Commemorating 200 Years of the Singapore Police Force

In this context, I have often referred to a speech by the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew who said this in 1962: "In a settled and established society, law appears to be a precursor of order. Good laws lead to good order, that is the form that you will learn. But the hard realities of keeping the peace between man and man, and between authority and the individual, can be more accurately described, if the phrase were inverted to 'order and law', for without order the operation of law is impossible."

Members will notice that he said, "order and law", not "law and order". He reversed, or inverted, the phrase. You have to establish order first, then laws can work. Otherwise, laws will not work.

I think it is fair to say Mr Lee sometimes took a view similar to that which Hobbes had put out, about man in society. That philosophy underpins the changes we made to the criminal justice system which we had inherited from the British.

A lot of it, I would say, is primarily due to what Mr Lee himself believed, thought through and brought about, with a deep understanding of how people actually behave, how societies work and how laws actually work. The criminal justice system we inherited has a long history, evolving over many centuries in England; we adapted, changed and, in some respects, we changed quite fundamentally. That helped create a framework for the Police to be effective.

Let me give three examples as to what I mean.

We changed our laws, for example, to allow the Courts to draw an adverse inference if an accused person puts up a defence that he did not mention when he was first interviewed by the Police.

This position was based on the UK Criminal Law Revision Committee's recommendation which had then not been put into practice in the United Kingdom (UK). The committee had said that hardened criminals could greatly hamper investigations by refusing to answer any questions; so, put the onus on them to answer the questions.

It runs against a basic principle, some might say, the golden thread, as it were, of the right to remain silent. But we made the major change in 1976. It encouraged suspects to be forthcoming during investigations. Accused persons have to tell the Police the truth when interviewed, or adverse inferences can be drawn.

Members would have seen, perhaps in TV dramas, the police will tell the suspect that he or she has a right to remain silent and if the police officers did not do so, that could become, a procedural problem and the suspect may walk free on a technicality.

Our position: it is in the public interest that persons under investigations by the Police tell the truth when interviewed. The change has had a big impact on how suspects behave and the entire criminal process.

In this context, maybe I can take the opportunity of dealing with or responding to some points that Ms Lim made. I think she made the following points about video-recording of interviews (VRI), translation to other languages, resource allocation, as well as helping victims and victim impact statements. Steps have been taken and further the steps will be taken.

I responded on these previously. Since today's Motion is on SPF and 200 years, and celebrating SPF, I will not go into detail on those points. We can discuss those on another occasion.

There is another point that, coincidentally, forms a big part of my speech too. Ms Lim made reference to Prof Herbert Packer's work on due process and crime control. While it is not so clear, I think Ms Lim would probably fall on the side of the due process model.

The approach we have taken is not ideological. It is to see what is suitable, what works in Singapore. As I said, in 1976, the steps we took would probably be described as more akin to the crime control model.

And as Ms Lim was speaking, I remembered a speech by our former Chief Justice Mr Chan Sek Keong. This was a lecture in 2008 – I think Justice Chan was Chief Justice at that point – at the centenary of Mr David Marshall's birth.

This is what he had to say and I can do no better than what perhaps the greatest jurist Singapore has seen, said about this process. He said, from paragraph 13 onwards:

"Before I discuss some of these amendments, let me now sketch out for you the features of the criminal justice process that was in place in Singapore before 1976. We then had an investigative and trial process regulated by the Criminal Procedure Code and the Evidence Act which basically provided the framework for a common law trial process which was highly admired, if not revered, in England at that time."

I make a point to take Members through this in some detail because if you want a safe and secure Singapore, with due process for all of us, it is important to get this fundamental principle right. Because there is and there will always be a tendency to move towards much more of putting hurdles and processes in the way of the Police. The point is to strike the right balance and I would emphasise that all Members and all Ministers for Home Affairs and Law remember these fundamental principles.

That is why I said in my speech paths taken and paths avoided. If we had not taken this path in 1976, neither the Police nor Singapore would have today's crime control system.

