it has impacted upon MHA's work and if there have been any differences in approach in dealing with such groups from the Jemaah Islamiyah experience? How can Singaporeans be inoculated against the deviant teachings of such groups? Has there been a requirement to increase the resources and manpower allocated to MHA as a result of this new wave of terrorism?

Finally, can the Ministry also share how the Ministry's upcoming SG Secure initiative will be different from its predecessor, the Community Engagement Programme, to better equip and prepare Singaporeans and foreign workers in this new environment of terrorism?

The Chairman: Mr Edwin Tong, not here. Ms Sylvia Lim. Please take your two cuts together.

Key Performance Indicators for Ministry

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Madam, first, the Ministry has set out its Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) in the Budget documents. I would like to highlight and comment on a few of them for the Ministry to review in future.

First, the Home Team has a desired outcome of a safe and secure society where lives and property are protected. One of the KPIs is the number of overall crimes per 100,000 population. I would caution that this figure simply reflects the incidence of crimes reported to and recorded by the Police. It does not tell us about crimes that were not reported and it has been found in other countries that reporting rates are especially low for sexual assault and crimes committed by someone the victim knew well. Vulnerable groups, such as foreign workers, victims of domestic abuse and others, may be reluctant to seek Police help due to fear of repatriation, retaliation or distrust of the Police.

Official crime rates are also influenced by how the Police may reclassify cases. Furthermore, crime rates cannot be attributed to the Police alone. While Police action can reduce certain types of crime, other crimes are not preventable by Police actions and are a product of social and economic forces.

If the Ministry wishes to have a more accurate picture of the crime situation in Singapore, there needs to be an attempt to uncover unreported crime. This is done in other countries through national victimisation surveys, such as the British Crime Survey, where the population is asked about their experience with crime. Such a population survey should also cover why the crime victims did not report to the Police, thus helping the Police address any service gaps.

Another desired outcome of the Ministry is secure borders with efficient and legitimate flow of people, goods and conveyances. Under this outcome, the stated KPIs all relate to the legitimacy of inflows, for example, the number of offences detected and unauthorised vessels intercepted. There are no measures for the efficiency of flows. Would the Ministry be brave enough to introduce a measure of efficiency, for example, set a desired time limit within which to process an individual or vehicle through Woodlands or Tuas Checkpoint?

One final desired outcome to highlight is the secure and humane custody of prisoners. Again, the indicators emphasised on the security aspect only, for example, number of escapes, number of assault cases. What about measuring humane custody, which is equally important?

Manpower for Security/Enforcement

Next, I move on to manpower for security and enforcement. My cut is on manpower not just in our law enforcement agencies. It also covers the Auxiliary Police and civilian personnel doing law enforcement on behalf of some statutory boards, such as Land Transport Authority (LTA) and Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).

As far as our State law enforcement agencies are concerned, much has already been said in recent years about the challenges faced by the Singapore Police Force (SPF). Currently, SPF is functioning at probably a very low police officer to population ratio of 170 officers per 100,000 population, and it is trying to leverage on technology, outsourcing and civilianising jobs to cope. What about the other law enforcement agencies, such as the Singapore Civil Defence Force, Central Narcotics Bureau (CNB) and the Singapore Prison Service? Do they face similar manpower challenges and how are they coping with them?

Next, I move on to the Auxiliary Police Forces, particularly CERTIS CISCO and AETOS, who are deployed islandwide. For this industry, only Singaporeans, Permanent Residents and Malaysians are eligible to apply. In our daily encounters with Auxiliary Police, we see a large presence of Malaysians in CERTIS and AETOS uniforms. During the Little India riot, quite a number of Auxiliary Police at the scene were Malaysians. What is the current proportion of Malaysians out of the total Police strength in these two Auxiliary Police Forces? Does the Government have any guidelines on the ratio of Malaysians to Singaporeans?

One officer recently told me that the ratio allowed is five Malaysians to one Singaporean and I wonder if that is true. Are there guidelines on any duty or assignments which must be done only by Singaporeans? For example, at the immigration checkpoints, are there Malaysians checking their fellow Malaysians, and what would the risk there be?

Lastly, I come to the civilian personnel being recruited to do law enforcement on behalf of certain statutory boards. I understand that CERTIS CISCO is the outsourced agent to do enforcement of traffic violations on behalf of LTA and URA. CERTIS has been recruiting many civilians for such tasks.

Recently, I came across one such recruit, an elderly gentleman around 60 and not in good health. According to him, he attended the recruitment interview and specifically requested that he be posted to do enforcement only for URA carpark violations as he assessed that there was less risk of confrontation with members of the public as compared with LTA traffic violations. To his surprise, the next day, he was deployed to a team to do enforcement of LTA violations. His worst fears were realised when there was, indeed, a confrontation with an irate motorist booked by his team who apparently chased after the enforcement team to dispute the booking. The gentleman was so traumatised by the incident that he did not return to work.

I do not know whether this gentleman's experience is an isolated incident or not. However, it raises the issue of how civilians are recruited and trained before they are deployed to face the public.

Even though such law enforcement has been outsourced to CERTIS, these civilians are exercising law enforcement powers and will affect the public. What role does the Government play in ensuring that such personnel are properly chosen and trained? What oversight role does the Government have?

Manpower for the Home Team

Mr Desmond Choo (Tampines): Mdm Chair, the growing threat of terror poses significant challenges to our Home Team forces, already facing significant manpower constraints.

The pervasive use of technology has enabled workers of many industries to be productive over a longer period of time. For example, CCTVs have extended our Police officers' abilities to conduct surveillance over a broader area, which was not previously possible. The new security fields, such as cybersecurity and digital forensics, require technical expertise rather than physical conditioning.

Home Team officers are also like craftsmen. They polish their craft over time and they get better with age. For example, intelligence and immigration officers, critical in our fight against terrorism, develop ground networks and intuition in picking up would-be threats. These skills cannot be adequately institutionalised and are not easily transferable. Similarly, leadership gets better with experience. As an ex-Police officer of 14 years, we solved many cases because of the wisdom of my ground officers.

Singapore has extended our retirement and re-employment age because Singaporeans are healthy and productive even when they are older. I would like to ask if the Minister would consider, further to the changes in 2013, extending the retirement age of uniformed officers to 62 and allowing for optional early retirement at age 55. Re-employment can also be extended to age 62. This would ameliorate the Home Team's manpower constraints while retaining core expertise.

I personally know many proud Home Team men and women who have dedicated their lives to serving Singapore. Yet, when the time comes for them to retire, 55 or 60 years old is often too late to start a new career. In addition, our officers are marrying later and their children would only be in their late teens by their retirement age. This is a significant financial stress. Would Home Team face a leakage of talent as officers seek a longer career in other professions?

3.00 pm

Regardless of job scope, physical conditioning and competency should decide their suitability to continue rather than a hard age-cap of 55 years old.

I would also like to ask the Minister what is the percentage of officers offered re-employment and what are the reasons some are not offered. I would also like to know how many retired officers have the Home Team helped to find new employment. In addition, how can we tap on our retired officers to continue the mission of defending our homeland?

Manpower for the Home Team

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): In this complex security climate where terrorism is a constant threat, we need to build a stronger and more integrated Home Team to tackle any security concerns Singapore faces.

There has been a slower pace of recruitment in the last 10 years. Home Team manpower has only grown by 5,000 officers in the past decade, from 19,300 to 24,700 in 2015.

In the 2015 Budget, there were plans to recruit another 2,000 officers to the Home Team. Will that target now be revised with the increased security risk that we face?

What plans does the Ministry have to ensure that we continue to attract members of the public to join the Home Team and ensure that we have sufficient Home Team staff members to carry out an increasing amount of work?

Full-time Police National Servicemen

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Chair, Singapore recorded close to 47,000 births in the year 2000. The following decade saw a decline in birth rates and the number of babies born each year has remained low since. Between 2003 and 2005, fewer than 37,500 births were recorded each year. These cohorts would soon be enlisted for National Service in the coming years.

Full-time Police National Servicemen (PNSFs) play an important role in the day-to-day police operations. They are deployed to man the Neighbourhood Police Centres and Neighbourhood Police Posts. They also conduct frontline patrols in our neighbourhoods and our public transport system, together with their Regular colleagues. These PNSFs serve a critical function in our national security and safety, more so in today's security climate.

I would like to ask MHA what impact the declining number of PNSFs has had on police operations. What measures will the police take to ensure that the level of safety and security will not be compromised by this reduction in headcount?

Manpower in the Singapore Police Force

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Mdm Chair, as our country faces increasing threats and SPF wanting to enhance and stretch their capabilities to make Singapore safe and secure, there will be a need for more resources and manpower. However, with the tight labour market situation, I have four suggestions to make to alleviate this challenge.

First, I suggest we further extend the re-employment of Police officers from their current retirement and pensionable ages. I say this because there are officers I have spoken to who are eager to carry on but not given re-employment.

Second, we should invite back our ex-officers who have resigned and who may be keen to rejoin the service. These officers can perform a variety of roles, from investigation to intelligence work, as they are already trained and have experience.

Third, we can further enhance the productivity and effectiveness of the private security sector as they are the additional eyes and ears on the ground. Can we mandate the use of technology, analytics and biometrics, and MHA grant them full funding support to roll these out.

Fourth, given the nature of recent terrorist attacks and the difficulty in detecting lone wolves and, since both public and private organisations collate data, can the Government tap on such existing data platforms to enhance intelligence operations and investigations to tackle terrorism and heighten and increase productivity?

The Chairman: Mr Png Eng Huat, you have three cuts. Please take them together.

Gambling Outlets and Licences

Mr Png Eng Huat (Hougang): First cut, Madam. The ills of gambling addiction are well documented. More often than not, the people who suffer the most are the family members, not the problem gamblers. This is made evident by the rising number of Family Exclusion orders issued for the two casinos. Such orders are initiated by family members to exclude a gambler in their family from the casinos if the gambler is unwilling to address his or her own addiction. The number of such orders issued rose from 149 in 2010 to well over 2,000 in 2015.

As more families are grappling with problem gambling, it does not make sense to see gambling outlets sprouting up in easy-to-access and family-oriented clubs at the same time.

The new SAFRA Punggol Clubhouse will open tomorrow. It boasts five enrichment centres for children aged three to 16 years old, the biggest preschool with an enrolment of up to 120 children, children-friendly facilities and a jackpot facility that opens daily from 10.00 am to 1.00 am, and up to 3.00 am on Friday, Saturday and eve of public holidays. How convenient can it get? You drop off your children for classes and go meet lady luck at the same location.

In a parliamentary reply in 2000 on the proliferation of betting outlets, the then Finance Minister said, "The locations selected are reasonably far away from places where children will gather − schools, places of worship and so forth. Singapore Pools will exercise due care and not to place outlets at places where children might be attracted to."

If Singapore Pools is concerned about children getting exposed to betting activities at a tender age, should the clubhouses not be concerned, too?

Madam, it is one thing to operate a clubhouse with jackpot machines for families with young children to visit once in a while. It is another thing to have children going to the same clubhouse almost every day for preschool and enrichment classes. I urge the Ministry to exercise tighter control and management of jackpot licences for clubhouses, especially those with preschool and enrichment centre under one roof. Gambling and education certainly do not mix.

Keeping NRICs Up to Date

Second cut. Madam, in a reply to a Parliamentary Question, the Minister told the House that there were 61 persons convicted for failure to report a change of residential address within 28 days of the change to the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) over a period of three years preceding 2015. In the same reply, the Minister added that such an offence is typically committed in furtherance of other criminal offences.

This is bad news for some new home owners. They will find out the hard way when threatening letters, hell notes, paint and graffiti start to appear at the doorstep of their house after they have moved in.

Madam, I do see a need for more safeguards to be put in place to prevent ex-owners of properties from using the old address in their NRICs to commit criminal offence and cause misery and stress to the new owners.

Although the House was told that ICA does work with HDB to inform property owners of the need for timely update of addresses during property sale transactions, I would like to propose that sellers must update their NRIC by the final appointment date or within seven days after that date to complete the sale of their flats.

For sellers who are still homeless at that point in time, I would like to propose that ICA accept personal representation by friends and relatives who are willing to house these sellers as evidence for reporting of change of address. This will allow the sellers to update their NRIC without the required documentation and complete the sale of their flats without further delay. This will also stop some sellers from using their old NRIC address to commit criminal offences going forward.

Stateless in Singapore

My third cut, Madam. We have in our society over 1,000 stateless people aged 50 and above. Some of these residents would have lived through those tumultuous years of nation-building. Many would have worked and contributed to the economy, and some of their children would have attended public schools. A good number of these residents still live in public rental flats. Some of them may belong to the Pioneer Generation as well, if only the colour of their identification card were pink.

