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

Madam, it almost goes without saying that Singaporeans have become increasingly connected to the Internet. A few simple numbers published by the Infocomm Development Authority (IDA) illustrate this quite clearly.

Household access to Internet has gone up to 87% in 2013. The usage of individual Internet has risen to 72% in 2012. And the mobile penetration rate, which is the total number of phone subscribers over the total population, has increased to a staggering 156% in 2013. We are now fourth in the world on that score and higher than Hong Kong, the United States or the United Kingdom. These individuals carry not only just mobile phones but also smartphones which allow them to carry out a variety of transactions online.

This has been demonstrated by the increase in the volume and value of e-commerce in Singapore. It is predicted by E-commerce Alliance of Singapore that we will have e-commerce at the value of $4.4 billion in 2015 and an estimated 55% of these transactions will be cross-border in nature.

This, itself, has corresponded with the significant increase and rise in cybercrime of both large as well as small scale. We have seen a range of both petty online scams and extortions which target young or old susceptible individuals to well-organised pre-meditated cyberattacks which threaten the national and financial security of Singapore.

Again, the point is probably best illustrated by considering two published reports on cybercrime. The first, recently in January 2015 by the SPF and I think my colleague, the hon Member Mr Kumar, has cited some of these figures earlier. But it bears testimony that if you

Page: 139

marry up these rates with the high level of mobile phone penetration, you can understand why we say in Singapore that many Singaporeans are themselves susceptible to cybercrime.

What is more worrying, however, is the 2013 Norton Report which reports Singaporean cybercrime victims as having the highest average per capita losses worldwide in 2013, and that is about US$1,158. This is four times the global average of US$287 and twice the year before in Singapore. Further, the Report goes on to say that the direct financial loss in Singapore due to cybercrime had grown from US$944 million in 2012 to about US$1 billion in 2013.

The IDA's report also highlights that Asia has increasingly become targeted for cyberattacks as people here have become more affluent and technologically advanced. In that context and, in the midst of that environment, the Cyber Security Agency of Singapore (CSA) was set up and will be in operation from 1 April 2015.

In addition, I saw recently that Singtel has, in collaboration with the cyber security firm, FireEye, set up an advanced security operations centre. In that context, may I invite the Deputy Prime Minister to comment on this? Whilst we strive to secure Singapore and Singaporeans from cyber attacks, one also has to strike a balance between privacy and security. Would the Minister care to comment on whether these steps are becoming more invasive and intrusive into a private citizen's rights online?

I see a few other challenges and I will quickly outline them. First, in terms of resources, would the Minister be able to comment on whether there is a shortage of cybersecurity experts? That was the comment carried by The Straits Times in the newspapers when the CSA was launched a few weeks ago. Second, the nature of cybercrime is now transnational and borderless and international cooperation is necessary. Does the Deputy Prime Minister see a need, in fact, a challenge in obtaining international cooperation when it comes to fighting cybercrime?

Finally, apart from enhancing enforcement capabilities, what steps are being taken to promote public education and awareness which are often the first line of defence against cybercrime to facilitate better detection, deterrence and investigation?

Madam, the horrifying siege in Sydney by the lone wolf action caught everyone around the world by surprise, not long after the attacks at the Canadian Parliament and also in Belgium. It could have just happened in downtown Orchard Road or busy lunch hour at Raffles Place. The risk posed by self-radicalised terrorists is worrying. A peaceful moment can suddenly escalate into a situation of national and international tension and attention.

The Chinese have a saying that it is most difficult to prepare for a hidden arrow. It is necessary for us to instil in our citizenry a practice of awareness and alertness on the need to be vigilant in this new normal. Of course, we have to temper the approach so that this new awareness and vigilance does not cast a pall of insecurity over our populace or, worse, sowing distrust and undo the harmony we have so carefully built over the years. I know it will be a delicate balance to achieve.