Let me read a little bit more about what Chief Justice Chan, as he then was, said:

"The fundamental principle was the presumption of innocence. This meant that (a) the prosecution must prove every ingredient of the offence against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt; (b) the accused had the right to remain silent at any stage of  the criminal justice process, from investigation to trial; (c) the accused had the right not to incriminate himself, except in restricted circumstances; (d) the accused's statements to the police were not admissible except in restricted circumstances; (e) he had the right to give an unsworn statement from the dock; (f) all evidence, even if true, was not admissible if it might have a prejudicial effect on the jury; and (g) the practice of the courts was to require strict compliance with the rules of evidence and procedure and (h) to have strict oversight of jury directions on accomplice evidence and corroboration.”

“In a paper published in 1964 on the criminal justice process in the USA, Professor Herbert Packer of Stanford University described two models of criminal justice process, namely, due process and crime control. This paper has since been regarded as one of the most important contributions to systematic thought about criminal justice.”

“The basic features are those I have just described of our criminal justice process before 1976."

That means, very much, due process.

"Because of the presumption of innocence, priority must be given to the protection of the accused's rights in a fair manner. Police powers of arrest and investigation should be limited to prevent potential official oppression of the individual. Procedural rights are not mere technicalities. Law enforcement officers and the prosecution should be held accountable to rules, procedures and guidelines to ensure fairness and consistency."

And he goes on; I will skip a little bit. At paragraph 15, he said:

"Marshall achieved great success under this system. Many other lesser lights also shone. But it was inevitable that the prosecution would sooner or later take note of the defects (from its point of view) of the existing process which had been so ably and amply demonstrated by Marshall. It must have led the Government to rethink seriously about the objectives of the criminal justice process and how to achieve those objectives.”

“Let me now introduce the other model of criminal justice process that Professor Packer had identified in his paper, viz, the crime control model."

And he sets out the features.

"The repression of crime should be the most important function of criminal justice because order is a necessary condition for a free society. Criminal justice should concentrate on vindicating victims' rights rather than on protecting defendants' rights. Police powers should be expanded to make it easier to investigate, arrest, search, seize and convict. Legal technicalities that handcuff the police should be eliminated. If the police make an arrest and a prosecutor files criminal charges, the accused should be presumed guilty because the fact-finding of police and prosecutors is highly reliable."

I am setting these out, I am not saying that I agree with them. This is what Prof Packer had identified.

"The main objective of the criminal justice process should be to discover the truth or to establish the factual guilt of the accused."

And he has a few other factors too.

"The 1976 amendments introduced many features of the crime control model. Ironically, these amendments were based on the recommendations of the 1972 Eleventh Report of the UK Criminal Law Revision Committee which the UK government had rejected."

For Members' reference, those who are not lawyers, the UK Criminal Law Revision Committee comprised eminent jurists and lawyers. They looked at the system in the UK and they came up with a set of recommendations but it was not doable in the UK. In Singapore, many of the recommendations were passed  into law.

Chief Justice Chan, as he was, set out the two major changes.

“All statements made by an accused to a police officer in the course of investigation would be admissible in evidence… And second, the trial process. If the accused is called upon to enter his defence, he has no right to make an unsworn statement from the dock."

“These two broad changes led to an increase in the conviction of the factually guilty through pleas of guilt or at trials. Crime control was strengthened with the use of rebuttable and irrebuttable resumptions in substantive offences. These developments, together with better and more dedicated and efficient law enforcement have reduced the crime rate over the years and have made Singapore a safer place to live in. You might think that this statement is somewhat simplistic, but many people would agree that law enforcement in Singapore, although not perfect, is among the best in the world."

That is the view of the Chief Justice, as he was, in 2008. That is not to say that therefore crime control becomes the be-all and end-all. Of course, you must have fairness in the system. So, it is a question of finding the right balance. I would ask Members to carefully consider what is suitable for our society when seeking to strike the right balance. The right balance should not be guided by pure ideology. It should be guided by what works, what is fair, what is right.

