Rapist Warning!

It was recently revealed that police withheld from warning the public that a 17 year old was rapist was on the prowl. Their rational was that the offender would have been scared into hiding and would not be caught. Because of this decision, at least two other young girls fell victim to molest and rape.

What in the world were they thinking?! The police were absolutely wrong in not doing all that they could to protect future victims. Is the objective of catching the culprit more important than protecting the public? That's like indiscriminate revenge!

If the culprit went into hiding and was not caught, what are the risks? That he might emerge years later to rape more children? But he is already going to do that if there is no warning to the public!

The public should never be used as bait to lure criminals into the arms of the law! I hope the police realise that.

[forum answer: 20/9/03]
Why police didn't sound rape alert
I REFER to the recent comments ('Police should have sounded rape alert'; ST, Sept 17) that the police should have alerted the public about the sexual assailant earlier.

The police are concerned about the trauma experienced by the young victims of the molestation and rape cases. We understand that crimes of such a nature are emotive and of concern to parents of young children in particular.
What an understatement!

Once a crime has been committed, the police's principal focus is to apprehend the culprit as soon as possible and stop him from causing more harm.
Damn right you prevented more harm.

This involves conducting extensive enquiries, mounting ambush operations, alerting and working closely with schools, residents' committees and other grassroots bodies.
While leaving young little girls out alone as bait.

Reaching out through the mass media is another way for us to obtain information and communicate crime-prevention advice to the public. We assess each case carefully before we decide whether to approach the mass media for assistance.
The mass media in this case was not to assist you, but the assist the public in not getting their young daughters raped!

In this case, the Tampines, Chai Chee and Bedok areas where the molester-cum-rapist had committed crimes covered a large area. Unfortunately, the young victims could not provide us with a good description of the culprit.
So large that warning parents to accompany their young little girls was considered inappropriate?! Poor young things. Their poor description skills prevented the police from warning others.

In fact, it was not clear to investigators initially whether we were dealing with one or more culprits.
Would more culprits have justified the silence?! I would think all the more you should have sounded a warning!

Our assessment was that publicity with insufficient details would cause public alarm and could impede police investigation.

Furthermore, it could result in other unintended consequences, such as pushing the offender to change his crime locations, tactics or personal appearance.
Logic: false sense of security and police investigations are more important than public safety of young girls.


Thorough ground work was undertaken after the first few cases in Tampines in February this year. The police talked to the primary and secondary schools in the Tampines area and tried to gather information on any suspicious persons whom the students had come across.
pointless

We received good support from the principals, teachers and operation managers as we went about providing crime-prevention advice to the students.
pointless
As a result many students came forward to alert the police to suspicious characters in the vicinity.
pointless
In addition, the police linked up with citizens' consultative committees and residents' committees. We also deployed officers, including off-duty teams, as part of a special task force to help apprehend the offender.
pointless....
[more pointless stuff]

PHILLIP MAH
Assistant Director
(Media Relations)
Singapore Police Force