POLICE FORCE BILL

POLICE FORCE BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Wong Kan Seng): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill repeals the current Police Force Act and re-enacts a new Police Force Act because of the large number of amendments that have been proposed to the existing Act. This Bill consolidates all the amendments and retains all other provisions in the existing Police Force Act that did not need any amendments.

Part IX - Auxiliary Police Forces

The most significant change to the present Police Force Act concerns the auxiliary police forces. Part IX of the Bill details the changes that will be made to the armed security industry. It will address the existing restrictions on the areas of jurisdiction of auxiliary police forces and allow competition in the armed security industry. The Bill will also provide the Singapore Police Force with various powers to strengthen the current regulatory framework.

Column: 76

Existing legislative controls

Sir, the British created the concept of the Auxiliary Police Forces after the Second World War to enable selected entities like harbour warehouses to police their own areas of dwelling or business premises and operations. Today, there are five auxiliary police forces, such as CISCO Auxiliary Police Force, Aetos Auxiliary Police Force, the Singapore Airport Terminal Services (SATS) Auxiliary Police Force, with a total of some 5,000 auxiliary police officers. Currently, all auxiliary police forces, except for the CISCO Auxiliary Police Force, are regulated under section 71 of the Police Force Act and the Police Force (Auxiliary Police) Regulations. The CISCO Auxiliary Police Force is regulated by section 12 of the CISCO Act.

Under these Acts and Regulations, the auxiliary police officers in these auxiliary police forces are vested with a wide range of police powers, for example, search, arrest and the right to bear and discharge firearms.

New Operating Environment

Given the increasingly complex security environment since September 11, the security measures at the various critical infrastructure and key installations have been stepped up. However, it is not possible for the Singapore Police Force to do everything and be everywhere. To ensure sustainability of our security measures in the long run, the owners of critical infrastructure and facilities must assume some responsibility for their physical security and protection by engaging auxiliary police forces, instead of relying solely on the Singapore Police Force. For example, CISCO Auxiliary Police Force supports the Singapore Police Force in ensuring safety and security of Singapore by providing armed security services to power stations and

Column: 77

Government buildings. They also assist in crowd and traffic control for large scale events, such as the Chinese New Year Carnivals at Chinatown.

However, with the exception of the CISCO Auxiliary Police Force, all other auxiliary police forces can only exercise police powers within the limits of the areas owned by, or under the control of, the entities that own and operate the auxiliary police forces. For example, the Singapore Airport Terminal Services (SATS) Auxiliary Police Force may only operate within the confines of Changi Airport. This limitation on the areas of jurisdiction of the auxiliary police forces is no longer satisfactory.

Establishing auxiliary police force

Clause 86 will empower the Singapore Police Force, with the approval of the Minister for Home Affairs, to authorise the creation of auxiliary police forces that may operate commercially anywhere in Singapore, subject to specific conditions relating to ownership and the management of the auxiliary police forces. These conditions are necessary to ensure that only trusted agents may operate and manage auxiliary police forces in Singapore. Apart from being a Singapore-owned company, the Minister's approval is required for a change in ownership or substantial shareholder, so as to ensure that control of auxiliary police forces remains within Singapore's control and in good hands.

By allowing more auxiliary police forces to operate islandwide, we will increase the pool of armed security officers that can support the Singapore Police Force in ensuring safety and security of Singapore. At the same time, we would also be introducing competition into the armed security industry, unlike currently where only CISCO is allowed to operate islandwide.

Column: 78

With the liberalisation of the armed security industry, it is no longer tenable for CISCO to remain as a statutory board under the Home Affairs Ministry competing with other auxiliary police forces. In view of this, the Ministry of Home Affairs has decided to corporatise CISCO, to create a level playing field for all players in the armed security industry. With its corporatisation, CISCO will be freed from the various obligations and restrictions placed upon it as a statutory board under the Ministry of Home Affairs, and may allow market forces to determine its business ventures and decisions completely. Other auxiliary police forces will receive the assurance that CISCO will not enjoy any preferential treatment arising from its status as a statutory board. More details on the corporatisation will be announced when they are ready.