Last year was our Jubilee Year and I wonder how these stateless people felt living in a country that does not recognise them as citizens despite some of them having lived here for as long as our nation has existed.

As SG50 came to a close, I was reminded of the stateless people I met in 2015. There was a resident with mobility issues. He told me his parents and siblings are all Singapore Citizens. He also said he has been receiving assistance from CDC since early 2000. For some unknown reason, he remains stateless.

Another father and daughter remain stateless in 2015 despite the father having worked for the Government and was allowed to buy a flat in the early days, according to the daughter. She said her entire family was born in Singapore.

Madam, many of these stateless residents are more Singaporean than the thousands of new immigrants who were granted citizenship each year. Some of the stateless residents have lived here all their lives. Some of their children or siblings have become citizens as well.

I asked a resident if it matters for his ageing mother, who is stateless, to become a citizen after all these years. Without hesitation, he said, "Yes, it will make my mother very happy because she will have a sense of belonging finally."

Madam, could we not exercise a little more compassion as we embark to write the next chapter in our history and grant these stateless residents − 1,411 to be exact − the citizenship they so rightly deserve?

Recognising Stateless Persons

Mr Christopher de Souza: Over the years, I have personally met several residents in my constituency in Ulu Pandan who were born in Singapore, grew up here, were educated here, worked here, but have yet to be given Singapore citizenship. Instead, they are recorded as being stateless persons. A common theme that I have found among these individuals is that, often, it was their parents who did not register them for a birth certificate in Singapore.

Similarly, a recent news report recounted the experiences of a woman born and raised in Singapore who is a stateless person. In the report, she shared the many struggles that she has faced as a stateless person in Singapore, particularly in her working life, as well as in her personal relationships.

Indeed, being a stateless person must be a difficult and disheartening experience. Imagine being born in Singapore and having grown up alongside other Singaporeans who are no different from yourself. Yet, you cannot call yourself a Singaporean nor are you entitled to the privileges that a Singapore Citizen would be entitled to.

I would have thought that these individuals, born and bred in Singapore, are more deserving of consideration for Singapore citizenship, as compared to new citizens. In response to a recent Parliamentary Question, the Minister for Home Affairs shared that, as of January 2016, there were 1,411 stateless persons living in Singapore. He highlighted that many of these individuals have come from other countries to live and work in Singapore for long periods of time and had lost their foreign citizenship. Others were born in Singapore but were not eligible for Singapore citizenship at birth as their parents were not Singapore citizens at the time of their birth and did not obtain foreign citizenship for them from their home countries. As a result, they are considered stateless and are without a country to call their own.

In 2013, it was revealed that between 2003 and 2012, about 500 to 600 stateless persons applied for Singapore citizenship every year. While about 91% of these applications were successful in eventually obtaining Singapore citizenship, there are still many stateless persons born in Singapore who fall through the cracks and are unable to obtain Singapore citizenship. These individuals have grown up in Singapore, often having lived their whole lives here, yet they remain unrecognised as Singapore Citizens. Many of these stateless individuals are Singaporeans all but in name.

In light of this, would the Minister consider taking a compassionate view regarding these individuals by reviewing the criteria and process for stateless persons who were born in Singapore or who have lived for a significant portion of their lives in Singapore to obtain Singapore citizenship?

While proper safeguards must be put in place to prevent any abuse of the process, I believe that compassion and acceptance must go hand-in-hand with pragmatism in ensuring that our own are not neglected or forgotten.

Imprisonment with Humanity and Dignity

Ms Sylvia Lim: Madam, prisoners pay for their crimes by spending time behind bars, sometimes many years, and even a life time. Prisoners, first, have to adapt themselves to prison life. This involves stressful and difficult adjustments to a strict institutional routine, deprivation of privacy and living in sparse conditions. After the initial phase, prisoners often undergo a personal transformation to adapt to prison life which carries traits, such as hyper-vigilance, over-controlling one's emotions to avoid showing vulnerability, such as social withdrawal and isolation. These are well researched. On a personal level, prisoners may feel guilt and helplessness towards their families and it is not uncommon to see divorce papers being served on inmates.

The Singapore Prison Service has committed itself to being captains of lives. They are doing an admirable and difficult job and should be well supported. As prisoners are incarcerated as punishment and not for punishment, their stay in jail should, as far as possible, be spent constructively for rehabilitation and eventual release and reintegration into society. I have two concerns. The first, on psychological support for inmates, and, second, on inmates' use of time.

First, psychological support. What is the policy or approach towards the mental health needs of inmates, whether dealing with pre-existing conditions or issues developed during incarceration? What sort of mental health professionals work full time in our prisons? Is there a ratio of mental health professionals to inmates? Do the prison officers who manage inmates have compulsory training in mental health issues?

3.15 pm

There has been an IMH Singapore Prison Service Psychiatric Housing Unit set up since 2011. How many inmates have sought treatment there? And are there patients with pre-existing mental conditions or mental needs that developed during incarceration?

Second, inmates' use of time. According to statistics from the Singapore Prison Service, the number of inmates engaged in training programmes dropped by 345 from 2014 to 2015. Similarly, the number of inmates engaged in work programmes also dropped by 180 from 2014 to 2015. Is there a reason for the drop? The SCORE annual report notes that of the inmates deemed employable in 2014, only 81% were engaged in work programmes. I have a few questions here.

First, what is the status of the other 19% of inmates? Second, how were inmates selected for training and work programmes? Third, how is the employability of inmates determined? Fourth, what other programmes are in place for inmates who are considered unemployable, to keep them meaningfully occupied?

Tackling Recidivism

Mr Leon Perera (Non-Constituency Member): In the 2016 Budget Book, recidivism, the percentage of discharged criminal offenders who go on to re-offend, is estimated to rise to 28% in 2016, from 26.8% in 2015.

When someone who has served his/her debt to society for a crime goes on to re-offend, not only is it a loss to that person and his/her family members and friends, but it is also a loss to society. That re-offender could have become a productive contributor to our economy and society. In Singapore, we have examples of ex-offenders who have become entrepreneurs, professionals and even religious leaders. In this regard, I suggest we examine the role that social impact bonds can play in funding innovative programmes that help rehabilitate ex-offenders into society and keep recidivism at bay.

The idea of a social impact bond can be summarised as follows, at the risk of some oversimplification. Investors put up money to buy the bond. The bond stipulates that a certain social impact target must be met after some years by an NGO or NGO-coalition, perhaps working in concert with public sector partners. If at the end of the bond period the target is met, the Government redeems the bond. If not, then the investors lose their investment and their investment becomes akin to a donation. If the goal is reached, the state ensures that its funds are impactful and well spent.

Anti-recidivism is a popular subject for social impact bonds because the social impact and the cost to the state can be measured very clearly. In fact, the very first social impact launched by the British government in 2010 was for prisoner rehabilitation. States in Australia and the US have launched or planned to launch social impact bonds around this theme as well.

I urge the Home Team to consider issuing a social impact bond to better target funds and spur innovation for rehabilitation and anti-recidivism programmes. Such a move could also spark more interest in and acceptance of social impact bonds in Singapore, which would benefit the social landscape here and help unlock more innovative and result-focused approaches in tackling social challenges.

Reducing Drug Recidivism Rates

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang: In the past three years, over 60% of drug abusers arrested are repeat offenders. This is a worrying trend. For repeat offenders, there is impact not only on the drug offenders, but also their family members who have already suffered previously. There is a tremendous emotional and financial strain on the spouse and the children of drug offenders.

I have seen a few cases now in Nee Soon East and some have been arrested and sent back to the Drug Rehabilitation Centres (DRCs) more than twice now.

I fully appreciate that it is difficult to fight their addiction. However, with such high numbers of repeat offenders, are there any plans to improve the rehabilitation process at our DRCs and the employability of ex-drug offenders when they are released? Will additional resources be provided to the Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) to expand and increase their efforts?

Gainful Employment for Released Persons

Mr Christopher de Souza: It is often said that when a person is released from prison, they enter another prison. This is because while they might be free from the physical state of imprisonment, the released person still faces the "second prison" of discrimination and being ostracised in society, possibly. This discrimination, more often than not, leads to them not being able to break free of the vicious cycle of crime or to become gainfully employed.

Indeed, over the years, the Government has taken several progressive steps to help released persons to reintegrate back into society. For example, the introduction of the Mandatory Aftercare Scheme under the amended Prisons Act has facilitated the gradual rehabilitation and reintegration of released persons back into society after their release.

Similarly, the amendments to the Registration of Criminals Act in 2005 – to allow released persons, who have criminal records that had been spent, to be deemed to have no record of their conviction – prevents their past mistakes from prejudicing their future.

On this note, could the Minister elaborate on whether there are any new programmes or initiatives that will be introduced to help released persons to reintegrate back into society?

While existing measures have tried to bridge the gap and help released persons break free of the cycle of re-offending, more can still be done to help them to become gainfully employed as part of their reintegration into society.

The discrimination that these individuals face from society when they are unemployed or are unable to obtain employment can be detrimental to their rehabilitation. In fact, this may serve to undermine any progress that they might have made after being released and could actually push them towards re-offending.

In light of this, to help these individuals break free − and assuming they want to break free − of the cycle of re-offending, today, I ask the Government whether it will lead the way in providing employment opportunities for released persons. They could do so by employing released persons in non-sensitive positions within the Civil Service, on a probationary basis. Would the Minister consider this worthy proposal to provide a much needed boost to these released persons? And should the released person show himself or herself to be a trustworthy and diligent individual, would the Government confirm him as an employee?

This will provide them with an avenue to redeem themselves, give them a sense of self-esteem and also serve as an incentive for them to turn over a new leaf and reduce recidivism. I firmly believe that we must continue to build a passionate society here in Singapore that seeks to welcome back our brothers and sisters who are on that arduous journey of rehabilitation and reconciliation. And we must recognise that an important milestone along that journey is providing them with the opportunity to become gainfully employed and to be able to support themselves and their loved ones.

If a released person is willing to make amends for his mistakes and is ready to turn over a new leaf, we, as a community, must be ready to support them in their rehabilitation, assist in their reintegration into society and welcome them back into the community fold with warm and open arms.

Employment Facilitation of Ex-offenders

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Mdm Chair, the Singapore Prison service and SCORE have been rolling out the Yellow Ribbon Project for a while. Can SCORE and the Singapore Prison Service share what is the placement rate of ex-offenders the past five years when they are released from incarceration? I ask this because, with a very tight labour market situation and as we look at how to minimise our unemployment rate, what more is MHA doing to help in the employment facilitation of these ex-offenders! Different inmates spend different periods of time incarcerated and, as such, different employment facilitation and skills acquisition strategies are needed to better place them in meaningful employment when they are released from prison or DRCs.

The Chairman: Dr Tan Wu Meng, you have two cuts. Please take them together.

Helping Ex-offenders Return to Work

Dr Tan Wu Meng: A fair and just society is one that offers second chances, so that Singaporean brothers and sisters who stumble and fall can have the chance to pick themselves up.

Just as it takes a village to raise a child, it takes a community to integrate an ex-offender back into society. And finding work and stable employment is key to this rehabilitation journey.

I have met residents in my constituency who were previously incarcerated. Upon being released, their first instinct was to look for jobs in the security industry, based on recommendations from friends, and perceptions of their prospects. But we can imagine that this was not always feasible.

Can the Minister give an update on how the SCORE programme is helping offenders? Can it be more closely integrated with skills training and SkillsFuture to expand employment opportunities for ex-offenders who remain our Singaporean brothers and sisters?

Drugs in an Era of Globalisation

Moving upstream, Mdm Speaker, to another scourge − drugs. We see globalisation is not just about goods and services. Media and culture have become globalised, too. Value systems can be exported to Singapore from halfway around the world.

Nowadays, Singaporeans increasingly have opportunities to study overseas and they can be exposed to new cultures. Some of it is positive, learning from other countries. But we also see some young students being exposed to overseas drug culture. The Home Team must continue stepping up education efforts at all levels, especially in our schools, so that young Singaporeans can be further inoculated against the globalisation of the drug culture.

Youth Drug Abuse

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): The number of cases of youth drug abuse has been increasing. In 2015, almost 70% of the new drug abusers arrested were below the age of 30.

"Ice" or methamphetamine and heroin are the most commonly abused drugs. "Ice" is more popular amongst young drug abusers who have the misconception that it is less harmful and less addictive than heroin. Youths who abuse heroin often do not fully understand the damage they are inflicting on themselves.