I share Home Affairs' Senior Minister of State Mr Masagos' perspective when he said at the launch of the Global Security Asia conference and exhibition that the community can be the "eyes and ears against radicalisation". The community can be the eyes and ears on things around them that seem out of the ordinary. I urge MHA to consider more public communication, education and programmes on how our citizenry can be galvanised and how the Home Team can imbue in peoples' mindset a culture of alertness and situational awareness in the context of anti-terror prevention.

The phenomenon of lone-wolf terrorist is a constant concern amongst security forces worldwide. They are harder to detect and the destruction and harm they can bring are in no way less than from an organised group of terrorists or known terrorist organisations. The capacity to instil fear amongst the people is very high due to the unpredictability.

The tragic incidents in Sydney as well as the Charlie Hebdo killings in Paris are cases in point when the lone-wolf terrorist hit. They occur very quickly, catching everyone off guard. Security forces can only react after the fact. How can Singaporeans and our Home Team raise our awareness and sensing to prepare for this kind of terror attacks?

Monash University's Prof Greg Barton, Director of Centre for Islam and the Modern World, said that there is not much more that the Australian government could do when it came to preventing that incident. He said, "Australia has already upped our security level to

Page: 141

"high, agencies are well-resourced and we have well-trained personnel". Yet, the attack by the lone gunman happened.

Just as we have made ourselves as Hard Targets against organised terror since 9/11, what other ways can we likewise do so for lone-wolf terror possibilities? Mdm Chair, I am of the view that deterrence through a display of our anti-terror resolve and measures, coupled with strong community participation, would serve the purpose of deterring would-be lone-wolf terrorists. In this way, any lone-wolf aspirant will think hard and have no doubt that they have little chance of succeeding against a citizenry and Home Team that is dialed-in to spot and stop them.

Would the Home Team consider displaying more of our anti-terrorism measures as well as enhancing community awareness and participation in addressing this brand of terrorism?

One of the post-mortem findings of the Little India Riot points to the inadequacy of staffing of the SPF. Notwithstanding, we have one of the lowest crime rates in the world. Singaporeans want to see a stronger Police presence for peace of mind that it brings. The men and women of SPF are doing an excellent job despite the manpower shortage. They are making regular patrolling rounds of both Housing and Development Board (HDB) and private housing estates. They not only provide deterrence and ensure safety and security but had gone beyond the call of duty in many instances – I have heard some cases from my residents, such as informing car owners who had not secured their vehicles when it came to the attention of patrolling officers.

With manpower constraints, officers are stretched and this ultimately affects their operational reach. While I know that our Home Team officers' dedication is appreciated by many Singaporeans, many a time, when there are situations that are volatile and manpower or reinforcements of response teams are needed, the Home Team bears the brunt of criticisms and, worse, attending officers face the threat of safety or injuries.

Although SPF has been looking at force multipliers in the form of technology and changes or refinement to procedures to operate at a more efficient frontier, there are limits. Besides the effective use of community partnerships, what else can be done to improve the recruitment of Home Team officers so as to enhance our presence and increase mutual support for each Home Team officer? I understand that we have a good base of Voluntary Police Officers and they have been contributing to many operations. How else can we deploy them?

Page: 142

Madam, as our population ages and grows, as the nature of criminal and terrorist threats changes, as described by my colleagues, the resources of the Home Team will continue to be challenged. In particular, the most valuable and critical resource is the men and women who choose to serve as Home Team officers.

These officers continue to develop professional skills over their years in service, and the experience of a senior frontline officer is something that cannot be replicated nor automated. No amount of productivity initiatives will be a substitute for an experienced, well-trained officer.

What steps have been taken to improve recruitment and retention for the Home Team? In particular, how will older and experienced frontline officers be supported and encouraged to continue in their profession, as these are skills that cannot be replaced?