However, Sir, this does not mean that with the opening up of the industry, there will be a proliferation of auxiliary police forces that will operate commercially anywhere in Singapore. While the Ministry of Home Affairs will allow market forces to determine the number of players the industry can support, a significant increase in the current number of auxiliary police forces in Singapore is clearly undesirable from both the security and economic viewpoints. Having too many players may result in an environment where industry standards are lowered as the auxiliary police forces respond to competitive pressures by cutting corners in order to win contracts. Thus, we will probably be allowing only two to three auxiliary police forces to operate islandwide.

Limiting the powers of auxiliary police officers

Sir, auxiliary police officers do not perform all the functions of a regular police officer. They do not undergo the same intensity of training as police officers. Their entry requirements are also

Column: 79

different. Because of these factors, there is a need to exercise further controls on the auxiliary police officers and impose practical limits on the exercise and scope of police powers by them. Such limits are necessary since auxiliary police officers will only need selected police powers in the course of their professional duties. This will distinguish them from the regular police officers.

Stronger regulatory controls

The existing Police Force Act does not contain provisions to hold the auxiliary police forces accountable to the operational standards and requirements as determined by the Singapore Police Force and to regulate competitive behaviour between the auxiliary police forces. This is because the existing auxiliary police forces, with the exception of CISCO, operate only within the confines of their workplace and cannot operate islandwide. However, the new provision on auxiliary police forces will allow them to operate islandwide if they meet the standards set by the Singapore Police Force.

The proposed Bill will allow the Singapore Police Force to issue directives relating to operational standards in armed security services, as well as codes of practice relating to competitive behaviour and market conduct. To enforce these directives and other requirements, the Singapore Police Force will have powers to conduct audits of the auxiliary police forces in the areas of operations, training and staffing. The Bill provides for punitive measures against anyone who obstructs such audits. In addition, auxiliary police forces will be required to seek approval from the Singapore Police Force before undertaking any new armed security services. This will ensure that auxiliary police forces can provide the service adequately.

Column: 80

Stronger disciplinary measures

The current Singapore Police Force Act

does not provide for sanctions against auxiliary police forces as an entity. The proposed Bill provides for a comprehensive range of sanctions against auxiliary police forces as a whole, and against office bearers in the auxiliary police forces, when discipline and procedures have been breached. The sanctions include financial penalties for anti-competitive behaviour, which were modelled after the Telecommunications Act and the Media Development Authority of Singapore Act. The disciplinary measures that may be undertaken against errant or negligent auxiliary police officers have also been enhanced.

Powers of mobilisation

The Ministry of Home Affairs is also taking this opportunity to amend the Act to enable it to tap the auxiliary police forces to augment the homeland security when necessary. Currently, the Ministry can only mobilise CISCO auxiliary police officers in the event of a crisis. MHA does not have such powers over other auxiliary police forces, whose officers constitute an important and strategic resource in an emergency or crisis. Clause 97 of the Bill empowers the Ministry to mobilise any auxiliary police officers to support the Government during any peacetime contingency and crisis situations. Clause 98 ensures that auxiliary police forces whose officers are so mobilised are fairly compensated.

Other amendments

In addition to enhancing controls over auxiliary police officers, the Bill also makes other amendments and change outdated provisions in the existing Act. I shall briefly mention the main ones.

Column: 81

Deployment of officers overseas

The Police Force Act currently provides for the deployment of police officers to other countries, only if it is for the purpose of escorting and guarding of prisoners, or to Malaysia for any purpose. Clauses 20 and 56 of the Bill will widen the scope of this provision by allowing police officers to be deployed outside Singapore. Clause 56 also allows for the voluntary overseas deployment of Police National Service full-time officers, Police National Service officers, and officers of the Volunteer Special Constabulary. The revised provisions in clauses 57 to 59 will also allow disciplinary procedures to be invoked against breaches committed by officers while on overseas duty.

Rationalising outdated provisions

The Bill proposes to repeal sections 44 to 48 of the Police Force Act pertaining to the deployment of Malaysian police force officers in Singapore. These provisions, which pre-dated Singapore's independence, are no longer necessary since in practice any such deployment will require Singapore's consent. The provisions have not been used since Singapore's independence. Even without these provisions, there is already excellent cooperation between the Singapore Police Force and the Royal Malaysian Police on operations, investigation, training and information exchanges pertaining to criminal cases.