We have a system today: trained judges, a defence bar, rules of process, procedure, presumption of innocence except in the context of, say, drug trials where presumption of innocence is there but the accused has got to go and prove specific factors because those are within his knowledge. And in corruption trials, also a reversal of onus of proof.

We do not say we have arrived. That will be not only inaccurate, it will be hubris. But we are constantly refining, constantly trying to find the right balance. And the right balance also changes when society changes.

Our philosophy is that the Police investigations should not be made into a series of technical hurdles which have to be cleared. But it must be a clear and fair process that helps to arrive at the truth.

I think all Members will agree that it is a question of balance and it is really a question of how you strike that balance.

We have, for example, talked about, implemented, in some cases, initiatives like VRI, the Appropriate Adult Scheme, other initiatives. All of these will help in the fairness in the process.

Another example that I would put forward in going back to my point about the law enforcement framework within which the Police operate, is that tough penalties that have been introduced to deal with serious crimes.

I spoke about drugs, corruption and many other offences. The penalties were changed and, where necessary, onus of proof was reversed. If you have wealth, you are a public servant, you have wealth which is not explained, the onus is on you to prove.

We also have preventive detention, the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act adapted from British laws.

Jury trials were abolished. Instead, we have trials presided over by professional judges, who are better able to handle the complex issues for a more reliable fact-finding process. It lessens the theatrics, reduces the risk of injustice.

And we have the institutions required for an effective judicial justice system: the judiciary, the public prosecution service, the bar associations. They have all been built up.

As a result, we have a criminal justice system which has worked well for us. But it is constant work, constant refining, constant tending and it will continue to have to be so.

If the system does not work well and criminals walk away because the system is corrupt or weak, then Police morale and discipline will go down. Police will not be effective. We have avoided that.

I have only given a few examples of this framework but Members can assume that there have been many changes that have been very substantive that has led to the system we have today. But let me now move to this context of SPF 200.

The second key factor behind SPF's success is the quality of officers in SPF and the quality of its leadership.

The focus by Mr Lee and his team was on building not just the size of the Police force upon Independence but also the quality of officers and leadership in SPF.

High quality does not only mean educational qualifications. You need qualities of character, a sense of purpose and you must be able to handle the pressure and perform on the job.

In 1972, seven years after Independence, and again I quote Mr Lee addressing Police officers at the Police Dining-in, I quote, "There are certain virtues in the force which never changes.   It must have high morals, it must be proud of itself and it cannot be proud of itself if it has not got the right leadership. It must have that sense of purpose that comes out of men trained on a common doctrine. And it must have a sense of continuity."

Almost 40 years later, in 2011, that his final Police Dining-in, Mr Lee said, "We cannot have a situation where the criminals are smarter and better resourced than you. If we do not recruit strong officers with the moral fibre and a sense of purpose, you will go downhill very fast."

In the 40 years in between and before, these lessons were taken to heart and applied. Today, there is rigour in who gets to become a Police officer. Less than one out of every 10 applicants to SPF is accepted as direct Sergeants or Inspectors. The emphasis is on quality.

SPF also tries to ensure that good officers move up, regardless of their entry rank. It implemented the unified rank structure in 2016, went beyond academic qualifications.

It provides faster progression through the ranks for officers who perform well. Once you are in service, how you perform should matter more than your qualifications when you first came in.

SPF also has a scholarship scheme – prestigious, competitive, highly sought after. Some who spoke earlier on this Motion – Members of Parliament Murali Pillai, Melvin Yong, Patrick Tay – were all scholars, and of course, the Deputy Prime Minister.  SPF sent him on his first trip overseas to Cambridge.

As a side note, if I may say so, one of the problems that SPF is finding is that other services are increasingly looking at SPF. Because apart from the Deputy Prime Minister, the Head of Civil Service and various other officers, Permanent Secretaries and those in other Ministries have come from SPF. I suppose the approach we have to take is that we spot, we groom, we invest, we train and then, we should be glad that they are taken by others.

