Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Bill

Mdm Speaker, the introduction of this Bill has met with strong responses – both for and against. All the arguments made will likely be rehashed in this House today. But once we drill down to the details, the conclusion is clear:

Page: 17

everyone wants the same thing. We all want peace and quiet at night where we live. We all do not want the problems associated with irresponsible drinking, including the noise, the littering and the risk of bad or criminal behaviour. At the same time, we also want the freedom to relax and drink responsibly, whether in private or public.

The real question for this House, therefore, is this: can we draft a law or pass a law which meets all these interests? Is there a sweet spot in the middle? And if we cannot – and this is the real test – which side should the law lean in favour of and are there any ways to mitigate the effects on the other side? In this case, where both sides have reasonable and legitimate concerns, it is not enough to say you agree or disagree with the law. You need to say how you propose to address the real concerns of the other side.

To deal with whether the Bill strikes that right balance, there are a number of questions we need to tackle.

First, if the concern is about alcohol-fuelled misconduct, are our current laws not already sufficient? And the answer is no. Our laws criminalise some types of behaviour. For example, it is an offence for someone to be drunk and incapable of taking care of himself in a public place – section 18 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. It is also an offence for an intoxicated person to appear in a public place and cause annoyance to any person and that is section 510 of the Penal Code.

On paper, these appear adequate. But in reality, these do not go far enough. Take, for instance, the complaint of – and I am sure, many of us in this House often hear – people gathering, drinking and making noise late at night at void decks or nearby sitting areas. The resident is disturbed from his rest. He bears the burden of calling the Police. The Police take time to respond as this is not an emergency situation. And when the Police arrive, they have very little power to do anything if the people are not intoxicated, because there is a difference between being high and loud on alcohol and being so drunk as to be incapable of taking care of oneself, or at least I am told.

The Police have no power to tell them to leave and even if they could, the drinkers will just end up in another part of the neighbourhood. So, the Police advise them to tone it down, they agree and then they start up once again when the patrol car turns a corner, or they return again another night. The game plays itself out time and again. So, who suffers? The residents. Why should they have to put up with this? And do we really want vital Police resources to be taken up to deal with such issues?

The second question: is this such a big problem? Some commentators have asked the Ministry to provide statistics. And if they are available, they should be shared. But realistically,

Page: 18

I would be surprised if the data is meaningful precisely because many of these incidents, like the example I gave, do not involve criminal behaviour. And not everyone who is affected will call the Police. But I have received enough such complaints on my walkabouts and block visits about the ruckus caused by drinkers who gather at void decks or nearby benches to know that this is a real issue. Apart from the noise, residents are worried for the safety of their family members when coming home late. They are also angry about the trash that is left behind. Besides, the problem is particularly acute for families who live near popular gathering spots. So, the numbers are not going to tell the whole story or convey the real suffering these families put up with. In short, we cannot dismiss this as a fictitious problem or one that affects only a handful. Our residents have legitimate concerns that we should address.

Third, can we not just give the Police more enforcement powers? The answer is we can, but that will not solve the problem. Residents will still have to call the Police when disturbed. And unless we expect the Police to arrest everyone who makes noise, it is simply not practical. Besides, who gets to define what is a disturbance, and if it is vague, how are the Police going to do their job? The Bill improves the current position as it makes enforcement simpler and clearer.

To put it another way, an offence framed in terms of consumption is better because it is difficult to draft an effective law in terms of conduct. But more importantly, with this law, I expect that there will be fewer incidents of people drinking past 10.30 pm in public places and, therefore, far fewer incidents of residents being disturbed.

The fourth question: does this law curb personal liberties? Of course, it does. People will no longer have the freedom to drink in public places or to buy takeaway alcohol past 10.30 pm. But let us put things in perspective. The right to drink wherever you want and whenever you want is not a fundamental liberty. We have prohibitions against other types of behaviour where the public interest is affected. Smoking in public, for example, is heavily restricted and many people are glad for it. In the case of drinking, there is indisputably a public interest in ensuring that residents are not disturbed in their own homes.

The Bill does not make us unique. Many jurisdictions have adopted partial restrictions comparable to these. London has Controlled Drinking Zones where police can request people to stop drinking alcohol and ask them to surrender their drink. In Adelaide, areas such as the CBD and parklands have been designated alcohol-free zones. Even in Rome, the Eternal City, public consumption of alcohol from glass bottles is banned from 10.00 pm to 7.00 am. And for all other alcohol, the ban begins at midnight. Some jurisdictions have even gone further: in New York City, Ontario, Oslo and Perth, public alcohol consumption is banned at all times.

Page: 19

I cite these examples not to say that we should copy others, but simply to suggest that the argument that the Bill makes Singapore different or gives Singaporeans less rights is inaccurate.

More importantly, drinkers have options that residents do not. The Bill does not stop people from drinking in coffee shops, restaurants, bars, clubs, private homes and at licensed events even after 10.30 pm. While those who wish to drink have alternatives, residents who are disturbed do not. What about their right and liberty to peaceful and safe surroundings?

Fifth, if the concern is about residential areas, can we not confine the new restrictions to those areas alone? In fact, that was my first reaction when I heard about the Bill.

