ILLEGAL MONEYLENDERS AND RUNNERS

ILLEGAL MONEYLENDERS AND RUNNERS: 12.

Mdm Cynthia Phua asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) how many illegal moneylenders and runners have been arrested and convicted in 2009 and what is the average age of these runners; (b) whether he will consider increasing penalties to deter people from becoming runners; (c) whether there is any link between secret society members and illegal moneylenders/runners; (d) whether there are sufficient small loans licensed moneylenders in the market; (e) what is the status of the study to make borrowing from unlicensed moneylenders illegal; and (f) whether he will consider having an outreach programme to educate our young from becoming runners.

13.

Mr Christopher de Souza asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs if he will provide an update on what measures he will take to reduce the incidents of unlicensed moneylending and loanshark harassment and when borrowing from loan sharks will be made an offence.

The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, before I address Mdm Cynthia Phua’s and Mr Christopher de Souza’s queries, let me update the House on the loanshark situation and share how we intend to deal with the problem moving forward.

Sir, we have started to toughen measures against loansharks since 2005. These included enhancing penalties and introducing presumptions under the Moneylenders Act; confiscating assets of convicted loansharks under the Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes Act; cancelling passports and imposing a travel ban under the Passport Act and when justified, detaining

Column: 964

loansharks under the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act. Police also worked with agencies such as the Singapore Post to tighten procedures to limit opportunities for exploitation by loanshark syndicates.

Sir, we have been closely monitoring the effect of these enhanced measures. There was a temporary respite in 2007 when loansharking and harassment cases dropped by some 4.5% after a continual spike of five years, but unfortunately, the upward trend resumed last year, and into this year. From January to June this year, the number of loanshark and harassment reports rose from 4,759 to 9,395 compared to the same period last year. Loansharks are also now bolder in harassing innocent households. Families who have never borrowed from loansharks have had their property damaged and their safety threatened. Harassment tactics have also becoming increasingly dangerous. These include setting on fire items placed in front of victims’ flats, spraying vehicles with loanshark graffiti and locking innocent victims in their flats.

Sir, we recognise that we are in a battle of wits and nerves with determined loanshark syndicates. Let me say that we are equally determined. So pressing on resolutely, we will not let these syndicates terrorise our neighbourhoods. We will do more to target beyond the syndicate frontline, that is, the " Ah Longs " and runners on the ground as they can be easily replaced. Indeed, we recognise loansharking syndicates for what they really are, not benign unlicensed moneylenders, but a highly pernicious form of organised crime.

Advances in communications technology and the ways money can be transferred have led to loanshark syndicates becoming larger, more sophisticated, and more dangerous. Their structure and methods such as a

Column: 965

hierarchical membership, a professional administrative centre and a code of behaviour which require loyalty from members when apprehended are features of organised crime. Top leaders shield themselves, leverage on technology and surround themselves with an impenetrable layer of lieutenants. Borrowers who are over-committed in their borrowing and the young, including out-of-school youths and students, are exploited and recruited as runners. Because they are organised groups, the parts which are compromised can be easily replaced. Moreover, some masterminds control their syndicates from overseas.

Sir, we will study ways to penetrate these layers more effectively and punish the masterminds. We will further enhance the penalties against loansharks and harassers. In addition, we will also punish anyone who knowingly contributes or facilitates a loansharking operation. We will explore ways to disrupt the flow of money and resources and tackle the financiers who provide them. We will introduce laws to punish loansharking activities conducted overseas.

On the ground, Police will be relentless in pursuing runners and harassers. There have been a few prominent successful intelligence-led operations the past two months or so. For example, an operation on 9th July led to 10 persons being arrested who were linked to about 500 debtors and responsible for about 1,000 cases of harassment. So far, this year, Police has already crippled nine syndicates, compared to the grand total of nine crippled the whole of last year. At the divisional level, I think, Members have read in the media, Police have also geared up in this fight against loansharks.

Over and above enhanced enforcement, Police will work more closely with key partners such as ICA and HDB to

Column: 966

track unscrupulous borrowers who do not change their address after selling their flat as well as tenants who shield themselves behind their landlords' address. Police will also work with Town Councils to have the loanshark graffiti removed expeditiously and with grassroots organisations on greater use of CCTVs. On their part, neighbours of homes that are hit can signal their disgust with this abhorrent scourge by banding together to form Neighbourhood Watch Groups (NWGs) to watch out for the runners and harassers. And if they do this, the NPCs will readily render all assistance to help them in this fight against loansharks. Quite a few NWGs have been formed already, but I think more can be done.

Sir, for the time being, we will not criminalise borrowing from loansharks. We will closely monitor the cumulative effect of the enhanced measures, I have mentioned earlier, before we assess once again the need to introduce this drastic measure.

On Mdm Cynthia Phua's queries, in the first half of this year, 417 persons were arrested for unlicensed moneylending and harassment, an increase of 210 persons, or 101%, compared to the same period last year. So there has also been more arrests. Whilst some of the persons arrested had secret society affiliations, to date, none of the loanshark syndicates was found operating under the control of a secret society. Profits have also not been channelled to benefit any secret society.