SPF is also becoming more gender diverse. Today, we have 1,800 women in SPF making up 20%, one-fifth of the force. They serve in every division, including Specialist Divisions.

Mdm Deputy Speaker, Senior Staff Sergeant Siti Aisyah is from the Emergency Response Team (ERT), which is, Members would know, our dedicated fast-response Police unit; and in the event of a terrorist incident, she and her colleagues will be on the ground immediately. The other photo is that of Sergeant Anna Anthony from the Community Policing Unit.

Going back to Siti Aisyah, she is 30 years old. Her childhood dream was to be a Police officer. She volunteered for the ERT Conversion Course which is tough and she is the first ERT Officer in Woodlands Division.

ERT officers like her are trained in tactical and counter-assault skills. She patrols in public places with her gear which is up to 17 kilogrammes and she maintains her IPPT Gold and Marksman qualifications. She is also a Physical Training Instructor, a Police Defence Tactics Instructor and a Range Safety Officer and highly regarded among her peers.

Gender is no barrier in the Police force even for the physically and mentally demanding roles like the ERT. SPF actively grooms its officers for leadership positions in the SPF. They will undergo postings in ground units, Patrols and Operations, Investigations and Intelligence. They may spend some time in MHA getting policy experience and the wider Public Service; sharpen their policy understanding; make them think whole-of-Government. Some of the younger officers may spend some time with me, assisting me directly. And if they perform well, prove they can do the job, they will be appointed to Command positions in SPF.

SPF today is led by Police Commissioner Hoong Wee Teck. Rose from the ground, highly respected by the rank-and-file, because he is both operationally very good and at the same time, understands his men and women, so they respect him.

Below him, the Deputy Commissioners: Jerry See, Florence Chua, Tan Hung Hooi. All in their early to mid-50s. They and the next echelons, you will get an example of SPF's approach to grooming leaders and I would illustrate by referring to three officers who are a little bit younger.

How Kwang Hwee, age 42, Oxford, Stanford. Started as Investigation Officer (IO) in Operations, moved on to various positions, then Commander, G Division, spent some time in policy work in MHA, then Director of Operations and now Director in Criminal Investigation Division (CID), which is one of the most senior positions in SPF, at the age of 42.

Lian Ghim Hua, 41, started again as an Investigation Officer; before that, on scholarship to Cornell and then, Stanford, moved up eventually to become Commander, F Division, which is a stressful position because in terms of crime, it is not the highest, but it covers Prime Minister's ward and coincidentally my ward as well. So, it is a high stress job. He is now Director of Operations and a high performing officer.

Alvin Moh, age 40, again started as an Investigation officer, Commanding Officer (CO) of Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC), of which Deputy Prime Minister said something, Commander, G Division, spent time at MHA, now Director of Police Intel Department (PID).

All three and others, and the Deputy Commissioners, the Commissioner and people below them, exemplify the SPF leadership today. As I said, we also voluntarily gave up various other officers to the wider public sector. If we go down the ranks, I will mention three officers with whom I worked directly, again more to illustrate how SPF grooms its leadership.

One of them is 37, two others are 33 each, spent about 18 months working with me closely: Teo Zi-Ming, 37; Sergius, 33; Lee Huan Ting, 33. They went through various ground postings – IOs, CO NPCs and so on – came up to MHA and worked with me. Zi-Ming is now Assistant Commissioner Commander, F Division at 37. Sergius is now a Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commander, J Division. Huan Ting is now a Deputy Assistant Commissioner, Deputy Commander, A Division.

I have mentioned the senior leadership because leadership is vital. Leadership also needs our committed ground officers. During this Motion, we recognise all of them: the officer on Coast Patrol, off our waters; the officer in the NPC on ground patrol; officers doing their Emergency Response (ER) patrol, Transport command, Traffic Police, Police Operations Command Centre (POCC) command, Investigation Officers, Gurkha Contingent and many others. Our Volunteer Constabulary, they are our heroes, unsung, doing their work, day in, day out. They are all together, integral to the Singapore that we have today. And SPF knows that it must take care of every officer appropriately.