The problem then, I think, becomes one of legal definition. It is easy to say "non-residential areas", but that is very difficult to define, to rationalise and to enforce. This is important because there is no point having a law if people do not know where the prohibited areas are or how it will be enforced. It is easy to take out a map and circle areas which appear far enough from residential areas. But how do you reflect this on the ground? And you will have the absurd situation where the length of one foot step or the length of one stride is the difference between lawful and unlawful behaviour. And to paraphrase Charles Dickens – the law should not be an ass.

So, it is clear that it is difficult to find the sweet spot and that the balance has to lean to one side. I am in favour of leaning it on the side of folks who are affected by bad behaviour. But that should not be the end of the matter. We should also make sure that we do not make things difficult for people who drink responsibly. That should be in the way the law is implemented.

First, in the application for a permit. For example, take a person who is now required to get a liquor consumption permit to drink past 10.30 pm at, say, a BBQ event at East Coast. He should be allowed to ask for that permit as part of the application for the BBQ pit itself. In other words, make it as simple and as painless as possible, without involving multiple steps – perhaps an additional box to tick in the online application with no extra charge.

The same spirit should underlie enforcement measures. The Police should exercise leniency where the drinking occurs in areas far away from residential areas and where there is no unruly behaviour.

The Ministry has, in fact, sought to reassure the public that the Police will exercise their discretion in a tempered manner. That being the case, I would like to ask the Minister: will the application process for a permit be made simple and how will it be made simple and

Page: 20

what guidance will officers be given in respect of the enforcement of the law?

Next, a point on resources. Police Officers, but not Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs), have powers of arrest under section 30 of the Bill. Given this difference in powers, I would like to ask the Minister: will more Police Officers be deployed in the liquor control zones given that these have been designated areas with higher risks? Further, now that we have two zones, do we have sufficient resources to meet our needs?

Finally, if I have one criticism of this Bill, it is that, it unnecessarily, I think, singles out foreign workers. While the rest of us will not be allowed to drink in public places past 10.30 pm, we are free to drink in our homes. But that same consideration does not apply to foreign workers. Section 38(5) designates foreign worker dormitories as a public place for the purposes of section 14(1).

The concern I believe is that since foreign workers can no longer drink in public, they will go back to their dormitories to drink. That may be so, but unless there is good evidence that this will cause problems – and I hope that the Minister will tell us what that evidence is – there is no reason to single them out.

I think it sends the wrong message and it may feed certain perceptions and I hope the Minister will reconsider this provision. The concern could perhaps have been addressed in enacting appropriate rules and regulations governing the use and residence in foreign worker dormitories.

To conclude, I support the Bill as it is an attempt to find a fair and reasonable compromise between several legitimate but conflicting interests. Those who oppose it should say how they will look after the interests of the other side. But from a practical point of view, these laws are logical and effective, provided they are implemented in a sensible manner. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Liquor Control Bill. It is high time that Singapore institute laws that govern the supply and consumption of liquor. These proposed measures are a response to complaints from the public about disamenities and concerns about law and order resulting from excessive alcohol consumption and drunkenness in public places.

Apart from this, there are other reasons to be worried about from excessive alcohol consumption: alcohol is a psychoactive substance and an addictive drug, and its misuse is

Page: 21

associated with a wide range of adverse health effects that may cause harm to the individual, his family and society.

Madam, liquor laws exist in many countries across the world; some for a very long time. Many of the most vibrant global cities, including New York, London and Sydney, have laws in place to restrict alcohol consumption – these range from a total ban on open containers of alcohol in public places to controlled liquor zones. Alcohol restrictions have not adversely impacted the vibrancy of these cities in any way – rather, they have helped to keep these cities safer and cleaner.

In Singapore, MHA began reviewing alcohol laws in September 2012. In both phases of the public consultation exercise, more than 80% of the respondents were supportive of the proposal to restrict the consumption of liquor in public places. A survey conducted in my own constituency involving 120 residents resulted in similar findings. A recent survey commissioned by the Government feedback unit REACH found that 81% of the respondents polled were in favour of the Bill.

Some complained that the Bill may unfairly affect those who cannot afford to drink at licensed outlets and do not have access to their own private spaces after 10.30 pm. For these individuals, perhaps the Government could consider designating specific "public places" to be "coolspots", where people can gather to drink beyond 10.30 pm, as long as they do not cause disamenities to others and measures are in place to address the safety and security concerns.

For example, Foreign Workers' Recreation Centres may be designated as "coolspots" for foreign workers to drink and unwind; as may other "suitable" public spaces where people can gather to drink beyond 10.30 pm.

Madam, I am all for restrictions in alcohol consumption in public places. However, there are different approaches to implementing these restrictions and we should choose one that is targeted, calibrated and best serves our needs. This Bill before us proposes an island-wide ban on consuming alcohol in public places after 10.30 pm – this might be excessive in unaffected areas in Singapore, but might be inadequate for hotspots known for drinking-related problems, but not zoned as Liquor Control Zones.