Other minor changes

A number of other minor changes have been made. Outdated references to three classes of police officers, "subordinate officer", "inspector" and "gazetted officer", have been deleted. The Police Force Bill has been aligned with the Constitution, and now reflects that the Public Service Commission is invested with the power to appoint senior police officers. The range of service offences and disciplinary measures for police

Column: 82

officers have also been updated to remove outdated forms of punishment, whilst ensuring that they are adequate to maintain high standards of discipline. The procedures for a Committee of Inquiry, including its composition, powers and conduct, have been updated and aligned with that of the other uniformed services. Likewise, the provisions related to powers, duties and discipline of National Service police officers have also been updated. We have also taken the opportunity to refine the list of statutory duties of a police officer to better reflect the core functions of the Singapore Police Force.

Sir, given the prevailing security climate, this Bill will enhance the physical security and protection of our critical infrastructure and key installations by raising the standards and performance of the auxiliary police forces, through regulated and open competition. It will also free up the Singapore Police Force to focus on its core duties while empowering it to maintain adequate controls over the auxiliary police forces and mobilise them when needed, to support the Government during any peacetime contingency and crisis situations. With these changes, we are confident that the armed security industry will be a competent and responsible partner of the Home Team in ensuring homeland security.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Sir, I rise to speak in support of the Bill that repeals and re-enacts the current Police Force Act.

The police is now a highly professional organisation well supported by the public in general. It has achieved an excellent reputation for its fight against crime and terrorism. In so far as this Bill seeks to update the law on the main police force, I do not see any cause for concern.

Column: 83

Indeed, the Bill seeks to enhance the disciplinary procedures and create new offences. These will no doubt make the police force an even more professional and trustworthy organisation.

Sir, my main concern is with regard to the auxiliary police forces (APFs). The Minister has assured us that there will not be that many auxiliary police forces, and that there will be quite a number of checks and controls over such organisations. The intention, as I understand it from the Minister, is to allow owners of key installations and organisations to engage commercial auxiliary police forces, rather than to rely on the main police force. The Minister sees such auxiliary police forces as partners in their role to enhance and maintain Singapore as a secure and safe place to live and work. The Bill envisages that there will be several such forces, and that they are allowed to compete for work. Such forces can also be mobilised by the Ministry for contingencies and emergencies. I just have a couple of concerns.

First, such organisations as the auxiliary police forces would be commercially based. So, costs do become an issue. Would the increase in the number of such APFs create an even more serious demand for suitable manpower? Will such auxiliary police forces be allowed to employ foreign employees as officers? If so, how do we know whether such employees would be reliable and trustworthy? Screening them for past employment records would prove to be difficult, as it involves foreign authorities. These officers might be armed but, hopefully, not going to be dangerous. I hope there will be enough checks in place to control this problem.

Secondly, the Bill envisages that in times of emergency or other peacetime

Column: 84

contingencies, the auxiliary police officers can be mobilised by the Ministry and they will then have the full powers of police officers. What safeguards do we have that they will be responsible in the exercise of such powers? The Minister explained earlier that the auxiliary police officers would not have the same standards of training and recruitment as the ordinary regular police officers, and they are not subject to the same disciplinary procedures, nor are the offences the same as those in the main police force. So, in effect, they are given the powers and privileges of police officers but not subject to the same strict regimen of discipline and proper conduct.

I hope the Minister can assure this House and the public that such auxiliary police officers will perform their duties responsibly and that there will be sufficient checks in place to ensure that the officers in such organisations would be reliable and disciplined in their approach.

With these comments, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, I wish to comment on clause 4 of the Bill which states the functions and the duties of the police force. The functions and duties of the police force are so wide that the police can be used by the authorities as they like, and even can be misused, especially in Singapore where the Government is so powerful. For this reason, I would like to see clause 4 amended by inserting a new paragraph (q) to clause 4(2) as follows:

"The duties of the police force shall be to take lawful measures for maintaining a neutral stance in all its dealings and it shall not be seen to be working with or used by any political party or used for any political purposes."

I am not making this suggestion without any substance. As an Opposition

Column: 85

Member, I have experienced the misuse of the police, and I really think that the amendment is necessary for the good of Singapore. Personally, I have not been dealt fairly by police officers during my years in politics, especially during election time. I have also recently seen the police being used by grassroots organisations in their house-to-house visits in my constituency, and I have also seen the police officers being ordered by a senior grassroots officer not to answer a question I put to that police officer in regard to the places where the police officers have escorted grassroots leaders in their walkabouts and their house-to-house visits. As a Member of Parliament and a representative of the people, surely I have a right to ask a police officer a legitimate question and not be over-ruled by a grassroots leader. But, unfortunately, such a situation exists in Singapore, ie, a grassroots leader can order a police officer not to answer lawful questions put to him by an MP.