The SPF today is an institution that is confident and forward-looking. Officers have a strong sense of purpose, integrity and professionalism. Morale is high, there is high public trust and confidence in SPF. This is the remarkable state of affairs, even more remarkable when you look at the situation of police forces in other cities.

In the US, police officers nationwide have faced years of protests, there have been calls to defund the police. Gun violence against police officers have also increased. According to data collected by one of the non-profits, number of officers killed or injured by firearms in the USA, 346 last year, in 2020. About one every day.

Against this backdrop, morale of officers is affected. Retirements are up by 45%. Resignations are up 18% from a year ago. Many police departments have trouble finding new recruits.

The difference between Singapore and these places are not the officers. Our officers are neither superior or worse. We make it a point to choose very good officers but people for people, Singaporeans, I have said, quality wise, it is difficult to say, draw conclusions.

The US police force in some states, we learn much from them. They are very good. But the difference is the wider criminal justice system, the laws that can have an impact on the police force and the entire approach of society to the police. For example, if you have lax gun control laws, you will get more homicides and more police officers killed. And if you are a police officer in the US, as one officer described quite graphically, every time you get a call, whether it is a cat on a tree that is stuck or a baby that has been abandoned, or a neighbourhood call, any call, you go there thinking that someone might shoot you, you go prepared for all eventualities. You can see why.

If we move to another example, London. I will illustrate my point by referencing a report by an independent panel called the Report of Daniel Morgan Independent Panel which was released in June this year and received substantial coverage, including in the Financial Times.

It relates to a person by the name of Daniel Morgan who was a private investigator. He was murdered in southeast London in 1987. Five criminal investigations and, I think, five unsuccessful prosecutions. In 2013, finally an independent panel was set up to consider what happened and the independent panel found that the family of Daniel Morgan was failed by police corruption. This is about London Metropolitan Police. For example, the police officer who had searched Morgan's office was a business associate and later, a colleague of the chief suspect. In 2011, the London Metropolitan Police acknowledged, and I quote, "police corruption in our original investigation was a significant factor in this failure".

London now has more than 100 murders reported every year since 2015. A June 2021 survey shows that only 36% of the population in London have confidence in the police, vis-a-vis 48% nationwide in the UK.

Morale is also low. In a survey of police officers in England and Wales, 85% reported that police service morale was low, 90% cited public treatment of the police had the highest negative impact on morale, amongst other factors including pay and workload.

Why this state of affairs? It is not because the London police officers are, man-for-man, worse. It is all these other factors.

So, I would say to Members, have a care when we look at parts which we have avoided and which we now may feel tempted to go back to.

The London Met is a highly professional outfit and we learn much from them as well. But it is the criminal justice system, the pay of police officers, many other factors. It is political will to make sure that the criminal justice system works, that the police officers are protected as long as they have not done wrong and that the system allows for proper investigation and  prosecution, while making sure that innocent people can go free.  Therefore, the entire system works properly with the right balance.

Every police force, including ours, will have errant officers and we have to be most strict, the strictest with our own officers. That is a way to make sure that morale is up, integrity is up, public trust and confidence is up. So, our officers know, any officer caught wanting will be treated more severely than any member of the public. That has been our approach. When an allegation is made against any officer, the Internal Affairs Office conducts the investigation. If wrongdoing is uncovered, SPF, or in appropriate cases, the Public Service Commission will take disciplinary action against the officer.

Where crimes are perceived to have been committed, there will be charging in Court and the Courts often take into account the fact that this is a Police officer who is charged with upholding the laws, and therefore, the punishment is usually stricter.

If a further review is necessary, there is an Independent Review Panel, comprising persons of standing, who can review the findings of SPF's own internal investigations. As a result, we have been able to maintain public trust, keep up morale and a strong sense of mission within our Police force.

Consistently over the years, a large majority of our officers say that the work they do is meaningful and these are anonymised surveys. The work they do is meaningful, they feel engaged with SPF, they identify with SPF's mission, vision and core values.