"Ice" appears deceptively harmless as it has short-term upsides with delayed, long-term damage to the abuser. Upon consumption, ice acts as a stimulant and causes the user to feel more energetic. It also decreases appetite. Young drug abusers use "ice" as a party drug, to improve performance in studies or sports and to lose weight. However, "ice" has debilitating long-term effects, such as liver, brain and heart damage, leading to strokes and even death.

According to the CNB report in 2015, there have been signs of an increasingly tolerant attitude towards drugs, especially amongst youths. Such attitudes could have been influenced by the legalisation of marijuana in several states in the US for medical and recreational use. However, Singapore has always had a zero-tolerance attitude towards drugs and I believe that we should continue to do so.

Would the Ministry share with us what are the specific reasons for the rising number of youth abusers in Singapore —

The Chairman: Mr Gan, can you please conclude your speech?

Mr Gan Thiam Poh: — and the preventive measures that CNB is putting in place to reach out to our youths? I would also like to know if the CNB has any other plans to address the issue.

Soft Drug Usage among Under 30s

Mr Desmond Choo: Thanks to CNB, the drug situation in Singapore is under control. However, amongst new drug abusers, nearly 70% are below the age of 30. This is worrying. According to CNB, cannabis has become the second most abused drug amongst first-time drug abusers. Counsellors noted a trend of growing acceptance amongst youths towards cannabis.

Currently, if a youth is arrested for drug abuse, he will be placed in drug rehabilitation programmes that last up to 36 months. I would like to ask the Minister what is the rate of recidivism amongst these youths.

Apart from preparing an online anti-drug toolkit for educators and parents, how would CNB take the anti-drug battle online and in a more targeted fashion? Could the authorities work with youth groups, grassroots leaders and entertainment outlet operators to extend our outreach to spread awareness of the danger of cannabis abuse? Would CNB also need to enhance its capabilities to reverse this trend?

The Chairman:Mr Christopher de Souza, please take your two cuts together.

Continuing the War against Drugs

Mr Christopher de Souza: Our tough drug laws have kept Singapore largely free of drugs. More importantly, Singapore's zero-tolerance approach towards drugs has contributed towards keeping crime low and has been effective in deterring organised drug syndicates from operating in Singapore.

However, more can still be done to further reduce the demand for drugs in Singapore, especially among our youth. Could the Minister outline how the Ministry has implemented the recommendations of the Task Force on youths and drugs in the past year and what further steps, if any, that the Ministry intends to take to arrest the increase in the number of new and young drug abusers in Singapore?

3.30 pm

Incarceration in DRCs and deterrent punishments are important, but I also believe that if we are able to stem the use of drugs through effective rehabilitation while in DRC, we would be able to reduce the demand for drugs and, ultimately, reduce the number of drug abusers in Singapore in the longer term.

Effective rehabilitation can be achieved by ensuring that DRCs are places where inmates are provided with counselling and psychological intervention and are encouraged to find healthy pursuits, such as exercise, reading and vocational training, to replace and usurp the "memory zone" of drugs. Furthermore, families play a crucial role in helping these inmates not to return to drugs upon their release. Perhaps DRCs could do more to teach families how to distract inmates post-release, so that they have little time or room to yearn for drugs and relapse.

Yes, we need tough laws; yes, we need deterrence; yes, we need incarceration. But in order to reduce recidivism in earnest, we need genuine efforts to facilitate rehabilitation. Not "go through motion" efforts but sincere, long-term efforts to rehabilitate those that might have gone astray. These rehabilitative efforts can be done in DRCs as well as post-release.

Further, in January 2016, the Minister for Home Affairs had noted in this House that there had been a worrying trend of a rising number of cannabis abusers in Singapore, with more than half of those arrested below 30 years of age. He had highlighted a study done that showed that many young cannabis abusers held the view that "cannabis is a soft drug, and that the harms and addictiveness of cannabis were less serious than tobacco". Incidentally, I disagree with that. This has been attributed to inaccurate information being circulated on social media, as well as the increasing number of states in the United States that have legalised cannabis for so-called "medical" and recreational use.

In light of this, would the Minister provide an update on the effectiveness of on-going preventive drug education efforts by CNB to correct misconceptions about cannabis abuse and to reiterate Singapore's zero-tolerance stance towards drugs? Further, could the Minister outline what steps are being taken to reverse this troubling increase in the number of cannabis and young cannabis abusers in Singapore?

If there is a concerted and united effort from all Singaporeans to work towards a drug-free Singapore, we will be able to win the fight against drugs; an on-going war. After all, reducing drug recidivism means another life saved – another husband, wife or child saved; a reduction of demand for the drugs and, ultimately, a lower supply of drugs into Singapore.

Combating Cybercrimes Effectively

In recent years, the nature of crime in Singapore has evolved and changed dramatically. With Singapore's high Internet and mobile penetration rates, cybercrime has been on a steady rise. We are witnessing a worrying trend towards more Singaporeans, especially the elderly, falling victim to online scams and cybercrime as syndicates and individuals continue to exploit the speed, convenience and anonymity of the Internet to commit these crimes.

In the Annual Crime Brief 2015 released by SPF in February 2016, it was reported that the overall crime rate in Singapore increased by 4%. This has been credited largely to the rise in online commercial crimes which increased by a troubling 46.5% from 2014 to 2015, with almost all other classes of crime registering a decrease in the number of cases.

It is likely that these changes will continue in the years to come; as such, there is a need for the Home Team to adapt to these changes quickly and to have tools to effectively deal with this threat head-on.

In light of this, could the Minister outline what steps have been, or are being taken, to adapt our Home Team to deal with the growing threat of cybercrime in Singapore? Furthermore, could the Minister outline what more can be done to raise awareness among the community about the dangers of cybercrime, especially among the youth and the elderly who tend to be more vulnerable to such crimes?

As the nature of crime continues to evolve in Singapore, cybersecurity is also an emerging concern. Around the world, both governments and the private sector have been the target of cyberattacks. As a result, sensitive personal and corporate information have been stolen and infiltrated systems damaged due to cybersecurity attacks.

In January 2016, the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) announced that a new Cyber Security Bill would be introduced to enhance the powers of the Cyber Security Agency. Could the Minister provide an update on when this Bill will be introduced, and what measures will be included in the Bill to address the growing threat of cybercrimes and cyberattacks in Singapore?

Lastly, due to the nature of cybercrime, there has also been a shift towards crime becoming increasingly cross-border in nature. To address this, there is a need for the Government to work closely with international organisations like INTERPOL and other ASEAN members to effectively detect and deal with transnational cybercrimes in the region. These partnerships will provide our Home Team with the capabilities to deal with cross-border crimes more effectively. Ultimately, we must ensure that the Home Team has the resources, wherewithal, capabilities and drive to deal with cybercrime effectively, especially those crimes with cross-border elements or cross-border accomplices.

The Chairman: Mr Edwin Tong. Not here. Dr Tan Wu Meng.

Cybercrimes

Dr Tan Wu Meng: Mdm Chair, cybercrime is a unique problem of our 21st century digital economy and our digital world. Criminal masterminds can hide outside our borders while making use of local henchmen to take advantage of unsuspecting Singaporeans. So, we should continue stepping up Home Team co-operation with their counterparts overseas to improve information sharing.

We also need to continue educating our fellow Singaporeans on how to protect themselves from cybercrime. More elderly are going online. More are learning how to use smartphones and smartphone applications that allow them to communicate with friends and strangers near and afar. But it also means that more seniors are becoming vulnerable to targeting by scams and cybercrime. I look forward to hearing the Ministry's proposed responses to this emerging challenge.

Tackling Online Crimes

Mr Desmond Choo: Last year, online credit-for-sex scam cases increased 1,723%, resulting in a loss of $2.9 million. Internet love scams increased by 93.4%, resulting in a loss of $12 million. This is a worrying trend that requires immediate attention. Both enhanced awareness and enforcement are needed. The National Crime Prevention Council (NCPC) and the Police have launched a nationwide anti-scam public education campaign, with roadshows, exhibitions and commercials. These efforts are commendable. What is the profile of the victims? How would the Ministry assess the impact of this campaign and what enhancements are needed to stem the tide?

Would the Ministry also consider working with the Ministry of Education (MOE) and People's Association to extend its outreach? I would also like to ask the Minister, how would the Ministry enhance the capabilities of the Police to effectively enforce against the perpetrators?

Little India Riot and Worker Congregation

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Mr Melvin Yong and I are the local Members of Parliament taking care of the residents of Little India. We wish to speak on behalf of our residents to ensure that the Little India riot of December 2013 will not happen again, the riot being the worst public disorder in Singapore in more than 40 years.

We are thankful for the post-riot recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry (COI) regarding alcohol restrictions, beefing up of Police operations and patrols and the decentralisation of crowds to recreation centres in the rest of Singapore.

Recently, I was at Little India with Home Affairs Minister Shanmugam and members of the Police Force. It was obvious that the pre-riot crowds have returned to Little India. Madam, congregations of such high density are walking time-bombs and public disorder incidents waiting to happen. It is important that we do not take our eyes off this matter, lest we want history to repeat itself. I, hence, wish to ask for the Minister's update of his plans in regard to this matter. I also ask for his favourable consideration of the following suggestions:

(a) Form a high-level multi-agency task force to mitigate the security and dis-amenity risks of high congestion of visitors to Little India;

(b) Ring-fence the communal areas of residents, such as the playgrounds and void decks so that the old and the young get to use the space meant for them;

(c) Continue with and do not stop resourcing the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry viz-a-viz alcohol consumption restrictions and patrol teams;

(d) Decentralise further by building more recreation centres outside Little India; and

(e) Engage regularly, through planned dialogues, with all key stakeholders, the foreign workers, agents, businesses and residents.

The contributions of the foreign workers benefit our entire nation as they help build much of our nation's infrastructure. We need them and we accept that foreign workers, like the rest of us, have social and leisure needs, amongst other needs. The issue is not a Little India locality issue. It is a national issue that can only be solved by carefully balancing the needs of all stakeholders – the workers, residents, businesses and the rest of Singapore.

Road Safety

Mr Lim Biow Chuan (Mountbatten): Mdm Chair, I receive regular feedback from residents about the many heavy vehicles travelling along the roads within Mountbatten constituency. Many of these heavy trucks carry soil, sand and other debris heading towards the staging site located behind Fort Road.

Unfortunately, these heavy vehicles travel at fast speeds and do not keep to their lanes. I have personally seen on several occasions how they speed and how they occupy all three lanes along the road. Such driving behaviour poses a danger to other road users, especially when the vehicles are heavy trucks. Residents also complain that on many occasions, the heavy vehicles are not properly covered. As a result, the roads become dirty due to soil falling off from the trucks.

Mdm Chair, I have also received complaints from residents about drivers of sports cars using East Coast Parkway and Mountbatten Road as a speeding track on weekends and late at night. Despite my many appeals to Traffic Police to carry out enforcement, the traffic situation, unfortunately, has not improved.

May I ask the Minister how else can Traffic Police work with the heavy vehicle owners and the heavy vehicle drivers to encourage compliance with traffic rules and to promote road safety among other road users? For cars which are speeding or racing, can we install speed cameras to deter speeding which is dangerous for all road users?

Traffic Safety near Schools

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Mdm Chair, I am aware both Traffic Police and LTA have been mounting efforts to enhance traffic safety near schools and raise safety awareness amongst the young. Besides school zones, enforcement rounds, education efforts, parent volunteers and red regulating and warning strips, what more can SPF, in particular, Traffic Police, do to mitigate the risk and dangers as it is not just schools that are of concern but also roads within close proximity of places where children gather and wander, such as childcare centres, enrichment centres and play facilities? This also happens in my constituency, Boon Lay, and I am particularly concerned as well.

The Chairman: Order. I propose to take the break now.

Thereupon Mdm Speaker left the Chair of the Committee and took the Chair of the House.

Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take a break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 4.05 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.45 pm until 4.05 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.05 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Debate in Committee of Supply resumed.

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

Head P (cont) –

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Thank you, Mdm Chair. I thank the hon Members who have given valuable comments.

Mdm Chair, 2015 was especially challenging and intense for the Home Team. Our tempo of operations was very high. But despite the challenging environment and the very substantial number of major events, I think what we can say, looking back over the year, is that crime has remained under control. The unlicensed moneylending situation hit a 10-year low. Drug abuse and recidivism rates are stable. Road safety, immigration offending and the fire safety situation are all stable.