If Singapore wants to remake itself, the first step it should take is to tell the whole world that it is not a police state. For this, the Government can do it by entering in the statute books that the police in Singapore is neutral. The police shall not take sides at all. In the dispute of a person, the police in Singapore must be neutral. The police shall not take sides at all, whether the person supports the Opposition or the ruling party. Only when this is done can the people of Singapore be confident that the police shall be neutral. If this is not done, the people shall always have a lingering doubt, and the Remaking of Singapore programme shall be doomed to failure.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, although I have not had such a bad experience with the police as Mr Chiam had described, I do share his concern. I also feel that, during elections, the police does not seem to be fair to the Opposition in terms of controlling election activities. It is

Column: 86

important that the confidence of the public in the police must not be eroded. Otherwise, the question would arise as to whom the police should serve, as they are being paid by the people through taxpayers' money. It is an important question. I hope the Minister will clarify to assure the public that the police is serving Singaporeans and not only the PAP, and that it is not under the order of the PAP as a party.

Sir, I have three points of concern on

this Bill. The first point of concern is the liability of the Government for acts of auxiliary police officers. Clause 105(1) provides that any act done by an auxiliary police officer shall be deemed to be an act done in the course of his employment with the company or statutory board who employs him. Clause 105(2) further provides that the Government will not be responsible for acts of auxiliary police officers. Clause 105 is not new in that it re-enacts the existing section 71 of the Act. However, one crucial difference is that the role of the auxiliary police force (APF) is now expanded. Under the existing section 71, the role of the APF is to safeguard life and property within designated areas. That was in the old Auxiliary Police Force Act. But now under the new Bill, clause 86(1)(c) and (d) provides that an APF may now be called upon to assist the Singapore Police Force and any Government departments. And clause 97 of the Bill even provides that the Commissioner of Police can mobilise members of the APF for police duty. In such a situation where the APF officers are acting on the instruction of Government, should not the Government be liable for the acts of the auxiliary police officers?

Secondly, Sir, on the punishment for disciplinary offence by the police officers, clause 95(1) of the Bill provides that when an auxiliary police officer has committed a disciplinary offence, instead of dealing with the case internally, he

Column: 87

could be prosecuted in court. If he is prosecuted, then the sentence will be a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment of up to two years or both. By comparison, for a State police officer, clause 41(2) provides that if there is no specific sentence for the offence, the general punishment for a State police officer prosecuted for disciplinary offence is a fine of $1,000 or imprisonment of up to six months or both. Could the Minister clarify why the sentences for both SPF officers and APF officers are not the same? Is there a reason why APF officers are exposed to more severe punishment and sentence than the State police officers for similar offences?

Sir, my final point concerns clause 91 which aims to ensure fair market competition in the armed security industry in Singapore. Clause 91(1) states that any agreement, practice or conduct which distorts market competition, or which amounts to an abuse of a dominant position by any APF is not allowed. Under clause 91(3), such practice or conduct is void. But, nevertheless, clause 91(7) allows the Commissioner of Police to exempt any APF employer from anti-competitive practice, such that the Commissioner can allow an APF employer to abuse his dominant position in the market. Could the Minister clarify what kind of situation will justify the Commissioner to allow such a behaviour? And if other APF employers are affected by the Commissioner's decision to exempt the dominant player, do they have any recourse or is the Commissioner's exemption final?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, as Prof. Chin rightly pointed out, liberalisation of the armed security industry will lead to an increase in the demand for auxiliary police officers. The concern is whether this would lead to a lowering of standards. I would like to assure Prof. Chin that the

Column: 88

current recruitment criteria will not be lowered. In addition to the criteria on educational qualifications and physical attributes, new applicants will need to undergo the various security screening and be cleared by the Singapore Police Force before they can be recruited. This would also apply to foreign applicants who have to furnish a certificate of no criminal conviction or its equivalent. The concern that he may have records that the Police does not have in Singapore can be addressed by this certificate of no criminal conviction issued by the home country of the foreigner concerned.