Internally, Employee Engagement Survey results show very high morale over the last few years. Average scores for engagement across SPF has increased from 76% in 2018, to 78% last year. Half-yearly, surveys conducted over the last three years consistently showed that more than four out of five SPF officers found their work to be meaningful.

But workload remains an issue. Members will know, SPF's manpower strength is very lean compared to police forces in other major cities such as London, New York and Hong Kong. There is a limit to how much our officers can do with the resources that they have. We are studying this closely and we will come back on this.

The third factor that I want to touch on in explaining SPF's success is the strong trust between the community and the Police. Mr Patrick Tay and Mr Dennis Tan spoke about this. Sir Robert Peel, known as the father of Modern Policing said: "The Police are the Public, and the Public are the Police".

We recognised early on the importance of building trust between the community and the Police.

Over the years, many different community initiatives – the Neighbourhood Police Post (NPP) system, the Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC) and Community Policing System (COPs) system, the Community Watch groups, Citizens on Patrol, to name a few – have contributed to the high level of trust between community and the Police. The public trust in the Police sets the tone for the everyday interactions between the Police and the community.

When a Police officer arrives on a scene, people cooperate with his directions, they accept that the officer has a right to investigate and manage the incident in the interests of the public. And members of the public largely trust SPF. Many help SPF by sharing crime-prevention messages, providing information on crimes. Yet others have risked their own safety assisting Police during arrests and live incidents and we make it a point to recognise, honour, praise them and give them an award.

This level of public trust cannot be taken for granted. SPF has to continue to maintain a high level of trust with the community.

Let me now move on to paying tribute to our officers.

As we reflect on SPF’s progress, we want to pay tribute to SPF officers, past and present, for their contributions and sacrifices.

I thank Mr Murali Pillai for inviting to the House today some of our retired SPF officers and SPF officer representatives and leadership group led by our Commissioner of Police Hoong Wee Teck. They are up there in the Gallery.

Our SPF officers across the generations – regular officers, civilian staff, National Servicemen, Volunteer Special Constabulary officers, retired officers – they have served Singapore faithfully and with utmost commitment.

Mr Murali Pillai spoke of 125 SPF officers who have given their lives, and definitely, more than the 125 that you see, in the line of duty. He has listed their names in the annex to his speech, to be recorded in the Hansard.

I will mention six.

Detective Corporal Yuen Yen Pang and VSC officer Andrew Teo Bock Lan, who were attacked and killed by rioting mobs during the 1955 Hock Lee Bus Riots.

Inspector Allan Lim Kim Sai, who died in a shoot-out with a notorious kidnapper in 1965 – Mr Murali Pillai spoke about him – and his son is here.

Sergeant Mohd Saad bin Omar, who died after being shot by a drug suspect in 1979.

Station Inspector Boo Tiang Huat, who died while on anti-housebreaking rounds in 1994.

And Staff Sergeant Nadzrie who was involved in a traffic accident while on patrol duties in 2017, four years ago, and I went to his wake.

These officers and others gave up their lives while trying to keep us safe and secure. We remember what they have done for SPF and for Singapore.

We are privileged to have the families of two of our fallen officers with us in the House today. Mr David Lim, as you have heard, is a retired Police Superintendent, son of the late-Inspector Allan Lim; and his grandfather was also a Police officer.

We also have Mdm Chew Tuan Jong and Mr Boo Jia Liang, widow and son of the late Station Inspector Boo Tiang Huat.

They are sitting in the Gallery. Can I invite them to stand? [Applause.] Thank you.

As we commemorate SPF’s bicentennial, we want to recognise the important contributions of SPF and accord recognition to its officers. Members asked for it, so, I will set out how we will recognise them.

A commemorative Singapore Police Bicentennial 2020 Medal will be awarded to SPF officers who were in service for any period between 1 January 2020 and 31 December 2020. This includes regular Police officers, volunteer Police officers, full-time National Servicemen and Operationally Ready National Servicemen. The medal will be worn on their uniform.