Ms Sylvia Lim made a number of points about KPIs and I thank her for her comments. What the Home Team does on the ground and what is achieved must obviously go beyond what is in the Budget Book. And they do. The KPIs reflect some broad measures which we published. In addition, we have internal measures, norms, surveys and also references to serious international benchmarks, which help us achieve our aims and provide a framework for measuring performances, which is important. All of these, taken together, must lead to the answer to a very basic question: what is the trust and public support that the Home Team agencies, Home Team officers enjoy in Singapore? That is the most fundamental question.

Our most recent safety and security survey was carried out in 2014 and 90% of Singaporeans felt safe in their neighbourhoods. I think no Singaporean will really question that because we know whether we feel safe or we do not feel safe in Singapore.

Globally, the 2015 Gallup Global Law and Order Report ranked Singapore first out of 141 countries. This was on people's sense of safety in their neighbourhoods and their confidence in the police force. Nine in 10 respondents in Singapore said they felt safe walking home alone at night. Again, I think that is reflective of the way we all feel.

Specifically, Ms Lim made the point that there may be some under-reporting of crimes. I accept this possibility. In particular, I accept that victims of sexual offences may sometimes be unwilling to report and there could be a variety of reasons for this: fear, in a situation of power imbalance, particularly when the victim is young and knows the offender. And I accept that these victims need to be helped. Our sense is that, in general, in terms of the statistics, the under-reporting is unlikely to make a significant difference to what we have set out as the crime statistics, but we must help those who do not report out of fear.

We have undertaken another major review of our criminal processes and criminal laws in general. That review will look at these issues. As I have said before, we do these reviews regularly. A couple of months ago, I asked for such a review to be done. I will ask my officers to consider, in the context of the review, the points made by Ms Lim, including the possibility of surveys to establish the level of under-reporting.

Our own sense, as I have said, is that in Singapore, at least, given the levels of education, the concerns about the Police or fears about the system are unlikely to be major reasons for under-reporting, and classification is a matter of assessment, but I think the point is, at this stage, worth looking at.

Ms Lim also asked about measuring checkpoint efficiency. At our checkpoints, we track efficiency as an internal measure. It is important that we turnaround travellers quickly, for Singaporeans and also because we are an international tourist destination. But, of course, efficiency will not be pursued at the expense of security. It is a balance. How we get the balance right depends on our assessment of the threats, which can vary from time to time, and the overall general situation.

Moving on to the topic of terrorism, Mr Singh asked about the nature of the threat of terrorism. I have explained this in recent speeches on terrorism, including how, in terms of scale, network, finances and propaganda, ISIS poses a far graver threat than Al Qaeda ever was. That is our own serious assessment based on available information. Many experts agree with that assessment. For example, Sidney Jones, Director of Jakarta-based Institute for Policy Analysis of Conflict, said that the January attacks in Jakarta "may be a harbinger of more violence to come" and that ISIS "has already transformed the terrorism threat in Indonesia".

But as Mr Singh pointed out, there are some who have said that the threat is exaggerated. After Paris, Jakarta and Brussels, all within five months of each other, I think Members will agree we cannot take that approach, that since some experts think that the threat is exaggerated, therefore, we do not have to take the threat seriously. We have to step up measures.

Mr Singh specifically asked about Katibah Nusantara. I have spoken about this. Returning foreign fighters, such as those from Katibah Nusantara, pose a particular threat, a serious threat. They are battle-hardened with combat skills, violent tendencies and extremist ideology and completely intent on perpetrating violence. Katibah Nusantara issues videos in Malay, aimed squarely at the Malay populations in this region. They are very serious. In Malaysia, in the last year, more than 100 people have been arrested, including commandos, police officers, military officers, civil servants, because of their allegiance to ISIS or terrorist leanings. At least one plot was disabled a few hours before it was to be carried out, right in the heart of Kuala Lumpur.

Some Members have asked how we will deal with this heightened terror threat. My Ministry will significantly enhance our counter-terrorism efforts in three areas.

One, strengthen the protection of hard and soft targets and take other measures, including enhancing the video camera network around Singapore.

Two, enhance our security response capabilities to respond quickly and effectively to any attack.

Three, strengthen our community response through a new national movement which we will call SG Secure.

4.15 pm

Dr Tan Wu Meng and Ms Rahayu Mahzam spoke about the need to have a whole-of-society mindset in security and to start young. This is important. The community has always played an important role in keeping Singapore safe and secure. Parliamentary Secretary Amrin Amin will speak more about our partnerships with the community.

SG Secure will build on the foundation we have set so far as part of the Community Engagement Programme (CEP). It will try to take the CEP to a new level. We will seek to empower the community to stay alert, stay united and stay strong in the face of the terrorist threats. But, ultimately, SG Secure cannot just be a public awareness campaign. It will be a call to action. It will build on what we have achieved through the CEP.

CEP was focused on maintaining and enhancing social cohesion and harmony. SG Secure will be larger in scope and scale in its outreach. It will have a sharper focus on vigilance and on preparing the community to respond appropriately to potential threats. The success depends on the community responding to the call, though we intend to do everything we can to bring it to the community. We will roll out programmes which seek to touch almost every section of our society − on awareness, on responses and on coming together, if there is an attack.

Mr Singh also asked how the Home Team assesses if an individual has been radicalised and how Singaporeans can be inoculated against extremist teachings. We draw the line quite clearly on support for terrorist groups like ISIS. For example, we have taken action against those who sell ISIS flags. We have taken action against those who propagate ISIS' ideology. And those who intended to go to fight in conflict zones, we have taken action against them as well.

Our experience, and the global experience, is that radicalisation is a process that can happen without forewarning, and very quickly, in a matter of a month in some cases. We make an assessment of an individual – his motivations, actions, personality and character. What danger does he pose to society and to the country? We need to be alert even to the slightest indication of danger and take action and leave no one in doubt as to where we stand.

Mr Singh said that other countries ‒ I think he mentioned Bangladesh ‒ perhaps had taken a more nuanced view and, indeed, they do. I want to dwell on this a bit because it is a very important point. Let us take a few examples of countries which have taken a different approach from us.

Let us start with Belgium. For years, they allowed hate speech, in the name of civil liberties. That has contributed to the situation that you have in Belgium today. I am not saying solely, but it certainly has contributed. Other reasons – you have ghettos, you have significant under-employment or unemployment – but the key is the spread of ideology, free and unfettered, in a permissive environment because many of those who get involved are not unemployed, they are highly-educated and well-employed.

If you then turn to the UK ‒ and I want to refer to this article – not so much to assert the truth of it from the BBC but more to indicate if we had such a situation ‒ how would we deal with it? Almost like, if I were to give you a situation, how would Singapore deal with it?

It is about a gentleman by the name of Masood Azhar, a Pakistani. He was a VIP guest of Britain's leading Islamic scholars. He went to Britain in 1993 for a lecture, and I quote, "When one of the world's most important jihadist leaders landed at Heathrow Airport on 6 August 1993, a group of Islamic scholars from Britain's largest mosque network was there to welcome him. The visiting preacher was Masood Azhar. Today, he is wanted by the Indian authorities following the attack on the Pathankot military base in January this year."

A BBC investigation revealed an astounding insight into the way in which hardcore jihadist ideology was promoted in some mainstream UK mosques in the early 1990s and involved some of Britain's most senior Islamic scholars. He addressed the students and teachers, telling them that a substantial proportion of the Koran had been devoted to "killing for the sake of Allah" and that a substantial volume of sayings of the Prophet Muhammad were on the issue of jihad. He spoke on "the divine promise of victory to those engaged in jihad". And he told students, "You should prepare for jihad without any delay, you should get jihadist training from wherever you can and we are also ready to offer our services" and so on and so forth.

In Britain, that passes for free speech. We will not allow that. So, there are different approaches. If such a person came to Singapore, first of all, he would have been prevented from coming to Singapore; and, second, if he said those things here, he would be arrested and deported. If a Singaporean said these things, he would be advised not to say them and, if he continued, he would be detained. So, it is a different approach.

Let us turn to Bangladesh. The 27 men we deported possessed material on them on silent killing, on jihadist propaganda and how to engage in jihad. They were not thinking of doing it in Singapore, they were discussing it generally. There can be a time gap between thinking about these things and actually carrying them out somewhere. Bangladesh was prepared to put 13 of them on surveillance while detaining the others.

For us, these were 27 foreign workers. We made a security assessment. The question is whether we allow them to stay or ask them to leave. So, it is different question from Bangladesh which has got to deal with its own citizens. For us, they are foreign workers. Do we, say, 13 of them, we put on some sort of surveillance and expend our resources, or do we ask all 27 to leave? I think the acid test will be this question if I were to pose it to Members, "How many of your residents will be happy if I put 13 of them in foreign workers' dorms in your constituency? Would you rather have them in Singapore or out of Singapore?" I think those are the questions for us.

Supposing they were 27 Singaporeans, then we make distinctions. We look at who is likely to pose a serious and imminent threat and a Detention Order will be made under the Internal Security Act against them. The rest ‒ and we have done that frequently over the years ‒ if we believe that they have extremist leanings but they are quite far removed from actually carrying out or doing something, we advise them, we may put them on a Restraining Order. So, they are free to move around but with some restrictions. So, that is the difference. We treat our citizens differently but, when they are foreign workers, we ask them to leave for obvious reasons.

And if we look at Indonesia, for example, again, the differences in approach. Four Indonesians recently came through, including a 15-year-old boy. ICA did it quite well, we picked them up and we realised that they were going to go off to the Middle East to fight. So, we handed them over to the Indonesian authorities. In Singapore, they would have been subjected to the Internal Security Act. No questions. But the Indonesians have released them. They are free to go around, thinking of more things to do and, perhaps, making further attempts to get to the Middle East. Again, difference in approach.

The reason I have set out our position quite comprehensively on this is that we need to be guided by our assessment of what is and is not safe for Singapore. If other countries wish to treat would-be terrorists in a different way, they do so taking the consequences of their decisions. For example, two of the suicide bombers who took part in the recent Jakarta attacks had just been released from prison.

In Singapore, when we pick them up, we make an assessment and we do not release them until we believe that they have been rehabilitated. Because a release before rehabilitation means that they may perpetrate more crimes and, in Indonesia, the cost of their decision to release was the blood of innocents. That is the cost that societies take. It does not mean that when we release, we can always be absolutely sure that the person will not get back to his ways. It may happen. There is always a risk, but, at least, we do not need to release until we have made that assessment.

I agree with Ms Rahayu Mahzam that we also have to exercise sensitivity in the way we do the messaging, making it clear that our fight is against extremism and violence and not against any particular race, ethnicity or religion. Indeed, the Government, through my speeches as well as the speeches of others, has made that absolutely plain. And, in fact, we have emphasised the responsibility that the majority in Singapore have to make sure that there is social cohesion, harmony and peace. We have to make it clear that our fight is against extremism and violence and not against any particular religion. We have to stay united, instead of being divided. We have to take a collective stand against those who threaten our harmony and way of life and do all we can to protect the multi-racial and multi-religious soul of Singapore.

Mr Patrick Tay spoke about the need to better tap on existing data and platforms to support our counter-terrorism operations. In this heightened threat environment, we have to use all available resources at our disposal to detect and respond to threats.

The Home Team will use all intelligence and investigation tools available and make better use of available data, for example, public transport video cameras and the Electronic Road Pricing (ERP) system. These contain important data that can be vital to our safety and security. We had initially taken the position that some of these data would not be used. And I have said so in Parliament. Mr Mah Bow Tan and Dr Yaacob Ibrahim had all said that in the past. But the changed security environment means that we have to change the position on not using such data. I wish to state that clearly here, since it is a change from what we had said previously in Parliament.

4.30 pm

In this changed security environment, the Home Team must be able to collect and analyse suspicious travel patterns and respond swiftly and decisively, for our collective security. If we do not rely on the existing data, then we have to spend taxpayers' money to redo the entire infrastructure to look at how people move because that is one of the ways in which you will now analyse its patterns, apart from other data.

The fight against terrorism must begin, must be fought, beyond our borders as well. Mr de Souza pointed out that effective regional and international partnerships are key. We have strong reciprocal intelligence and information exchanges with our foreign counterparts. In June 2015, we signed a comprehensive MOU on counter-terrorism with Australia. We have also strengthened legislation to enable quick and effective action against terrorism and terrorism financing, and we have enhanced our international cooperation capabilities. However, even with our best efforts, we cannot rule out the possibility of an attack in Singapore.

Let me now talk about the growing demands on the Home Team. Over the next 10 to 15 years, four major developments will have a profound impact on the complexity and volume of work that the Home Team handles.