To further address the point that competition may lead to a lowering of standards and control, the Singapore Police Force will be setting up a regulatory unit to oversee the auxiliary police forces and the auxiliary police officers. This unit will ensure that the standards will be maintained and that the auxiliary police officers will not abuse the powers given to them in the course of their work. The following measures will be taken.

Firstly, through testing. With the liberalisation of the armed security industry, the auxiliary police forces will be allowed to set up their own training school or unit, as long as they are able to meet the criteria and standards set up by the Singapore Police Force. To ensure that high training standards are maintained, the Singapore Police Force will put in place a comprehensive certification and testing process. The auxiliary police officers will be required to pass written and scenario-based tests as well as shooting tests. The assessment syllabus will also include physical fitness, protective security, Police procedures and the relevant aspects of the law and handling of firearms. The whole assessment process will ensure that only well-trained auxiliary police officers are deployed.

Secondly, it is through the use of directives. The control of standards will

Column: 89

be strengthened through directives issued by the Police Force which will then lay out the operational standards and the requirements. The Singapore Police Force will also carry out regular ground inspections and audits to ensure strict compliance with the directives. Controls and checks will include assessing the general proficiency levels of the auxiliary police forces. When gaps such as failures to ensure adequate training of the officers are identified, the auxiliary police forces will be required to take steps to close them, failing which sanctions may be imposed. These sanctions could range from written warnings to imposing financial penalties or, in the worst case, suspending the auxiliary police force from providing armed security services.

Thirdly, through an enhanced disciplinary framework. While the auxiliary police officers will be trained and briefed on the exercise of their Police powers, there will inevitably be "black sheep". The Singapore Police Force would introduce an enhanced disciplinary framework that will allow the auxiliary police forces to take appropriate measures against the errant or negligent auxiliary police officers. Senior auxiliary police officers will also be subject to the same disciplinary proceedings as regular officers and subject to disciplinary action by the Singapore Police Force. In the case of the junior auxiliary police officers, the Singapore Police Force will have oversight of the disciplinary proceedings by the auxiliary police forces. In addition, the errant auxiliary police officers may also be prosecuted in court and the penalty, in this instance, has been enhanced.

Lastly, through restricting the powers of the auxiliary police officers. Under the current Police Force Act and the CISCO Act, all auxiliary police officers carry arms and have the powers, protection and immunities of police officers of corresponding rank within the specified areas of jurisdiction. These powers can

Column: 90

be exercised even when they are not on duty. Under the new legislation, auxiliary police officers will only be able to exercise their powers when they are on duty. Such limits will help to ensure that the auxiliary police officers do not abuse the Police powers. With all these measures, we will ensure that the standards are upheld and only well-trained auxiliary police officers are deployed.

Coming to Mr Chiam's comment, it is a serious allegation that our regular police officers have not been neutral. I think that is not a fair comment. Our police officers uphold the highest standard of conduct, as well as professionalism. They treat all alike, whether he is a foreigner, a citizen, the ruling party or the Opposition party. All individuals in Singapore must observe the law. It is the police officers' duty to uphold the law and to ensure that law and order is maintained.

The instance cited by Mr Chiam of police officers accompanying grassroots leaders on house visits is not something new and only done for the ruling party. It is part and parcel of the grassroots leaders' role in helping to educate the public on crime prevention. That is the role of the police officers, not as escorts for grassroots leaders on house visits. They do not serve that purpose. When the police go on such rounds with grassroots leaders or with advisors on the ground, it is purely for the purpose of promoting crime prevention, as well as to get to know the residents. That is what they have been doing for a long time.

On Mr Chiam's specific incidence on why his question was not answered by the Police, I cannot give him an answer unless he writes to me specifically and tells me what actually took place, and I will have it investigated. Our police officers, as far as public surveys are concerned, year by year, have received high marks from the public. Just from

Column: 91

Police records of publicly-assisted arrests, we are quite proud of our statistics. 40%-50% of the arrests made in Singapore are done with the help of the public. If he goes to any other country in this part of the world, I do not think he can hear that kind of confidence that the public has on our police force. We should do nothing to undermine the sense of confidence that the public has in them. If there are other specific instances where Mr Chiam felt aggrieved that he has been slighted by the Police, please write to me and let me know, and I will have it investigated. The same goes for Mr Low. He complained that during the elections period, Opposition Members were treated unfairly. I can tell him that PAP candidates also felt that the Police treated them very unfairly by not allowing them to do certain things. But that is the job of the Police, to ensure that it is fair and neutral to all parties concerned and not just to the ruling party's candidates. Let me state quite categorically that the police officers act without fear or favour.