Madam, the number of persons cleared at checkpoints in Singapore in 2013 alone topped the 100-million mark. That works out to almost 300,000 per day, each day, every day of the year. That is a staggering number by any stretch. Improvements in transport and communications have made it easier for people, goods and funds to move across borders. This should be so, as we live and work in an increasingly globalised environment. We can only expect volumes of travellers and cargo handled at our land, air and sea checkpoints, which had been increasing over the years, to continue to do so. This upward trend will continue with globalisation and greater inter-connectivity worldwide, as more economies develop and transport links are being established.

While this inter-connectivity brings greater economic opportunities to Singapore and convenience to Singaporeans, it also heightens the security threats. These are real threats, as illustrated by the Woodlands Checkpoint breach which occurred in March 2014, shortly after a similar breach two months earlier at the same location. Thankfully, the offenders were apprehended. But this was brazen behaviour and, in some ways, we can also be thankful that not more damage was done.

We cannot afford to be complacent. To me, two factors stand out. First, the challenge of dealing with transnational crime, in particular, organised crime and drug trafficking and drug syndicates, which no longer operate solely within jurisdictions. Such syndicates have layered and complex structures with multi-dimensional and extensive networks. They

Page: 143

operate across jurisdictions.

Our immigration officers play a key role in the arrest and disruption of drug syndicates, protecting Singaporeans from the potentially devastating effects of drug abuse. In 2014, one of the success stories was the large heroin haul seized at the Woodlands Checkpoint. More recently, a large quantity of aramine tablets were seized at the Tuas Checkpoint by alert officers. Even more recently, boxes of illegal firecrackers were seized at the Tuas Checkpoint just before the Lunar New Year.

Second, there is an ever-growing threat of terrorism which we have to guard against. My colleagues have spoken earlier about it. Given the nature of global jihad, we have had to safeguard our borders against foreign terrorists who may attempt to enter Singapore to conduct attacks or use Singapore as a transit point to travel to other destinations.

In light of the above, I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister to comment on the following: first, are our resources, both frontline and backend, sufficient to handle the increasing clearance volumes at the checkpoints? This relates not only to passenger clearances but also container cargo, inward consignments and parcels at the parcel post centre.

Second, what is the Home Team doing to enhance competency and capability, given the expected increase in passenger and cargo influx?

Third, in January 2015, the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA) announced the launch of the Integrated Checkpoints Command (ICC) to enhance border security designed to keep pace with the threats and changing operating environment. Whilst it is still early days, will the Deputy Prime Minister please briefly comment on the expected role of ICC in this arena?

Fourth, it should not be forgotten that whilst we need a high level of security and vigilance at our borders —

Yes. It is important to ensure that we maintain that with a high level of technology. What steps are being taken to use and harness advances in technology to assist immigration procedures?

Page: 144

Madam, many Singaporeans use the land checkpoints at Woodlands and Tuas frequently, whether to go for short leisure trips or to buy cheaper pharmaceutical drugs. At Woodlands Checkpoint in particular, the Government has indicated that 300,000 persons and 130,000 vehicles pass through each day. It is a very challenging operational task to coordinate the roles and responsibilities of the various agencies responsible for checkpoint security, namely, the ICA, Police, Customs, Central Narcotics Bureau, Land Transport Authority and the Auxiliary Police.

We do not know how many unauthorised entries of persons into Singapore have taken place. Even though the Government indicated that there had been about 25 cases in the three years up to 2013 and we know of the highly-publicised breaches in 2014, we do not know how many intrusions were undetected.

It was announced in April 2014 that a Ministerial level committee was commissioned to comprehensively review the security measures at the checkpoints and identify any systemic issues and rectify them. I have not read any statement issued publicly about what the committee has found or recommended. However, I note from this year's Budget Book that MHA's operating expenditure under its Immigration and Checkpoint Control Programme shows an increase of 6.5% mainly due to the enhancement of security measures at the checkpoints. May I ask if MHA can share any decisions or interim findings on the matter?