We will also award a Medallion to former Police officers who had retired or completed their National Service liabilities before 1 January 2020, to recognise their contributions. This Medallion will also be given to civilian officers who were in service with SPF in 2020. The families of SPF officers who had given their lives in the line of duty will also receive the Medallion in honour of their contributions and sacrifice.

The Singapore Police Bicentennial 2020 Medal and Medallion are a reminder of SPF’s proud history and of the country’s appreciation of their steadfast commitment in safeguarding our everyday lives.

From the past to the present and, now, to the future.

The third part of my speech is that as SPF commemorates its bicentennial, we are looking ahead. How can the SPF strengthen itself for the future? Better equipment, training and more technology.

Let me explain by giving Members the perspective of a Police officer responding to a hypothetical incident four years from now, in 2025.

First, before the Police officer reports for duty, information on his work assignments for the day will be available through his Police smartphone. He will be notified of his patrol sector and partner.

Once in the station, he collects his equipment from the automated systems. The systems use RFID technology. Seamless. At the touch of a button, he will instantly draw his communication sets, firearms and taser, his other patrol equipment, such as his riot shield, ballistic-resistant vest. His body-worn camera comes equipped with live-streaming capabilities for enhanced sense-making during incidents. And his Glock 19 Gen 5 pistol provides higher firepower and ammunition capacity.

The officer and his partner then get to their Next-Gen Fast Response Car (FRC) equipped with RFID technology as well, which enables them to keep track of the equipment within the FRC. They perform a visual check, drive off in the FRC for duties. So, no more stock-taking, checking everything. Each FRC is equipped with improved safety features and cameras with live-streaming capabilities, feeding back to Police Operations Command Centre (POCC).

Assume a homicide is reported. The victim’s body is found burnt and disposed in a car parked in a secluded location. No witnesses.

POCC will push the case information to the officers in real time. And as officers rush to the scene, SPF investigators will make enquiries.

At POCC, the extensive network of Police Cameras will allow investigators to quickly narrow down a prime suspect, based on movements caught on camera and also help trace his current movements and whereabouts. This sounds hypothetical, but I have based it on a real incident that a body was burnt in a remote location and Police did find the culprit based on cameras and other information.

Investigators access a digitised and automated screening platform. The system combs through multiple Police databases, provides case information on the culprit, taking maybe 75% less time to do so than before. Very powerful. Brings all the databases together, information at fingertips.

Crime scene specialists process the murder scene with advanced technology. And through forensics, the victim is identified. DNA evidence places the culprit at the scene of the murder. The officers then locate the suspect and arrest him.

This is an SPF that will use technology quite extensively to enhance its operational capabilities and streamline its processes. In particular, we will continue to enhance our sensor networks.

We have installed more than 90,000 Police Cameras since 2012, as I have told this House a number of times. Surveillance cameras deployed by governments, whether in Singapore or other countries, are sometimes criticised as being an invasion of privacy. These claims overlook a couple of basic point that most people want to live in an environment which is safe and secure. And, conceptually, having cameras in public spaces is no different from police interviewing eye witnesses to establish what happened. The camera is a constant, ever-present eye witness whose memory would not be suspect. It is, literally, black and white evidence.

Surveys also show that people feel safer with the prominent placement of Police Cameras in their own neighbourhoods. They want them. People want these cameras in their neighbourhoods. And they have been very effective in helping Police deter, detect and solve crimes.

For example, in April this year, there was an armed robbery. It was solved within five hours. The suspect was an AETOS Auxiliary Police Officer. He had drawn his firearm, changed his uniform, left headquarters without authorisation. Visited a moneylender in Jurong, told staff to hand over the cash as he had a firearm, made away with more than $24,000. With the help of cameras and other tech and investigative techniques, he was identified, traced, tracked and arrested in a safe manner within five hours. The potential harm he could have caused was great.

So, we will install more cameras across the island. As I have told Members, we aim to have 200,000 Police Cameras, at least, by 2030. They help our Police officers to deter, detect and solve crimes, as I have said earlier.