First, our greying population. This will change a lot of the work that we do. For example, emergency ambulance calls have increased by about 5% annually for the past five years. At this rate, the volume of calls will easily double in 15 years and it is likely that it will not grow at a standard 5% rate as our population ages quickly.

Second, our traveller and cargo volumes are growing. Last year, our land checkpoints handled close to 400,000 travellers per day. At Changi Airport, we expect the volume of travellers to increase by up to 50% in 10 years – from 120,000 per day to 180,000 travellers per day.

Third, the Home Team now has to confront new manifestations of crime. In 2015, a rise in cybercrime led to an overall rise in the crime rate in Singapore. And most of these are committed from abroad. Given technological advancements, we can expect the volume and complexity of cybercrimes to grow. Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee will say more about this.

Fourth, public expectations. They are growing and, in some situations, the way some people treat our officers is unacceptable. We have observed an increasing trend of hurt and verbal abuse towards Home Team officers. They have been threatened, insulted, punched, kicked and bitten. Last year, 344 such cases were reported, about one case every single day. We will take firm action against such abusive persons, including prosecuting them and pressing for stiff sentences.

All these factors increase the workload on the Home Team. As it is, our overall manning levels are not high. We only have 170 Police officers per 100,000 population, which is quite low, compared to other cities like London, New York and Hong Kong. There will be limits to how many more ambulance crews, immigration officers or Police officers we can employ. We would like to have more manpower across the Home Team – to answer Ms Lim's question specifically – whether it is Police, ICA, SCDF, as prison officers. All our other departments face manpower challenges.

The macro situation in Singapore is that there are smaller numbers of younger Singaporeans entering the workforce each year as a result of our birth rates. The private sector also needs people. If the public sector takes more, then the private sector will be squeezed even more. So, the Government imposes some caps on the growth of the public sector. This discipline is necessary, for the sake of the country.

Within the public sector, other Ministries, agencies, also need manpower. And so, the Home Team is squeezed. Likewise, everyone else is squeezed. I was in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I know. They had difficulties, too, and I spoke about them. So, everyone has to live with less manpower than ideal and that is the situation in Singapore. That is a reality.

In the Home Team, we are certainly not in an ideal situation, in terms of manpower. Given the limited overall manpower pool and, in particular, the stringent requirements of the Home Team, uniformed services, for obvious reasons, the requirements are stringent and strict, both in terms of fitness and character, in terms of our assessment of the person's suitability. It does not mean we always get it right but there are a number of requirements. So, we are not able to get all the manpower that we need. But we will do our best to ensure the safety and security outcomes remain good.

As it is, in a less than ideal situation, with the far fewer number of Home Team officers, Police officers, how are we doing? Based on statistics, Members can see from the indicators, overall crime rate, dealing with emergencies, our drug situation, I think, on most criteria, we are among the best in the world.

I set this out in some detail because I want to acknowledge the central point that Ms Lim makes about manpower challenges and explain the broad limitations on what we can do about it. But beyond the present, the fact that we are doing okay today, we are doing well today, is no guarantee of the future. And I am focused on the years ahead, how will our challenges develop and how will we respond.

We need an operating model to enhance our operational effectiveness and manage our workload. We need to use technology even more. For example, with our limited resources, it is going to be difficult to respond to all incidents within the same response time. The Home Team needs to be data-driven, tiered and differentiated in its frontline response. This means employing data analytics to anticipate ahead of time where safety and security emergencies might arise and intelligently deploy our resources to focus on those hotspots. The end result? More resources into higher priority areas for a faster response time and inevitable trade-offs will then have to be made.

Coming back to the Police and counter-terrorism, I want to make another point. Despite the significant manpower challenges, we are working on considerably enhancing the size of our Emergency Response Teams (ERTs). Numbers will have to be increased. There is really no choice. If we do not, then, in my view, we take unacceptable risks. This is going to require on-going conversations about our manpower caps, even as we increase the size of our ERTs.

Let me say something about the use of technology. This year, SPF will be making a major investment to extend Police cameras to public areas in our HDB residential estates, such as town centres, neighbourhood centres and pedestrian walkways linking HDB blocks to bus interchanges and MRT stations.

This programme, which we will call PolCam 2.0, will build on the ongoing PolCam 1.0 programme which installed video cameras at all HDB blocks and multi-storey carparks. They are a key plank in our counter-terrorism strategy and crime-fighting strategies.

Another area where technology can help us is at our checkpoints. By year-end, all motorcycle counters at our land checkpoints will be equipped with automated clearance facilities. Motorcyclists entering Singapore will have their passports verified by a machine and have their thumbprint scanned for identity authentication. This is similar to the automated lanes available for Singaporeans at passenger checkpoints. More efficient, more convenient, without compromising on security.

Likewise, the new Changi Airport Terminal 4 will feature a new operating model with more self-service immigration facilities powered by technology and creating a hassle-free experience and reducing reliance on manpower.

These initiatives will enhance our operational effectiveness. They will allow us to do more with a limited number of officers and free up our manpower resources to be re-deployed to more critical duties. But technology and systems are not effective without good officers.

Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Louis Ng highlighted the importance of attracting Home Team officers and optimising our manpower resources to meet increasing demands. Police will step up recruitment this year to fill new posts in its ERTs and to build up the Special Operations troops.

Police will also enhance its scheme of service to attract young people to join the Force and to retain the good officers we already have.

First, Police will implement a unified rank structure, moving away from the separate schemes for junior officers and senior officers that we currently have. There will be a unified single scheme and a single rank structure for all Police officers. And good Diploma holders who join the Force can look forward to seamless advancement opportunities up the ranks.

Second, Police will introduce expert tracks to build deep specialty in the key domains of investigations, intelligence and special operations. There will, therefore, be new career developmental pathways for officers with specialised skills. These measures will help enhance the operational capability and preparedness of SPF. Details will be announced at the Police Workplan Seminar later this month. We will also progressively extend the changes to the rest of the Home Team departments.

Another group of officers who play a vital role in the Home Team is our National Servicemen. Mr Melvin Yong had observed that the number of full-time Home Team NS officers will decrease over time. That is so. Thus, SPF and SCDF have embarked on and completed their NS transformation reviews. We are restructuring our plans for full-time NS officers and reservists to focus their deployment on operational roles that will have a direct impact on ground situations and give them more opportunities to assume leadership and specialist roles.

Beyond the Home Team, Auxiliary Police forces are important partners. I think Ms Sylvia Lim spoke about APOs. APOs are deployed for a range of functions, including protecting sensitive installations and supporting Police deployment at major events. They are used as a complement of Police resources. Police then can perform core functions like crime-fighting and countering terrorism.

There are today about 7,000 APOs deployed in Singapore. They are either Singapore Citizens, PRs who are Malaysian citizens, or Malaysian citizens. Ms Lim asked if there is a ratio of five Malaysians to one Singaporean. No. That is not correct. Thankfully. More than half of the APOs are Singaporeans and that is not by chance. My Ministry has deliberately required that there be a Singaporean majority in the APOs, despite the manpower challenges. If there is any change to that, it will only be done after a careful review.

4.45 pm

Again, our preference would be for there to be more Singaporean APOs. But getting Singaporeans with the right qualifications and personality fit has been a challenge for the companies. Again, because of the overall manpower shortage, of course, you will get someone who will come forward to become an APO but not accepted for the role because the companies do not find him suitable.

We have fairly strict requirements on APOs. On the deployment of APOs, this depends on the risk assessment and operational requirements of the post. We are conscious of the implications of hiring and deploying Malaysian APOs. My Ministry requires that all APOs deployed at our land checkpoints be Singaporeans.

Ms Lim also spoke about civilian personnel who are recruited for law enforcement duties and spoke about the gentleman who was deployed by LTA for enforcement duties. I think some Government agencies do appoint civilians, including volunteers, as auxiliary officers.

These agencies will have to have a procedure to recruit, train and audit the officers to ensure that they carry out their duties effectively and professionally. There must obviously be a process to pick and train people who are suitable to do the job. On the specific case, perhaps if Ms Lim gives me the details, I will ask LTA or check with MOT to see what actually happened.

But a word about age. I think the fact that someone is 60 should not be a limiting factor, because one can be very fit, and we have to emphasise that. So, age of 60 itself should not always be seen as a barrier here. But, of course, the personality must be the right fit, and I think, on the specific case, maybe LTA can give an answer.

Ms Lim also asked about the psychological support for prison inmates and the use of their time in prison. These are important points. Our prison regime is strict, it is rigorous, with a strong focus on discipline. There is no question that it is a no-nonsense environment. And that has to be so.

But the fundamental point is we cannot see prisoners simply as detainees for a period. We have to focus on rehabilitation so that, when they leave, they do not go out and re-offend. It does not help anyone. It does not help them, society and the Prison to have them back in the prisons.

Specifically on mental health, the Prison has a multi-disciplinary set of teams, comprising, of course, prison officers, medical officers, psychiatrists, psychologists and counsellors.

When Prison officers observe inmates exhibiting signs of mental health issues, they will refer them to the psychiatrists and psychologists. In addition, members from the Board of Visiting Justices and Board of Visitors conduct regular surprise visits to prison institutions and DRCs to check on inmates' well-being. Inmates can also approach them during their visits to raise any requests or provide feedback.

While in prison, the Singapore Prison Service (SPS) has a key focus on rehabilitation. The idea is we have to look at it as a continuum, try to do what we can before they offend. The Second Minister of Home Affairs Mr Masagos chairs the Committee that looks at that, because we want to try and prevent people from coming into prisons in the first place.

Today, there is data that show what is the likelihood of someone offending from a young age. The fact that someone drops out of school is usually an indicator, and there are other indicators. And then, prisons and then post-release. You have got to look at this as a continuum and try to treat them in such a way that, first, you reduce the likelihood of them coming into prisons; and, second, when they do come in, you reduce the likelihood of them re-offending. So, we take that approach, one picture, not just to look at the period that they are in prison.

What do we do when they are in prison? They need to, first of all, be taught discipline, some self-control, the ability to control themselves. Second, once their discipline is established, they should be given training and work programmes – and there are qualifying criteria. Not everyone qualifies. It depends on their risk assessment. It depends on how much they might infect the other prisoners, a variety of factors. But based on a set of risk assessment tools, prisoners are selected for training, work programmes, so that after they are released, they can get jobs.

Also important is the post-release period. Immediately after release is the period when many of them are very vulnerable. Their old friends approach them, they are ostracised in society and they may not have a job. The only people who give them comfort often are not even their families, but their friends who led them astray in the first place. So, we have focused quite a bit on what happens post-release.

It is not perfect, but the hand-holding ‒ the Government, as a partner, bringing in the private sector. SCORE, as a statuary board, has been set up specifically to focus on some of these aspects, so that when they come out, we do the best we can to try and get them a job, and we have to do more. Again, there is a shortage of people that we can use, but we work closely with the private sector to try and get that part going. We have been doing this for a number of years and we can do more.

In terms of the specific questions that have been raised, we enhance their employability through getting them Workforce Skills Qualification training, for example, in numeracy and literacy programmes. We have over 12,000 who qualify for training. First, we do an assessment on how many qualify. Of those who qualify, as of today, 85% of those who can work are engaged in work programmes and 15% are awaiting work allocation.

In terms of specific drop in numbers, rather than going into specific factors, what I could say is this: the Prison has introduced a programme recently where those who are about to be released, 10 months pre-release, they will go for intensive counselling. That means that they may not be able to go for work programmes. That could be one of the reasons why there is a drop in numbers, but there are a number of factors. The proportion of qualifying inmates who are engaged in work programmes has actually been increasing.

There are also religious counselling programmes, family programmes and other counselling programmes to address inmates' drug addiction issues and criminality.

Ultimately, I would say one good indicator of where we are at is the recidivism rate of 27%, which is much lower than what people might call first-world prisons. If I could give you some statistics. I do not have the figures for the UK, but if you take Scotland, it is about 40%. Australia ‒ if we take New South Wales ‒ it is about 48%; Western Australia, 31%; New Zealand, 36%. Our own recidivism rate was about 40% in the year 2000. Through these interventions, we have brought it down to 27%. But I do not want to say, therefore, we have reached the best possible state or that it may not go up again, because it is a rate depending on how hardcore these prisoners are. But you can see the broad trends.

Parliamentary Secretary Amrin will elaborate on the through-care approach to rehabilitation that SPS adopts.

Mr Perera asked about social impact bonds and whether that can be used to reduce recidivism, almost like the private sector investing in the matter. The approach we have taken is to be even more direct by asking the private sector to come in and work with us to employ the people. That is even more important. There is a requirement for private sector investment, if I may put it in that way. But it is done through, first, identifying while the prisoners are in prison, what are the kinds of job they can do when they come out. And then seeing the extent to which we can train them. Where it is possible to do in-house training, we do it in-house. Where we need outside consultants to come and help train, we do that, too, so they get trained.