Mdm Phua raised an important concern when she asked what the average age of the runners was and whether MHA will consider having an outreach programme to educate our young from becoming runners. Youth involvement in loanshark-related crimes is indeed on the rise. Eighty-one youths were arrested for loanshark-related activities in the first half of this year, as

Column: 967

compared to 21 youths arrested over the same period last year. Most were impressionable youths, lured by the temptation to make a quick buck. Many were referred to work for loansharks by their friends. By doing so wittingly or unwittingly, these youths put themselves and their loved ones in danger.

To counter this development, Police has been working with schools to educate youths on the dangers and consequences of getting involved in loansharking activities. To connect with them more effectively, Police is producing a video, captioned "Confessions 2", where an ex-runner will share his experience and regret over his involvement with loansharks. This video and other materials will be uploaded onto Singapore Police Force's (SPF) Facebook account and Youtube. Parents too can play their part to warn and monitor their children against falling prey to loansharks, either as borrowers or runners, as they will pay a heavy price.

Sir, in summary, MHA recognises that loansharking remains a scourge on the ground and will lead collective efforts to tackle it. Let all of us in Singapore declare war against loansharks!

Mdm Cynthia Phua: Sir, I would like to ask the Minister, out of the 81 youth offenders that were caught, how many of them were in school and how many of them were school dropouts. The other question is, does the penalty commensurate with the seriousness of the vandalism? Like what the Minister has said, throwing petrol bombs, locking up gates, splashing of paint can be frightening to the residents and is vandalism but it does not invoke fear. My last question, I noted that the Police has really engaged the community. Instead of just engaging the NPC or going around and watching, is there a hotline that they could call? Do they have the power to restrain the possible culprit?

Column: 968

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, first, of the youths who were caught in the first half of this year, about half of them were in school. The other half were working, not in school, unemployed and some were in NS. So there is a range. But, definitely, we will do more, in terms of outreach and education. On the second part, as I have said, we have enhanced penalties over the years. So in 2005, we enhanced the penalties, and in 2008, last year, we enhanced them further and upcoming, we want to enhance the penalties even more. But, really, for those harassers who cause damage to property or injury to persons, we want to emphasise the caning and indeed for those who damage property or harm persons, the element of a mandatory minimum caning will be imposed because, after all, they are threatening the well-being of others. So I think there is no question about it, these are dangerous acts and we must nip them in the bud. When Police can charge harassers under other more serious sections, eg, mischief by fire – I think there were about 35 instances this year when items had been lit outside flats and indeed like Mdm Phua said under her ward, petrol bombs were thrown – when the facts are proven, Police will also impose a higher charge to send the right signal. So let that be clear.

For the hotline, when the NPC works with the grassroots leaders, in particular working with the RCs, it is not just a method of getting in touch, there is information imparted, there is also coaching being done as to how to identify people who may be suspicious, networking amongst the neighbours, contact numbers are also given out. If you look at the papers over the last two to three weeks, there have been good arrests arising from these collective efforts on the ground. And, indeed, there was one case I am quite happy to note, in Yishun, where I come from, a person actually alerted the Police when he saw two persons using the ATM machines for 30 minutes, transferring money from one

Column: 969

machine to another machine. That act alerted him to the possibility of them being runners on the ground. He alerted the Police, the Police came and then caught these two persons, looked at what they were doing, traced the records and I think they are being charged as harassers or runners. I think the message I want to send to this House is that we must all work together. The Police will indeed step up and MHA will step up too. I think if everybody sends a very strong signal that we will not tolerate this scourge, the situation will improve.

Mr Speaker: Mr de Souza, one last question.

Mr Christopher de Souza: I thank the Minister for his comprehensive reply and I support the slew of measures introduced by him. But there is one common theme in the slew of measures which is they are supply-centric targeted. My question is, why not include in the arsenal a weapon which allows the Government and MHA to tackle the demand side, and this is illustrated through making borrowing from loansharks an offence? It is underscored by many of our home visits to blocks where you have the whole mood of the corridor being low, if you have "owe pay, pay money" spray painted. My second question is, is it drastic – I think the Minister used the adjective, "drastic" for measures to penalise borrowers – to penalise the borrower who has given a false address so as to obviate the harassment to himself and to put the harassment on an innocent party? I do not think there is anything drastic in going after somebody recalcitrant like that. Would the Minister please reply to these two supplementary questions?

Mr Speaker: You have four minutes left, Prof. Ho.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I note Mr de Souza's continued sentiments on

Column: 970

this. He has argued before that we should criminalise borrowing. As I said in my speech, at the moment, we will not be doing it. But let me assure him that we will not rule it out. In fact, we talked about it a year-and-a-half ago in COS 2008. We have been monitoring the feedback. We have been studying the pros and cons of doing it. I am sure he will agree there are indeed also cons besides the pros. Pros, it may deter some from borrowing, but cons, given the fact that borrowers come not from one homogenous group, there are also innocent borrowers, borrowers who actually need money who may be affected. Also, the possibility of the danger that when we do it, it may drive some of the problems underground, or indeed even cause harassers to be bolder because when they know that you cannot report, they harass you even more. So we have to balance all this. We are not saying we will not do it. But as the Member has said, there is a slew of measures being introduced, I want to monitor them, see whether we can tackle the problem without having to introduce this step. Indeed, if we do it next year, when community based sentences are introduced already, that may give the courts greater flexibility in penalising borrowers. So let us monitor and wait and see.

Column: 970