Shock over court escape bids

June 13, 2008

Escapees were caught but details point to complacency and breach of procedure
By Serene Luo
MEMBERS of Parliament, security experts and ordinary Singaporeans said they were shocked at Wednesday's double escape attempt at the Subordinate Courts, coming just four months after the break-out of Jemaah Islamiah detainee Mas Selamat Kastari.

Details of the escape bid which emerged yesterday pointed to a false sense of security on the part of some police officers. This led MPs to ask if the lessons learnt in the wake of the Mas Selamat episode had filtered down to all levels.

The two men had been in court to face charges relating to robbery with hurt. They had asked for water, then knocked down and beat up a police officer when he opened the cell, in what was a breach of procedure.

The mistake was compounded by that of a second officer, who unlocked the main gate to the lock-up area without verifying the men's identities on closed-circuit television.

When contacted by The Straits Times, the chairman of the Government Parliamentary Committee for Home Affairs and Law Teo Ho Pin said: 'When Mas Selamat escaped, that was a wake-up call. But I'm not very sure how many people have woken up.

'There must be checks and balances that the message is conveyed down effectively to the last man in the force. Things mentioned at the management level or in the media may not go down to the last man.'

He added: 'Every moment, it must be in each person's mind that (a detainee) can cause hurt or escape. This is basic due diligence.' He said he would 'definitely query the Home Affairs Ministry' at next month's parliamentary sitting.

MP Michael Palmer, who is also a lawyer, called the escape attempt something out of Hollywood. 'You can't imagine that climbing out of a toilet or asking for water and then pouncing on the guards actually happens here,' he said. 'I think we were just lucky this time that neither accused managed to escape.'

Ms Indranee Rajah, another MP and a lawyer, said the sombre environment of the courts may have contributed to a false sense of security: 'That is a concern because any security agency must have the operating mindset that if something can go wrong, it will.'

Agreeing, Security Association (Singapore) president T. Mogan, 49, said: 'Incidents can happen to anybody and good systems should train us to be on our toes all the time.'

Although he said the police were doing a good job in general and 'should not be judged on one or two incidents', he added that more on-the-job and mock-up situational training is needed.

Other experts said more stringent and frequent security audits are needed. Internal third parties should make spot checks 'as often as you can', said the managing director of security consulting at Certis Cisco, Mr Charles Loh, 45, whose officers are responsible for screening members of the public entering the courts.

External parties should review safety procedures at least once a year, he added.

In online forums and interviews, Singaporeans were amazed another escape, though botched, had occurred. Concierge Ali Alsagoff, 36, was concerned that Singapore's reputation had taken another hit: 'It's pretty embarrassing... If I were (the authorities), what kind of explanation can I give now?'