The statutory board, SCORE, takes care of a number of these things. The seriousness with which the Government is approaching this is shown by the fact that we set up a statutory board, which then also works with the private sector, identifies companies which might have an interest in employing these prisoners. Of course, a fair bit of this is also to reduce the social stigma in employing these prisoners.

That is why we try and remove or reduce – I think "remove" is quite an ambitious aim – but to reduce the social stigma by giving the Yellow Ribbon programme very substantial prominence. The Prime Minister launches events relating to the Yellow Ribbon programme, other senior Ministers as well, and keeping it in the public consciousness, and then working with the private sector to try and get them employed. As I have said, if I can call it a "scaffolding"; when they are released, you need to try and make sure they move into something. It is a much more direct involvement approach that we have taken.

This investment bond idea has been a very recent one from the UK. We will study their experience. If it works better than what we are doing ‒ we do not have a "not invented here" syndrome ‒ so, we will always be happy to look at what works.

If I may say this: seven days a week, 24 hours a day, the work of the Home Team never ceases. Our officers are on the ground, constantly working to keep Singapore safe and secure.

You saw this during the Christmas and Chinese New Year periods, especially at the checkpoints. More officers were on duty during these peak periods, so that Singaporeans can enjoy the festive seasons. The demands on the Home Team will continue to rise because of external threats and local developments.

We will press on with our transformation journey, build our capabilities, develop our officers, work closely with the community to meet these challenges head-on and continue to try and keep Singapore safe and secure. My colleagues will answer the other questions.

The Chairman: Senior Minister of State Desmond Lee.

The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Mr Desmond Lee): Mdm Chair, the threats and challenges that the Home Team faces are transnational and ever-changing. We must adapt and adjust our response to keep pace with developments.

Traditional crime is on the decline but, as my Minister mentioned, there is a clear uptrend in cybercrime.

Mr Chris de Souza, Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Desmond Choo asked how we will tackle this trend. Mr de Souza specifically also asked about our capabilities to deal with cybercrime. Let me address these cuts in Mandarin.

5.00 pm

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Cybercrime cases are particularly tricky. The Internet is borderless. Many perpetrators are based overseas. They hide behind the anonymity of the Internet and open and shut down user accounts quickly to evade investigations. Despite our best efforts and close working relationships with our foreign counterparts, many of these investigations could lead to dead ends. In short, someone who has been cheated of his money by such scams will find it quite hard to get his money back.

So, when it comes to fighting cybercrime, it is especially true that "Prevention is better than cure." An offer that sounds too good to be true may well be a scam. People may not be who they claim to be or what their profile pictures on Facebook look like. We need to be extra careful and alert when performing online transactions. We must watch out not only for ourselves, but also for our children and aged parents and relatives, who may be less aware of these online threats.

The National Crime Prevention Council has set up a website called Scam Alert which alerts Singaporeans of new scams. On Scam Alert, people can share stories about scams that they have come across and you can read about these.

Let me share a story on a Credit-for-Sex scam. You will find many similar stories on Scam Alert. The victim will usually get an unsolicited message from a young lady on a mobile platform like WeChat. In many of these cases, she may be from overseas, has a generic name like "Xiao Yan Zi" and is in Singapore for studies or work. She starts chatting to the victim and the conversations sound innocuous at first, but she will soon talk about money problems and how desperate she is for help. "Xiao Yan Zi" will then offer to meet with the victim for sex, $100 or $150 for two hours, more for overnight. The victim may reject the offer at first but, after more messages, he agrees to meet "Xiao Yan Zi" somewhere in Singapore. Whether it is for romance or out of curiosity, the victim is already on his way to being scammed. And, of course, when he gets to the place, he will not get to meet "Xiao Yan Zi" – she probably is not even in Singapore. Instead, she will ask for the victim to pay her first, before coming out to meet him.

In many of these cases, the request for payment is not by cash, but by purchasing an iTunes card of $100 or $150 and sending over the redemption code by WeChat. By the time the victim realises he has been cheated, it is already too late. In some stories, the victims get suspicious and call the person on the other end of the line – this is when they discover that "Xiao Yan Zi" sounds much older than she claims to be, or may not even be female.

We have to exercise greater caution and better judgement when we meet strangers or conduct transactions online.

As all Singaporeans step up our vigilance, Police will also step up their efforts to fight cybercrime. In 2015, Police established a new Cybercrime Command within the Criminal Investigation Department. We will continue to review our laws to address the transnational nature of cybercrime and keep pace with the changing tactics of cyber-criminals.

(In English): Madam, I will continue in English. Our approach earlier to cybercrime highlights the need for two important and complementary strategies.

First, the Home Team will continue our efforts to keep Singapore safe and secure, staying nimble and responsive, upgrading our capabilities and making early investments for the future. Second, and just as importantly, all Singaporeans have a part to play to be more vigilant and to come together as a community.

This approach also applies in other domains of safety and security. Let me illustrate.

Madam, as the Minister explained earlier in his speech, the Home Team will need to adapt to our evolving landscape, to cope with increasing workload and enhance our operational effectiveness, without significantly expanding the Home Team.

This will be especially important for our border security. We are trying out some new concepts and technologies for our checkpoints at the new Terminal 4 to prepare ourselves for future challenges. At Terminal 4, we will have enhanced automated lanes with biometric checks and centralised arrival and departure immigration halls. These will allow ICA to optimise limited manpower and provide greater border security without compromising service standards. We plan to roll these initiatives out eventually to all the existing terminals.

Madam, let me move on to the private security industry. Like the Home Team, the private security industry faces a shortage of manpower but ever-growing demand. And as Mr Patrick Tay pointed out, technology can be an enabler in the private security industry. But mandating the use of technology through law may not be the best approach, given varied security requirements. Instead, we want to work with private security firms to encourage them to invest in technology. We will support them in various ways.

First, as a major buyer of security services, the Home Team will restructure our procurement approach to encourage the greater use of technology as part of the security solution. To incentivise our key private security partners to rely less on manpower and more on technology, we are prepared to co-invest in our partners' use of technology. We are also exploring contracts of longer duration so that the investment in technology can be amortised over a longer period and makes better business sense for our security partners. These longer-term contracts will also allow these companies to invest in their staff to enhance their productivity.

Second, the Government also provides support to private security agencies through various schemes that are already available to help defray the cost of technology adoption for these companies. For example, e2i administers a scheme known as the Inclusive Growth Programme (IGP) which covers up to half the cost of productivity improvement projects, but only if these productivity gains are shared with lower-wage workers. So, the grant helps security firms adopt technology to boost productivity, but in a way that also benefits the security guards that they employ.

Third, MHA will continue to work with the relevant agencies and industry partners via various platforms, such as the Security Tripartite Cluster, to pilot innovative technology-augmented operating models.

Madam, besides harnessing technology, we will update our laws to keep pace with the changes in our operating environment. Mr Patrick Tay asked if the building code would be amended to mandate security audits and security threat assessments of commercial buildings and premises.

Building security is critical and we need to do more amidst the current terrorist threat. But instead of making it a blanket requirement, we will take a calibrated and differentiated approach. Let me explain.

Today, for sensitive installations and critical infrastructure like Changi Airport, and large building projects with large numbers of visitors, like the Integrated Resorts and Sports Hub, MHA already works with the owners to deploy security measures. This is based on an assessment of the threats and vulnerabilities of the buildings. We are reviewing our laws to formalise this security review framework so that more of such building projects will incorporate security measures upfront, at the design and construction phase.

For soft targets, such as entertainment centres, hotels and shopping centres, we will engage owners through community platforms, such as the Safety and Security Watch Groups (SSWGs), to strengthen security measures. We will work closely with the owners of these premises and facilities to see how we can implement wider adoption of CCTV coverage that can be used for crime and terrorism prevention and post-incident investigation.

For major events, the Police currently work with organisers to determine the appropriate security measures to be taken. We will also review our laws to require event organisers to put in place the necessary safety and security measures.

We are mindful of the challenging business environment and potential cost of mandating security measures. But we cannot compromise security and expose our public to danger. To better manage the costs involved, the Government will work closely with premises owners and event organisers to take cost-effective measures that address our security objectives.

Madam, I will address a couple of other cuts raised by Members. Mr de Souza and Mr Png Eng Huat asked about stateless persons in Singapore and both made speeches earlier about cases that they had encountered.

As of 31 January this year, there were 1,411 such persons living in Singapore. Of these, 85% are Permanent Residents (PRs) eligible for healthcare, education and housing benefits accorded to all PRs.

Mr Png and Mr de Souza asked if we will review the citizenship criteria for such persons who have worked and resided in Singapore for a long time. Madam, I understand where the Members are coming from. We assess each and every application carefully and compassionately, especially for those who have integrated well and can contribute to Singapore.

But we must be clear-headed about who we grant PR and Singapore citizenship to, and we do not want to automatically grant somebody such a status because he or she has been residing here for a long time. This would not be in Singapore's interests. But I assure the Members that if they raise cases to our attention, we will look very carefully at the circumstances behind all of them. Not all the reasons may be apparent to Members but, certainly, we do not reject any case out of hand.

Mr Png also asked about the updating of NRIC details. The National Registration Act (NRA) requires NRIC holders to report any change in their place of residence to ICA or the Police within 28 days of the change, regardless of whether an individual is residing at his relative's place temporarily or a rented property. The address on the NRIC should be based on the place of physical residence, rather than on ownership of a property.

This is an individual responsibility and the failure to do so is an offence. The Police will act firmly against those who wilfully contravene these requirements to commit other criminal offences, including borrowers who obtain loans from unlicensed money lenders with their outdated addresses.

Mr Png, in a separate cut, suggested tighter controls on where jackpot clubs are sited. Registered private clubs are permitted to operate jackpot machines only if the machines are provided to their members and guests as part of a whole suite of recreational offerings, which may include karaoke, gyms, swimming pools and so on. These machines are not accessible to the general public. There are age restrictions barring children from entry and these clubs have to meet other criteria, like the size of their membership base.

MHA has initiated a review of the regulatory regime for private lottery and jackpot clubs, including the location of these clubs and the social safeguards against problem gambling. Individuals and parents can and should also exercise their own responsibility when using such facilities.

Madam, let me end by addressing Ms Denise Phua's concerns over foreign worker congregation areas. My Ministry continually reviews our management of "hotspots" with large congregations of foreign workers, such as Little India and Golden Mile. We have worked with agencies, grassroots and community leaders, residents and business owners to steadily implement a comprehensive series of measures to keep such "hotspots" secure and orderly.

These measures include improved lighting, installation of additional Police Cameras and daily deployment of Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) and private security officers at Little India and Golden Mile. This deployment is intensified on weekends and public holidays. Officers attend training to sensitise them to the culture of foreign workers. Police and relevant agencies also carry out frequent patrols and enforcement checks to deter and detect illegal activities. The Special Operations Command conducts a weekly anti-crime patrol to augment Police resources in such "hotspots".

And on a broader level, foreign worker management is overseen by an inter-Ministerial committee chaired by Deputy Prime Minister Tharman Shanmugaratnam. The issues extend beyond safety and security concerns and include housing, transport and amenities, amongst other things. So, it is a whole-of-Government approach.

One initiative overseen by this Committee is the provision of recreation centres to give foreign workers more options to meet their social and recreation needs and to provide services, such as money remittance. These centres are built near to foreign worker dormitories, away from established congregation areas, such as Little India. They host large-scale events like sports competitions, cultural celebrations and movie screenings.

My Ministry will continue to work with other relevant agencies, certainly with Members of Parliament and advisers, on the various aspects of foreign worker management, including safety and security.

Madam, the threats to Singapore's safety and security are constantly evolving. The Home Team will deal with these firmly, decisively and nimbly to keep Singapore safe and secure.

5.15 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin): Mdm Chair, I thank Members for their suggestions and support for the Home Team's work. I will focus my speech on three areas: first, the community's role in keeping Singapore safe and secure; second, the drug situation in Singapore and our efforts to prevent re-offending; and, third, our Home Team officers and the National Service (NS) Transformation Plan.

[Deputy Speaker (Mr Charles Chong) in the Chair]

On the first area, community partnership. The community is at the heart of the Home Team's work. Home Team officers take pride and work tirelessly to keep Singapore safe and secure. However, the work of the Home Team cannot be accomplished by us alone. Individuals and the community have contributed in many areas to create a safe and secure Singapore. We will continue to engage, empower and partner the community to explore new areas of collaboration.

