Sep 3, 2010
Armed policing worth reconsidering
THE recent hostage tragedy involving an armed ex-police officer in Manila ('7 HK tourists killed in Manila hostage drama'; Aug 24) and recent court cases locally have highlighted the question of carrying arms in public by police officers.
The practice in our police force probably began because of Singapore's comparatively more violent past, when crimes from massive secret society clashes and kidnappings to communal tensions and political sabotage were prevalent.
Fortunately, the violence has been significantly reduced, although crime has evolved into more white-collar manifestations which require more sophisticated responses than the mere use of the gun.
Ironically, recent court cases seem to suggest that probably almost all gun- related crimes in Singapore are connected to those who are authorised to use weapons.
In this respect, is it necessary to equip all officers on routine duties with firearms?
Would it be safer for the public if Singapore followed the British example, where ordinary front-line police officers are not issued with firearms when they walk the streets, in spite of the fact that violent crime rates are higher in Britain than in Singapore?
Should the relevant authorities consider less lethal options like Tasers or stun guns to restrain violent suspects?
Are there institutional measures in place to constantly monitor the psychological condition of officers entrusted with dangerous weapons?
As demonstrated so cruelly in Manila last week, the Government cannot be too careful when it comes to public safety and security.
Liew Kai Khiun
