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