I will be watching you

There has been an incredible backlog of commentary and articles that have been posted in the past few days. Although it wouldn't be necessary to wade through everything if readers do constantly visit the network of Singaporean blogs (it is a small community after all), I do think there's one issue that deserves my own introspection.

In discussing the "Police State" paradigm, an important feature that has been extremely crucial has been security. Recently, Molly Meek and Steven McDermott listed two articles of their own on the subject. Molly Meek's entry pertains to the use of closed-circuit television cameras (CCTVs), where the ST had an initial article describing how the police were intending to expand their presence in crime-prone areas. It was a pretty brief report, simply describing how the police wanted to survey crime-prone areas. However, that was only the beginning. A few days later, the ST reported an in-depth report on their influence in the public and private sphere, along with (what I like to call) a "supporting" article justifying their use, namely demonstrating that CCTV assisted in criminal investigation. It is true that CCTV can be used effectively, and that the case studies do illustrate how the police can utilize its powers in their investigations. However, examining the fine details registers, quite remarkably, a startling picture of the CCTV's growing influence. For example, CCTVs are not only used in public areas such as hawker centres and shopping complexes, but includes hotels, businesses, HDB lifts, schools and homes as well. Quoting from the article, in terms of schools, CCTVs (bold my emphasis) "[b]esides monitoring the premises, they act as a deterrent to thieves and help maintain discipline. Last December, Bukit Merah Secondary School installed 16 cameras" and in the context of homes, "[c]ameras are installed to protect property and to keep checks on maids, kids or elderly folk. Vendors say some connect these cameras to the Internet so they can log in 'live'."

There are many more, one might say frightening, statistics in the ST article about the number of CCTVs to be installed island-wide in nearly every domain of public and private life. In addition it is worthwhile to reflect on how Associate Professor Ho Peng Kee, Senior Minister of State for Law and Home Affairs, justified the "proper" use of CCTV as "part of the police arsenal in the battle against crime and terrorism". He continues that "CCTV enables us to complement human skills with the use of relevant technology... especially to cover public areas where people congregate."

It should be of an interesting note to all of us, that we like to regard Singapore as a "safe" city and one that prides itself in having "low crime rates". But along with these appraisals, we should be worried and perplexed that, if such statements were true, then the prevalent use of high-tech security cameras, that now infringe on our own privacy in the home as well, should not be welcomed. Instead, we would like that the primary factors behind our "safe" and "harmonious" society should be maintained and duly fostered (whatever those factors are, none of us can claim security devices are part of them). We should also question what kind "human skills" does Ho Peng Kee wish to complement. Is it the "skills" to intrude, invade and infringe on the privacy of others or do we want the kind of "human skills" that build on people's trust and tolerance for diversity? If one were to always fear the "public areas where people congregate", and to seek the implementation of a watchful eye on every corner, then the lines between the public and private spheres of social life will indeed be crossed and left to blurry remains.

But there's also another issue, one that deals with crime. Indeed, are CCTVs as successful as they appear to be? Studies on CCTVs (countries such as the US, England and Australia) have produced some similar results. Initially, the CCTVs did demonstrate to be effective in reducing crime rates in their areas of surveillance. Unfortunately, they weren't effective in curbing crime in general (or at least the results are still ambigious at this point). The riots, brawl fights, and molestation cases that have been registered on CCTVs have surprisingly been transferred into areas where surveillance weren't available. Now a few possible outcomes can arise from this. Crime would essentially be displaced to more private areas of social life, and this could mean greater difficulty in detection crime (reduction in detection rates). We might also expect to find the burden of proof in criminal cases being reduced, since a new standard of visual proof might be demanded given the ready access to CCTVs. Finally, for those who are truly concerned about crime and social disorder, the installation of a technocractic solution is usually fraught with ambigious reasonings and justifications. Even if one were to accept the wide-spread coverage of CCTVs in a small island-state, it should be a platform to question our lay beliefs about crime and social order, if we are more interested to use reductionist methods or employ an alternative community relations safety programme. That choice will determine the kind of society we choose to live in, one that's either breed on inspection and suspicion or trust and social bonding.

Author's note: If you wish to read up more about CCTV, leave a comment and I can show you some research materials.