SPF will also continue to prioritise community policing and step up partnerships with individuals, grassroots organisations, businesses and other public agencies in keeping our Singapore safe.

Some key initiatives include the Safety and Security Watch Group and the upcoming Community Watch Scheme, which will go beyond geographical-based approaches to interest-based engagements with the community.

Mdm Deputy Speaker and Members, the SPF story has been an inspiring one. Let me conclude with a quote from Mr Lee Kuan Yew again in 1972, when addressing Police officers at the Dining-in. The various quotes from Minister Mentor Lee will give a sense to Members. He was a key architect, if not the key architect, of modern SPF; and a lot of the philosophy, the approach and the legal system of SPF work came from him. So, let me quote:

“You need integrity, you need a sense of purpose, you have got to have that mark which others recognise to be special. You are upholding the state. Without you, without the quiet civil servant who gets the things done, all the young executives who can wine and dine in Shangri-La, they will be down the drain.”

As SPF writes its next chapter, I am confident that SPF will continue to uphold its tradition of excellence and stay anchored on its core values: courage, loyalty, integrity, fairness, even as it charts its way through a more complex operating environment. In doing so, SPF must continue to hold its officers to the highest standards of integrity and professionalism, in order to maintain the trust of Singaporeans whom it serves.

I ask all Members to join me in congratulating and thanking SPF for its 200 years of exemplary service in keeping Singapore safe and secure. And long may this continue for many generations to come. Thank you. [Applause.]

Mdm Deputy Speaker, I would like to thank the Members, including the Minister for Home Affairs as well as the Deputy Prime Minister, for speaking on this Motion and for their support.

I fully support the introduction of the Singapore Police Bicentennial 2020 Medal and Medallion for Police officers and other officers serving with SPF to honour SPF's contributions on the occasion of its bicentennial. It is a meaningful way to honour SPF's contributions and strengthen the sense of pride and identity amongst Police officers on this significant occasion. It expresses the collective appreciation of the House for all that our Police officers have done.

Before I move on with my planned speech, I would like to just make reference to Ms Sylvia Lim's comments that the CNB and the ICA were not mentioned.

The reason for that, really, is when Mr Murali and I proposed this Motion, it was to commemorate SPF's 200th anniversary, its bicentennial. I did a check: CNB was formed in 1971 and ICA was consolidated into the ICA in 2003.

So, nothing in this Motion dilutes our appreciation to CNB and ICA. In fact, in 2017, the House debated a Motion, which I moved, on strengthening Singapore's fight against drugs. And I quote from a speech that I gave that, "the CNB and the Singapore Prisons Services are sterling institutions, staffed with dedicated and committed officers. Their effort in the fight against drugs is courageous. But the fight is not only theirs to bear. All Singaporeans have a role to play."

So, nothing in this debate should be misinterpreted as being diluted appreciation to CNB and ICA. In fact, we hold them also in high esteem.

Looking to the future, over the last 200 years, SPF has displayed an unwavering commitment to keep Singapore and Singaporeans safe and secure. Our SPF officers have served with integrity, professionalism and courage. We are proud of SPF's reputation as a world-class Police Force, trusted by Singaporeans.

As we look to the next 200 years, I am glad to hear from the Minister for Home Affairs that SPF is already enhancing its capabilities to meet the emerging challenges. However, even as SPF continues its transformation and capabilities, it is crucial that SPF and its officers continue to be anchored by the core values of courage, loyalty, integrity and fairness. If this is achieved, I am sure that SPF will continue to grow from strength to strength and Singaporeans will get to enjoy many more years of safety and security.

Therefore, in conclusion, Madam, I invite this House to resolve to commemorate and honour the important contributions of the Singapore Police Force and its officers to nation building and to keeping Singapore as one of the safest countries in the world. [Applause.]

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Resolved,*

*"That this House commemorates and honours the important contributions of the Singapore Police Force and its officers to nation building and to keeping Singapore as one of the safest countries in the world."*