Over the past few months, as part of the SGfuture engagement efforts, we have asked members of the public, our volunteers, full-time National Servicemen and community partners what safety and security mean to them, what they hope to see and how we may work together to turn these hopes into reality.

We are now following up on some of these ideas and we welcome more people to come forward with good suggestions that we can work on together.

One of the key threats we face today is extremism and terrorism. The community's role in a heightened terrorism threat environment is critical.

Minister Shanmugam announced in March that we will develop a new national movement to strengthen community response to the threat of terrorism. The movement, known as SG Secure, builds on the current Community Engagement Programme (CEP). The programmes under SG Secure will sensitise the community to threats arising from terrorism, extremism and religious or racial strife.

Let me elaborate on how SG Secure will enable the community to "stay alert, stay united and stay strong" against terrorist threats.

First, stay alert. We will raise community vigilance by training the community to be vigilant and alert to unusual behaviour or items in our surroundings and to report these to the authorities. We will also teach members of the public how to respond and protect themselves, their family and their friends if they are caught in an attack.

Second, stay united. We need to cherish and safeguard Singapore's multiracial and multi-religious social fabric. SG Secure will implement programmes to provide opportunities for our community to appreciate and safeguard racial and religious diversity.

Third, stay strong. We will design and run programmes to help our community to be ready to deal with a crisis if it occurs; build individual resilience and community resilience; and help each other bounce back quickly after any incident.

SG Secure will be more than just a public awareness movement. It will be a call to action for all members of society to safeguard the Singapore way of life against terrorism, extremism and community strife. We will launch SG Secure later this year, starting with programmes in the schools and neighbourhoods.

Turning to the second part of my speech – the drug situation in Singapore and our efforts to prevent re-offending.

Mr Christopher de Souza and Dr Tan Wu Meng asked about the overall drug situation. The drug situation around the world remains challenging. Poppy cultivation in the region has increased and so has methamphetamine production. Our regional counterparts have also detected an emergence of overseas syndicates, originating as far as Mexico, which are involved in drug trafficking in the ASEAN region. These developments increase the supply of drugs in our region and threaten our drug-free society.

There is also growing international pressure on our zero-tolerance approach against drugs. Some countries have pushed to decriminalise or even legalise drug use. There is a growing call for the harm reduction approach, which includes measures, such as needle exchange programmes or opiate substitution therapy. These measures were implemented in some countries to curb secondary issues, for example, HIV transmission caused by drug abuse. However, the harm reduction approach is not relevant in Singapore's context as our drug situation is very much under control. Incidence of HIV transmission through injecting drug use in Singapore is low.

We share Mr Christopher de Souza, Dr Tan Wu Meng, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Gan Thiam Poh's concerns on the local drug abuse situation. We have observed two trends of concern.

First, more than 60% of new abusers arrested over the past five years were below 30 years old. In 2015, this has remained high. Close to seven in 10 new abusers arrested are below 30 years old.

Second, while methamphetamine remains the most abused drug among new abusers, we have seen more cases of cannabis abuse among new abusers in recent years. Cannabis abuse cases doubled from 80 in 2011 to over 150 in 2015. Notably, in 2015, cannabis has displaced heroin as the second most commonly abused drug among new abusers.

These trends indicate that more young people are taking casual attitudes towards drugs and experimenting with drugs, especially cannabis, which they perceive as "soft" and less harmful. This is a serious misperception. A research team comprising medical professionals from the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) has reviewed more than 500 papers from respected international medical journals. Let me highlight three key findings.

First, cannabis is addictive.

Second, cannabis is harmful. Long-term use of cannabis has been linked to the development of major psychiatric conditions, such as schizophrenia, depression and bipolar disorder.

Third, a young person abusing cannabis will experience a persistent and irreversible decline in cognitive development and a drop in IQ.

To continue keeping Singapore drug-free, we must maintain a zero-tolerance approach towards drug abuse. This includes firm law against traffickers, continued enforcement efforts, structured rehabilitation programmes, preventive drug education, as well as aftercare schemes with community support.

Last year, the Task Force on Youths and Drugs reviewed the youth drug abuse situation and announced its recommendations in June. I will provide an update on the implementation of the Task Force's recommendations in two areas.

First, enhancing Preventive Drug Education (PDE). This is our first line of defence. It is important to enlist the help of parents and educators to help youths stay drug-free. We have developed and launched a toolkit for educators in November last year to support educators in their engagement with youths on drug issues. We are also developing an information brochure for parents and will distribute it to all parents of students in Secondary and post-Secondary institutions later this year.

This will be complemented with e-articles and infographics published regularly through the social media platforms of CNB and our partners, such as MOE and Health Promotion Board (HPB).

Second, enhancing our rehabilitation options for youths. We have introduced the Anti-drug Counselling and Engagement (ACE) programme at the National Addictions Management Services (NAMS). The ACE programme is targeted at youth abusers under 21 years old who have abused drugs but tested negative in their urine tests. The programme comprises group counselling sessions to equip the youths with skills to cope with addiction and workshop for parents to provide support for youths.

The Committee Against Youth Drug Abuse, which I chair, will build on the Task Force's work. This multi-agency committee comprises representatives from MHA, MOE, HPB, IMH, Institutes of Higher Learning and youths. We will continue to keep a close eye on the youth drug abuse situation and work with groups, such as youth groups, to implement initiatives that will sustain efforts in tackling youth drug abuse early.

I will now touch on our efforts to prevent re-offending, which Mr Louis Ng has asked about.

Our rehabilitation programmes are designed based on evidence to reduce their re-offending. We adopt a differentiated approach towards rehabilitation by tailoring the rehabilitation programmes and aftercare support based on the different risk profiles and needs of the offenders. For example, in the DRCs, drug abusers with more severe drug addiction issues will receive higher intensity programmes, such as more counselling programmes. When they are placed on Community-Based Programmes, inmates with higher risk of re-offending would be placed in a more structured environment, such as a halfway house.

We have also started a day-release arrangement for a small number of low-risk drug abusers. Under this arrangement, drug abusers are allowed to work or study in the community after two to four months in the DRC. These drug abusers are required to return to a community facility at night and are subjected to supervision, such as regular urine tests.

Mr Chairman, Mr Louis Ng, Dr Tan Wu Meng and Mr Patrick Tay asked about the employment of ex-offenders, which is key in their successful reintegration.

The Singapore Corporation of Rehabilitative Enterprises (SCORE) plays a key role in reintegrating ex-offenders back into the workforce.

In 2015, SCORE trained more than 5,000 inmates and helped over 2,000 inmates to secure jobs prior to their release. SCORE has also explored new collaboration opportunities with employers and partners.

For example, SCORE has worked with the Restaurant Association of Singapore (RAS) to develop a Train-Place-Retain model to place ex-offenders in the F&B sector. As of February 2016, over 130 ex-offenders secured employment with close to 100 companies from RAS under this collaboration.

In line with SkillsFuture, SCORE has worked with employers in key sectors, such as Logistics, F&B and Hospitality, to update its skills training and coaching programmes to meet the evolving skills needed. Let me highlight three key initiatives.

First, ex-offenders will be cross-trained in skills. For instance, ex-offenders in the F&B sector will be trained in skills required to perform both serving and food preparation functions.

Second, ex-offenders are encouraged to take personal responsibility for their continuous learning with the use of SkillsFuture credits.

Third, SCORE will work closely with employers to identify suitable training for the career advancement of ex-offenders they have hired.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked about the employment of ex-offenders in the Public Service. The Public Service recruits on the basis of merit, where applicants who fit most closely to the job requirements are hired. When applying for Public Service jobs, applicants who have had their criminal records spent need not include this information in their application. This has been the case since 2006. As we do not differentiate these employees, ex-offenders will be assessed for their suitability for the job like all other new recruits.

Mr Chairman, with your permission, I will now speak in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The Home Team enjoys a close partnership with the Malay/Muslim community and community groups, such as MENDAKI, MUIS, PERGAS, Jamiyah and Pertapis. Minister Masagos has built a strong foundation for the Home Team's work with the Malay/Muslim community. We will continue to work with the Malay/Muslim community to prevent re-offending and rehabilitate drug abusers.

These are national issues, and not issues involving the Malay/Muslim community only. A confluence of factors, such as socio-economic status, peers and families, might play a role in re-offending. We have tailored our rehabilitation programmes to address these risk factors. We want to work with Malay/Muslim community groups to tailor programmes relevant to the offenders' cultural and religious context to increase their efficacy. Let me illustrate this with two examples.

First, we have worked with MENDAKI to provide an information and referral service to families of inmates. MENDAKI connects them to community resources, such as counselling at family service centres or employment assistance at the Community Development Centres. MENDAKI also refers these families to the family and children programmes they organise. Through this, we help families stay intact through this difficult period, so that they can support their loved ones in their rehabilitation and reintegration.

Second, we have worked with PERGAS to develop and introduce a pilot counselling programme for Malay/Muslim drug abusers. The team at PERGAS, led by Ustaz Mohd Yusri Yubhi Yusoff, developed the programme based on both Islamic teachings and scientific studies that were proven effective. This programme is one of the interventions in our multi-pronged approach in rehabilitating drug abusers. Currently, we are in the midst of a pilot run with inmates in the DRC. We are heartened by the encouraging and positive feedback received from those who participated in the programme.

I would like to share a story to illustrate how we can come together to support the rehabilitation of drug abusers. I recently met Jesyharianti, who was a former drug abuser featured on Suria's Detik programme last month. She shared how she had been in and out of prison in the past seven years due to drugs and other offences even though she is only in her 20s.

During her last incarceration, she was placed on rehabilitation programmes to help her stay drug-free. Recently, I met Jesy and am happy to know that Jesy is now employed as a service crew with Manhattan Fish Market. I also met her employer from Manhattan Fish Market. I am heartened to learn that Jesy is one of his best employees. Jesy's dedication at work often received praises from her customers.

I hope that the Malay/Muslim community will continue to give the Home Team its fullest support, including in the area of reducing offending and drug abuse.

5.30 pm

(In English): Mr Chairman, I will continue my speech in English and turn to the final area of my speech.

Our Home Team Officers are a very important part of the Home Team. Minister Shanmugam spoke about enhancing the attractiveness of the Police career with the Home Team to better recruit and retain officers.

We will also continue to tap on the contributions of ex-officers, as well as retired officers, which Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Desmond Choo asked about. They are valuable to the Home Team. MHA has recently, in 2013, extended the retirement age of Home Team uniformed officers from 50 to 55 years old. Beyond 55 years old, where there are organisational needs, officers may be offered the opportunity to work up to the age of 60, subject to performance, conduct and fitness criteria. This allows the Home Team to tap on their experience, knowledge and expertise built up over the years. We will periodically review the need to make changes to the retirement age of our uniformed officers. We will also offer retired officers positions in civilian specialist and civilian roles when they can contribute to the Home Team. Over the last five years, over 60% of retired uniformed officers have been re-employed and the majority have been re-employed as uniformed officers.

In addition to retired officers, I agree with Mr Patrick Tay that ex-Police officers are a valuable recruitment pool for SPF. Suitable ex-Police officers who had resigned may be re-hired, if they wish to rejoin the service. SPF proactively reaches out to this group by holding re-appointment exercises twice a year, and SPF will send a personalised letter to invite them to rejoin SPF. Subsequently, recruitment career advisors, who are Police officers from the same Division, will contact the ex-Police officers to engage them.

Our National Servicemen also play a key role in the Home Team's work. However, given the smaller birth cohorts, we can expect a decline in the number of NSFs over the next few years. As Mr Melvin Yong has pointed out, we need to ensure that the Home Team continues to meet the growing operational demands even with a declining National Servicemen population.

The Home Team has embarked on an NS Transformation Plan for our SPF and SCDF National Servicemen. Over the next few years, we will systematically deploy more NSF and NSmen to frontline positions, leadership roles, as well as specialist positions. This will enable them to make stronger contributions to keep Singapore safe and secure.

Let me illustrate with specific examples from SPF and SCDF. To deploy more officers in frontline vocations, SPF will set up a new Protective Security Command (ProCom) consisting of both NSF and NSmen units. ProCom officers will be trained and deployed to protect our critical infrastructure in National Emergency situations and oversee protective security functions during peacetime. SCDF has established new NSmen positions in its Marine Command, where NSmen are deployed in daily operations as part of their In-Camp Training. SCDF will also deploy more servicemen to operational roles, such as in its Emergency Medical Services.

I hope that the Transformation Plan will empower our National Servicemen to take on a greater role in making Singapore a safer home for all.

