Friday, April 30, 2010

Loss of NRIC

Many office buildings require the visitors to hand over the NRIC in exchange for a visitor pass. This is troublesome for the visitor. There is the risk that the visitor may forget to collect back the NRIC or may misplace it after receiving it back. This has happened to me before and has occurred again recently. I have now lost my NRIC. I spent a lot of time looking for it, without success. Now, I have to apply for a new NRIC.

I do not know how keeping a person's NRIC helps to improve security in a building. It is also unfair to ask the visitor to hand over the NRIC in exchange for a visitor's pass.

Tan Kin Lian


Vincent Sear said...

The retaining of IC at security counter is usually in exchange for a visitor pass. It's the ensure that the visitor come back to return the visitor pass to get back his/her IC. Otherwise, the visitor pass system could be compromised with many unreturned passes circulating outside.

It's the responsibility of the security counter staff to safekeep the IC until rightful return, and it's the responsibility of the visitor to return the pass.

Anonymous said...

I normally hand over my drivibg licence. As for what Vincent said, technology can solve the problem but that it cost money so the buliding owner wont be bther. If you lost your IC or the security staff gave your IC to someone else, its your bad luck and that would be their view!

Tan Kin Lian said...

Of course, it is the visitor's responsibility to get back the NRIC.

But the visitor has many other respnsibilities as well, such as:

* carry a big bag
* top up the cash card
* look for the car

Amidst all of these hassles, it is possible to forget about the NRIC. It does not happen all the time. It may happen occasionally and when it does, it is quite stressful.

Can we simplify life in Singapore and avoid all the unnecessary hassle?

Anonymous said...

I agree that it is unfair to ask the visitor to hand over the NRIC in exchange for a visitor's pass.

There can be other way to ensure the visitor return the pass, like ensuring a person come out of a security check point to return.

It is really stressful to hand over your IC to so many people on different oscassion if people keep on using retaining IC as part of the security system.

Anonymous said...

It is very silly to leave your NRIC with someone for an extended period of time. Our NRIC number is used for many purposes, eg login to CPF, bank, etc. Personally, if a building management requires me to surrender my NRIC, I won't go inside.

Vincent Sear said...

In our younger days, I'm sure we all recall that this exchange IC for visitor pass system only happened in army camps and security senstive buildings.

Those were the days when we breezed through airport customs more conveniently than passing through causeway customs today.

TKL raised the question, can we simply life in Singapore to avoid all the unnecessary hassle? The keyword that caught my eye is neither unnecessary nor hassle. It's Singapore, and precisely because it's not only Singapore. Many airports and buildings in many foreign countries do this too. In many cases, they're even required by legislation to do this.

But of course, we could and should seek out better and more convenient means as the ends is for security's sake, not to cause inconvenience. The National Library uses the NRIC barcode to identify members, doing away with membership cards. This is also used with insurance agents CPD-hour records. It's just scanning the barcode without retaining the card. Perhaps this can be a way.

Anonymous said...

Kin Lian,
I agreed with you totally.It is just rediculous system to take one's IC. Perhaps they can adopt the system in Pulau Tekong whereby they scan your IC in and out.

Anonymous said...

Even URA building accepts any proof of identity showing your photo and name to exchange for the visitor pass. You do not require to hand the security guard your IC and no one except authorised person such as police can demand your IC. It's against the law.


Anonymous said...

I have the same view, its not right that we hand over IC in exchange for visitor pass.

Many years back I remember there were cases where the security guard lost the IC, then it became clear that it is YOUR problem, the building security is not liable in any way. And I remember there was police advise that people should not hand over their IC.

But nowadays almost every commercial building demand your IC, everyone seems to have forgotten those cases. I will make hell lot of noise about it and I will refuse it.

Anonymous said...

mr tan,u are not alone of 'forgetfulness',we all do and me too,and yes, is a shitty system but here in Singapore,everyone just follow the "law",even in banks,condo viewing & many rediculous establishment,the very first is your IC NO.and what do Singaporean do,very goodly & obidiently give it away,NOT IN THE STATES WHERE I ONCE LIVED AND STUDY,social security number is not to be given for any 'enquiry' & worst,here they asked for your IC!!even sometime to visit a friend in condo..i am against giving IC or information relating to oneself & is sad state (of mind)& practise but this is life in the world today,very soon we shall have barcode in our very skin for all transaction whether big or small so,i do not think we could change but what leads to all this? ourselves of submitting without the guts of questioning...