Mr Low has specific comments on the clauses. On the liability of the Government for acts done by the auxiliary police force, if the auxiliary police officers are fulfilling a commercial contract and they are doing a job, that certainly must be the responsibility of the individual employer. Of course, in a situation where they are mobilised to assist the Government, then they have to obey the instructions of the Government. And in the course of their duties, something does happen and it is during mobilisation, then the Government will have to take care of the problem.

On the punishment of the auxiliary police officer and the regular police officer, for the regular police officer, this has not been changed because this is the existing provision. For the auxiliary police officer, under the old provision,the

Column: 92

punishment was $500 and an imprisonment term for a short period. But the recent case shows that this is totally inadequate and that even this $500 is totally out of tune with today's times. And since the law has not been amended for some time, it therefore has to be updated and there must be good reasons why there is this difference between the regular police officers and the auxiliary police officers because the regular police officers are also subject to the Police's General Orders, as well as to other disciplinary rules and proceedings of the civil service and the Police Force.

On fair competition and whether the power given to the Commissioner to exempt dominant players will be abused or not, let me assure the Member that it is not the intention to abuse the power of the Commissioner by exempting certain dominant players. For example, if Mr Low has in mind CISCO, let me say that CISCO will be treated no differently from any other auxiliary police forces if the other auxiliary police forces so decide to compete in the open market like CISCO. Right now, I know that there is already an existing one formed from several other auxiliary police forces into one new company called Ateos. They will be competing with CISCO in the marketplace. I am sure that if they believe that they have been done in, because the Commissioner has been unfair, the matter will be raised and will be looked into.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Sir, I would like to clarify with the Minister. He said that the Government will be responsible. From what I read from clause 105, it says that the Government shall not be liable for any act done or omitted to be done by any auxiliary police officer who is not employed by the Government.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the key words are "not employed by the Government". If they are employed by the commercial companies themselves, then certainly it

Column: 93

must be the companies that will be liable for them. But if they are employed by the Government, then they will not be covered by the provision.

Mr Low Thia Khiang: Is the Minister saying that as long as the Government has mobilised them, it is considered that they are being employed by the Government? For instance, CISCO officers employed by CISCO are employed by CISCO as a company. So the moment the Government mobilises them, it is considered that they are employed by the Government. Am I right to say that?

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Yes. I think there are also terms of contract which will be a matter for the courts to decide as to where the liability actually lies.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the Minister has not said whether or not he is willing to amend clause 4(2) to add another clause to say that the police shall always be neutral.

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, are you proposing an amendment? If you are proposing an amendment, you must give prior notice.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am asking the Minister whether he is willing. If he is willing, then we go on to the second step. He has not mentioned it.

He also alleged that I have made a serious allegation. But I go down on record to say that I have made this not without substance. I have personally experienced the treatment of the police. So, I am not plucking something out of the air to make an irresponsible allegation. I have been in politics for many years and this happened during my tenure in politics. I am surprised that he says the police accompany grassroots leaders in their house-to-house visits. This is just like bringing an Alsatian dog to visit the house.

Column: 94

Mr Speaker: Mr Chiam, I do not think it is right to say that.

Mr Chiam See Tong: The residents will be intimidated. The policemen are armed with revolvers. It is not friendly house visits. They are fully armed. They have revolvers. I have seen it with my own eyes. That is not police work that they are doing.

Mr Wong Kan Seng: Sir, the fact that Mr Chiam says something of substance does not make it substantiated. If he has any reason to believe that he has been unfairly treated, he can write to me and I shall have it fully investigated. He should not say that he has substance to make an allegation and therefore it is substantiated.

The police officers go on rounds. They do house visits. They accompany grassroots leaders from time to time to do that. They also do house visits on their own as part of community policing. I do not see residents as being scared of the police as if they are like Alsatian dogs. Not at all. I think our public know that our policemen are friendly policemen. In fact, sometimes I get feedback that our policemen are becoming too friendly that people are not afraid of them any more. So his suggestion that our police officers go on rounds with grassroots leaders is like bringing along Alsatian dogs is totally absurd.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. - [Mr Wong Kan Seng].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.