Response to “Review fee for change of IC”, (MyPaper, 24 May 2013)
MyPaper
10 Jun 2013
Fee for change of IC necessary
WE REFER to Mr David Kwok’s letter, “Review fee for change of IC” (MyPaper, May 24).
The National Registration Identity Card (NRIC) is an important document used primarily for identification purposes.
Members of the public are advised to carry with them official documents to identification – such as their NRIC, work permit or passport – to identify themselves for various purposes, for example, during enforcement checks and transactional verifications.
The NRIC is made of a highly durable polycarbonate material that has been subjected to stringent tests to ensure its durability, and is not easily damaged by normal handling.
A $60 replacement fee is charged for a damaged NRIC to cover the production cost, which includes manpower, material, as well as other costs incurred in producing a new card. This fee has not been increased since 1991.
The Immigration and Checkpoints Authority will consider a waiver of the fee for cases which warrant special consideration, including situations where the card was damaged due to circumstances beyond the cardholder’s control, such as accidents or fire.
MR VINCENT NG
HEAD, PUBLIC & INTERNAL COMMUNICATIONS
CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS DIVISION
IMMIGRATION & CHECKPOINTS AUTHORITY
<Original Letter>
MyPaper
24 May 2013
Review fee for change of IC
THE $60 replacement fee for damaged identity cards (ICs) is to cover processing costs, says the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority (ICA).
I hope the authority will review the fee as the damage is often due to wear and tear, which we have no control over. It is unrealistic to expect our ICs to be in good condition after 20 years. And what about those who cannot afford to pay?
An ICA officer told me that Singaporeans need not have their IC on them, and can leave it at home. When I asked what if there was a police spot check, he said one’s thumbprint can be used to verify personal data via a gadget in police vehicles. Is this really the case?
MR DAVID KWOK