Anonymous said...

I normally hand over my driver license instead of the NRIC.

Tan Kin Lian said...

This sad state of affairs in Singapore is created by the Government leaders. They talk about how bad terrorism is, and the security measures that must be taken. Everybody obeys without question.

The ministers are exempted from the hassle, as they have underlings to clear the passage for them - so they do not know the unsatisfactory state of affairs that affect the ordinary citizens.

The security people follow the instructions blindly - after all, it gives them a job. Most of the people obey wihtout question, for they learn to stop protesting.

Some people even speak out for the rules, stating the need and importance for security. Nice to say, but have they considered the cost and effectiveness of the measures?

I do not wish to criticise. I only wish to state my views frankly.

Anonymous said...

Rex comments as follows,

For me this IC matter is not a big problem. The bigger problem is this: Under the guise of the key word SECURITY and SAFETY, the govt devises a lot of unnecessary, unfair rules to complicate life, increase the cost of living, and secure their own continuity.

Example 1.
For security and safety reasons, my car has to be sent to VICOM for testing everty two years. The VICOM guys have the best job in the world. Just routine tests all computerised, 5 minutes and it's over, you pay about $60. Why would need to check my car when it is only just serviced at $150 at the workshop on reaching the 5000km mark? why can't the system be based on mileage driven and whether owner made his own servicing, why force me to inspect my car at Vicom(which is used for domestic light-duty usage) every 2 years? How many accidents are caused by technical failure and how many are caused by human judgement failure? Would VICOM be able to detect the technical fault which plagued Toyota recently? I doubt it. So this vehicle inspection is a Ridiculous way to make money for the government. 5 mins $60. I am so angry to pay this money!!!

Example 2.
For security purpose, i have to post a $5000 bond for my maid, in case she get pregnant.(usually buy a smaller Bank Guaratee, but it is still unnecessary). For security purpose i have to send her for pregnancy check every 6 months! In practice, if a maid get pregnant, the employer knows what to do, quickly have a private agreement to terminate the contract and off she goes, no problem. There is no need for compulsory medical check for the maid every 6 months!!

Example 3.
For security purpose, the govt spent a lot of tax payer money install CCTV at HongLim speaker corner. What for? The police post is just 30 meters or so line of sight from the speaker's corner.

Example 4.
For security purpose, a single person is deemed as a PROCESSION under the Public Orders Act.

The tragedy is that after a while Singaporeans are numb to these pain in the necks and accept them without further questioning.


Anonymous said...

We adopted a capitalist economy.

Anonymous said...

rex comment on anon 1.11

no sir.
we adopted a People's Action Party economy.

Anonymous said...

After 30 years as a common blue collar citizen, I have learnt to live with such rule.

Anonymous said...

Lose IC can result in loan shark harrassment, new telecom, credit card and what not bills and even money disappearing from bank account!

Quite scary if lost IC fall into wrong hands!

Anybody have such experiences after losing IC?

Anonymous said...

Some buildings has a system whereby they only need to do a scan & then return the IC to you. This should be made compulsory for all buildings inorder to reduce the risk of losing one's IC.

Anonymous said...

The National Registration Act authorises certain officials, for instance the police and immigration officers, to retain a person's identity card (NRIC) for the purpose of investigation.

Security guards at buildings, condominiums and other premises are NOT authorised by the Act to retain a visitor's NRIC.

Denis B said...

The Law did not put up a clear stand, that is why we are still facing the request for NRIC for exchange of entry pass. follow the link to ICA reply to such enquiry:

ICA reply" Private organisations such as gaming arcades are not authorised by the National Registration Regulations to retain a person's NRIC. Nevertheless, it is not illegal if they do so, as long as the other party authorises them - by way of surrendering their NRIC - to hold their card as a condition for entry, or in exchange for a visitor's pass.

This is considered as a private arrangement between the two parties concerned. "

As long as ICA allow private firm to request our NRIC as a form of "deposit" what choice we such simple lay-man have?

Blog Archive