Next, Madam, I move on to Police use of technology and social media. Police forces have been harnessing technology to optimise their operations. Technology can enable policing to be sharper, faster, more convenient and also less resource-intensive and more cost-effective. In Singapore, the need for technology to augment manpower is very acute, as we have limited markets for recruitment. Already, there is a heavy reliance on Malaysians in all three arms of security manpower – the state Police, Auxiliary Police and unarmed private security. Whether we will eventually look to foreign manpower for this sector will be a highly-charged topic.

In a 2013 study by consulting firm Accenture, entitled "Preparing Police services for the future: Six steps towards transformation", it was noted that across 17 police services in 16 countries, three core trends in policing had emerged. First, citizen expectations were rising about crime reporting, emergency response effectiveness and public involvement in policing. Secondly, budgets for police were being cut, meaning forces needed to be more cost-

Page: 145

effective. Third, the criminal world was changing, becoming more organised, global, digital and operating across complex networks. To meet these trends, six transformational strategies were proposed, which included engaging citizens, empowering officers and optimising ways of working.

Using technology and social media can help engage citizens, aid investigations and gather intelligence. As for aiding investigations, the Accenture report cited several interesting social media success stories elsewhere. For instance, in 2013, during the Boston Marathon bombings, Boston police used Twitter for frequent and transparent updates to citizens, and the eventual capture of the bomber was aided by the use of social media.

As for optimising ways of working, another report surveying UK police forces noted that mobile technologies enabled sharing of real-time analysis and the capture of suspect information while it was fresh in the minds of victims and witnesses. Officers in the UK could record electronic witness statements and send back complete information to central databases in less than a minute, without having to return to the police station. In Belgium, the adoption of smart phones apparently reduced administrative processes per statement by 20 minutes, equivalent to 30 man days in a year.

Such technologies enabled officers to spend more time on the ground instead of devoting time to office tasks. The public, too, benefited, as they would otherwise have to travel at their own expense to police premises to be interviewed. Monitoring social media also enabled investigators to solve crimes when groups of interest discussed plans and movements.

While technology and social media clearly bring benefits to policing, there are some pitfalls. One is information overload, where so much data is being fed to officers that they are unable to interact meaningfully with it. The other concern is that police officers might rely so much on technology as to be "de-skilled", that is, instead of police working on the ground and developing skills and experience in searching for information, they manage "by remote control", blindly following information drawn from systems.

Has the Ministry assessed what manpower savings or cost efficiencies have been derived from such use of new technologies and how policing capabilities have been enhanced? What new initiatives can we expect and how will the Police guard against their officers being "de-skilled" by over-relying on technology?

Mdm Chair, in 2013, a scandal broke out in the US over reports that the National Security Agency (NSA) had been

Page: 146

collecting telephone data of millions of its citizens and had access to the servers of several technology companies, including Facebook and Google, to track their customers' communications.

The scandal soon widened to Europe when it was reported that GCHQ, the UK spy agency, had tapped fibre-optic cables carrying global communications data and shared it with the NSA.

Both governments justified this mass surveillance in the name of national security and insisted they were lawful. But many people were upset that they were unaware that their private communications were being monitored. Some questioned their legality and the insufficient oversight by their courts and legislature.

Singapore is a technologically advanced country which places a high priority on security. Singaporeans who have been following these developments in the US and Europe may be concerned that they may be subject to similar types of surveillance here. The Personal Data Protection Act governs the collection, use and disclosure of individuals' personal data by organisations, but the Government is exempt from this Act.

I understand and agree with the need for some surveillance for legitimate security purposes to keep our country safe, but I have several concerns.

What safeguards are in place to ensure that surveillance on individuals, particularly Singaporeans, is done only for legitimate purposes, like security operations or criminal investigations?

How are the data and intelligence protected to ensure that they are not misused or leaked by those who have access to them?

Which of our laws authorise surveillance of individuals who are not targets of security operations or criminal investigations?

And lastly, what independent oversight, like the Courts or Parliamentary Committees, are in place to guard against abuse?