In conclusion, Mr Chairman, the Home Team, together with the community, has worked hard at keeping Singapore safe and secure. This is a cumulative effort built over many years and by many people. We will continue to strengthen community partnerships, empower our community to take ownership of safety and security issues, and build community vigilance, cohesion and resilience. We must also continue our fight against drugs and work hard to prevent offending and re-offending.

Together, we can keep Singapore safe and secure.

The Chairman: We have a few minutes of clarification time. Ms Denise Phua.

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: Thank you for the oral responses from the Ministry. I would like to ask the Minister two questions. First, thank you for walking the ground with us at Little India last month.

My first question is for the Minister to maybe share his thoughts about what he found on the last visit to Little India, if he thought anything needs to change or to be done further.

My second supplementary clarification is on the Ministry's views on what criteria should be used for deciding the locations to allow operators of licences, such as pawnshops, moneylending businesses, sale of alcohol, cyber-game cafes and so forth. What are some of the criteria for MHA or Police to decide on where these businesses should be located? Should they be located at places, such as void decks and in estates, whether they are public or private housing, because these are actually where residents live day in day out and they are there for the longest time? And would the Ministry not agree that it is better for places, such as void decks and communal spaces, to have more wholesome community services, such as childcare, SSO or the Senior Activity Centres? I would like to hear some views from MHA on the location of businesses, such as moneylending, pawnshops and so forth, not just in Little India but also in places like Waterloo Centre.

The Chairman: Ms Denise Phua, you are taking a very long time for your question.

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng: Thank you, Sir.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr K Shanmugam: I thank the Member for those questions. On the second question, MHA gets involved in specific context, for example, liquor shops, massage establishments, then the Police get involved and say this is allowed and this is not allowed. And you will see, generally, where massage establishments are allowed, liquor shops are allowed. As for the rest, it is not something that MHA deals with. HDB and MND deal with that. But, of course, some of the regulatory agencies have some supervision. For example, moneylending outlets, the Ministry of Law gets involved. Pawnshops, too. It is an assessment of need versus where is an appropriate place to allow – usually, in town centres, because there is a need for this. If you completely rule them out, then, they go underground. But, housing estates, perhaps, if there are specific examples, the Member can let us know. But I would say, primarily, what is allowed and what is not allowed in housing estate void decks is something that comes within HDB's purview.

If I may go on to talk about Little India. We walked together. We spent, I think, close to three hours, maybe even more. And we chose a day when, specifically, it was expected to be crowded, the first Sunday of the month. The Police are doing everything they can to deal with the situation. But that does not necessarily mean that the entire situation cannot lead to another incident. We saw. What we are getting in a small area is a very large number of young men. We have very strict rules on consumption of liquor and where they can be consumed, but we cannot prevent them from congregating in a variety of places as long as they do not have, say, liquor openly being helped. But every time you get these large congregations of young men, there is always a potential for some trouble.

I think you would recall, I told my officers to relook at it and whether there are any other solutions that we have to consider, including taking the matter up with the Committee that was set up, to try and see whether we can decentralise to the extent possible, provide facilities and amenities elsewhere. While it is a situation where the best answer I can give you is that I can see that the Police officers, the Auxiliary Police officers, as well as the other uniformed personnel we have put without full Police powers, are doing a very good job. But, nevertheless, we cannot put our hand on our heart, given the numbers who are congregating, that something may not happen, and we have to see what else we need to do.

Mr Christopher de Souza: Mr Chairman, my clarification is really on the continuing war on drugs and, in particular, DRC. The four rationales for sentencing: incarceration − and that is what we do in DRC − we incarcerate the inmates, take them out of the cycle of abuse of drugs where they will not be abusing drugs. There is the rationale of deterrence: putting them in incarcerated premises to deter them and to deter society from doing something similar like abuse, and there is rehabilitation, in order to rehabilitate the addicts so that the recidivism rate goes down. I think these three have to be looked at in tandem and worked at in tandem. Therefore, I appreciate the answers given by the Minister and office bearers.

But my question was actually quite specific. What more can we do while the addicts are in DRC − which is called the Drug Rehabilitative Centre for a reason − what more can we do when the addicts are there, to really attempt to rehabilitate them? We have got them in there for four months, six months. It is a fertile opportunity for them to help them kick the habit, provided they want to kick the habit. And my suggestions are counselling, concerted counselling, concerted psychological intervention, vocational training, exercise, so that their memory of the pleasure zones of drugs which they may hark back to is usurped by this new territory of good and wholesome activities. And also, post-release, what can we do to work with the families and work with their support regimes to, again, distract these former addicts from relapsing, and there is much to be gleaned from this – a lower recidivism rate, which means lower demands for these drugs?

The Chairman: Mr de Souza, I think the Minister gets your point.

Mr Christopher de Souza: Thank you. So, I ask, what more can be done during the time the addicts are incarcerated for all of these consequential benefits that could be gleaned?

Mr K Shanmugam: I thank Mr de Souza. The importance of rehabilitation, the importance of reducing recidivism, we all accept that. In fact, I said we are even going upstream to see whether we can even prevent offending in the first place. And I said, specifically in answer to Ms Lim, we look at them before they come in, try and identify who is at risk during the period to see how we can help them and then post-release. And that applies to DRC inmates as well.

The specific points that Mr de Souza made about counselling, psychological training, those are already being done. There is fairly intensive effort made to try and get them to kick the habit. First of all, of course, by isolating them from drugs but, second, also trying to get them to understand the dangers of the drug, seeing how they have got into this habit and how they can be helped to kick the habit. It involves physical regimen as well.

5.45 pm

And post-release, we try a fair bit of intervention but I have to say quite a bit also depends on the family environment and family support. We have not received the kind of family participation in programmes that we would like. We have programmes that are catered to try and get the kid better but also working with the family. But parents often do not come for this.

So, you see, the state trying to do this by itself is really fighting the problem with one hand tied. The more important hand is really the family and we have programmes to bring the family in. I have asked my officials to see in what other way we can bring the family in more effectively. We have to look at those options and try and see how families can, for example, be directed to come in and help, work with them.

The Chairman: Ms Sylvia Lim.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Thank you, Sir. Sir, I have a few clarifications for the Minister about work programmes for inmates while they are still incarcerated. During the Minister's reply earlier, he did say that work while in prison prepares the inmate, in one sense, for employment post-release. But does he also agree that work has some other benefits as it enables the prisoner to come out of the cell and, in many cases, enables him to earn some money, sometimes to send it back to his family, which is very good for self-esteem?

The second clarification is: the Minister mentioned that out of the prisoners who qualify for work, 85% of them are actually already deployed to work and 15% are awaiting work. I would like to ask why this 15% are waiting for work. Is it because there are insufficient work places available to cater for all who qualify?

And, third, I wonder if the Minister is able to share whether he knows how long the average waiting time is for those who are waiting for work.

Mr K Shanmugam: On the first point, yes, if they are able to work, obviously, it helps in their self-esteem. We would like as many of them as possible to work, provided always that, in the first place, they qualify. I have set out some of the criteria, including our assessment of the risks they pose to the prison environment and the possibility of infecting others and how dangerous they are. Some do not qualify, for example, those on the capital punishment list.

As to the 15% who are waiting for work and the average waiting times, can I invite the Member to file a question and I will answer?

Mr Patrick Tay Teck Guan: Sir, the hon Member Mr Lim Biow Chuan and myself raised two cuts on traffic safety: in his case, heavy vehicles; and myself, traffic safety near schools. Can I ask the Minister or the Senior Minister of State to give a reply as the topic was not responded to?

Mr Desmond Lee: Sir, let me respond to Mr Lim Biow Chuan and Mr Patrick Tay in extra time. They were concerned about road safety. The Traffic Police (TP) will continue to maintain its enforcement stance against errant drivers. Mr Lim spoke specifically about sports cars using roads in Mountbatten as a speeding track. This will not be tolerated. In addition to fixed speed cameras, TP has also rolled out the mobile speed camera in February this year, giving it a new capability in enforcement efforts at hotspots against speeding and illegal racing. TP also runs dedicated operations against racing and this new enhanced technology will, hopefully, be of some help. Anyone caught racing illegally will be severely dealt with.

Mr Lim asked about heavy vehicles, which Mr Tay also mentioned. In a reply to a Parliamentary Question, I mentioned that heavy vehicles meeting certain laden weight requirements need to have speed limiters. These speed limiters prevent the vehicle from accelerating beyond 60 km/h.

TP also conducts operations against heavy vehicle speeding but enforcement on its own is not sufficient. A key strategy is to educate and engage heavy vehicle drivers on road safety and good driving practices. So, this year, TP will partner stakeholders, including vehicle inspection centres like VICOM, associations of companies that deploy heavy vehicles and the Workplace Safety and Health Council, to carry out a dedicated outreach campaign for heavy vehicle drivers.

TP will also continue to work with partners like Road Safety Council and Shell Singapore on road safety education for our young or vulnerable road users. Mr Tay asked about school areas. Last year, TP reached out to more than 77,000 pre-schoolers and Primary school students through road safety talks and sessions to impress upon them the importance of looking after themselves on the roads.

Mr Tay pointed out that besides schools, there are also other places like childcare centres and also enrichment centres where children frequent. It may not be practical for us to replicate school zones everywhere because these centres are everywhere. But let me assure the Member that we will continue our efforts to keep our roads safe and secure through a whole range of efforts. I hope that addresses the Member's concerns.

The Chairman: Mr Pritam Singh.

Mr Pritam Singh: Thank you, Mr Chairman. I would like to ask the Minister with regard to this announcement of the change of position vis-a-vis the collection of data from public transport video cameras and ERP systems, and I would assume ERP2.0 as well, to track the travel pattern of potential suspects, for example, can the Minister please describe to the House how the Ministry will ensure that the data will only be used for the purpose for which it was collected?

Mr K Shanmugam: In the normal way, such data will be meta data, huge amounts of data. It is not just travel patterns; it is people coming into Singapore. We are talking about literally millions of bits of data every day and no one has the time to sit down and monitor individuals.

Technology has got to come in to a large extent and it has to help us in identifying suspicious patterns. I do not want to go into too many operational details but, today, you have the ability to often predict some events happening even before they actually happen based on data that is collected and then analysed through technology. Then, the human intervention comes in, post that, to try and assess the likelihoods.

Should an incident happen, then you would also want to track. This happened in Paris. Where were the terrorists? What were the places they visited? They found evidence in dustbins based on cameras which caught their movements. You track the entire movement chain from beginning to the end, through a series of cameras. You will use it post-incident for investigations, pre-incident for analysis and predictions.

The control for all of these is within the Ministry, not just this data, any data can only be used for the purpose that it is collected. There is a sort of a framework or a position on that which is in place for the Ministry to do that.

The Chairman: I am sorry. We only have time for one more question. Mr Kok.

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): It is a follow-up to that question. Because of such data that can be accessed, I wonder if there are any safeguards so that such access would not be abused.

Mr K Shanmugam: Yes, in all of these, there is always a balance between the risk of abuse and allowing the agencies to use the information. The guidelines, the rules, framework, on how the data can be used, can be put in place. But you have seen from past incidents, not just from Singapore, in other places as well, there are always possibilities that some individuals may then not use it appropriately. They have to be dealt with when they are picked up. We have dealt with them by charging them in Court or other measures.

That does not, therefore, lead to the conclusion that because there is a possibility of abuse, you do not collect the data or use it in the first place. That would be the other extreme. Then, you are opening yourself up for an attack which you cannot do anything about and, post-attack, you do not have the tools to investigate. In the end, not just this power, a variety of powers that are placed in the hands of the Government, they have to be used within the framework of the law and for the purposes they are given.

The Chairman: Mr de Souza, would you like to withdraw the amendment?

Mr Christopher de Souza: Mr Chairman, thank you. Before I do so, I would like to place on record that the Home Team is, indeed, really frontline – roads, police coast guard, airport, ambulance and SCDF, ISD. They provide us with an umbrella of protection, together with MINDEF. And, often, we focus on a calamity. But every day a calamity is avoided is a day of battle won. Unglamorous because it is a non-event, but hugely important to all of us as Singaporeans.

Before withdrawing this amendment, I say that, also, similarly, Singaporeans need to carry this umbrella together with the Home Team and, should an attack happen in Singapore, respond hand-in-hand with the Home Team to overcome adversity. With that, I record the House's thanks to the diligent work of the Home Team, its officers, and I beg leave to withdraw my amendment. [Applause.]

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The sum of $4,761,212,100 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Main Estimates.

The sum of $575,000,000 for Head P ordered to stand part of the Development Estimates.