As the Minister explained, by imposing an island-wide ban, the authorities avoid shifting the problem from one area to another, as drinkers can simply move away from a Liquor Control Zone to an area without restrictions, drink excessively and cause problems there.

Page: 22

However, as most people in Singapore enjoy alcohol in a moderate and responsible manner, we should consider targeting restrictions only at problematic hotspots, where large groups of people congregate to drink alcohol and where they have earned a reputation for public disamenities, resident complaints or risks to law and order. We could start rolling out restrictions in these vulnerable areas and widen coverage as and when other areas are red-flagged. Clause 12(2) in the Bill has made a provision for the Minister to prescribe different no-public drinking periods for different public places.

Madam, this approach would help manage our law enforcement resources, as officers focus their efforts on hotspots and do a thorough job there. Such a consideration is especially important, given our limited pool of law enforcement officers, who also have to cope with other Home Team initiatives, such as Community Policing and the Safer Roads Singapore programme. An island-wide ban would spread our law enforcement resources thinly across Singapore to guard against all areas, instead of concentrating them effectively where they are needed most.

At this point, I would like to ask the Minister the basis on which Little India and Geylang were marked as Liquor Control Zones. What specific criteria and threshold are used to identify them? How can vulnerable areas like Teban Gardens in my division receive a higher degree of protection from problems associated with drinking in public places, particularly if the problems persist in spite of the new laws? At some places at Teban Gardens, foreign workers gather to drink at around 8.00 pm, especially during weekends and public holidays, with the full impact of disamenities, such as littering, noise, vomiting and drunkenness, can be felt well before 10.30 pm.

Madam, there is clear evidence linking the availability of alcohol and problems relating to drinking. We, therefore, need robust measures that control accessibility to alcohol. I support fully the proposed measures in this Bill to stop retail shops from selling alcohol from 10.30 pm. We should also oblige licensees to stop selling liquor to individuals who are clearly intoxicated at any time.

Clause 8(2) states that the Licensing Officer must not grant or renew a liquor licence if the applicant is not a fit and proper person or if the premises at which the applicant proposes to supply alcohol is in an unsuitable location. I hope the authorities will also restrict the total number of alcohol licences in any one community in order to prevent the unrestrained proliferation of liquor stores.

The Licensing Officer should consider the concentration of alcohol licences in that area, the propensity towards alcohol abuse and actively seek inputs from grassroots leaders and the local community. And if problems from drinking can be traced back to a licensee, his licence should be up for suspension. Alcohol licences should be hard to get hold of and easy

Page: 23

to lose. This will help to focus the licensees on compliance and encourage them to play an active role in promoting responsible drinking.

Madam, this Bill does not deal with the issue of alcohol advertising and promotion. I am not proposing that we ban particular modes of marketing, but rather that all marketing of alcohol be undertaken in a responsible manner and encourage responsible drinking amongst its customers. Messages contained in alcohol advertisements play an important role in influencing social attitudes about alcohol consumption. It is, therefore, important for the alcohol industry, alcohol retailers and producers to apply a clear set of principles in the promotion, marketing and selling of their products, to encourage responsible drinking.

Alcohol abuse and its attendant problems have been well-researched and documented. According to figures from the Health Promotion Board, binge-drinking in Singapore is more common amongst 18- to 29-year-olds and more so in men than in women. Studies also show that underage drinkers are five times more likely to become addicted to alcohol and abuse alcohol later in life.

We should, therefore, make every effort to keep our youths alcohol-free and aware of the consequences of drinking at an early age. Whilst limiting their access to alcohol, we should encourage our youths to enjoy healthier social activities and get their "highs" from more wholesome pursuits than drinking.

Madam, this Bill has made provisions on alcohol consumption from a public order perspective. Our considerations about alcohol consumption should also include its wider impact on public health as there are clearly health and social issues linked to heavy drinking, such as increased risk of heart diseases, alcohol-related domestic violence and negative impact on school performance.

Madam, the proposed Bill has been a long time coming. It may not have met everyone's expectations, with some quarters feeling that the Bill imposes disproportionate curbs on their personal liberty. Nevertheless, this Bill is a significant step forward for Singapore and brings us in line with practices of other major cities. It has put the necessary markers and framework in place to help the country move towards a culture of responsible alcohol consumption. I hope my residents can look forward to cleaner, safer and quieter nights when the legislation comes into force. With this, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the principle of the Bill to empower the Government to regulate the supply and consumption of liquor in

Page: 24

public places. Nonetheless, there has been considerable public anxiety about the extent of the restrictions mooted by this Bill. The Workers' Party believes there is greater scope to better calibrate the operational application of the Bill so as to secure greater public buy-in for the liquor control measures proposed by the Ministry.

Generally, it will be important for the Minister to share more information and statistical evidence of the nexus between public acts of disorder and the alcohol-fuelled law and order problems, including the scale of the problems nation-wide so that the public can appreciate the Ministry's perspective and policy making considerations in tabling this Bill.

I understand that the Minister has shared some information, in this regard identifying 47 cases of rioting, 100 cases of affray and 115 cases of serious hurt last year and that one-fifth of this occurred in Little India and Geylang. Can the Minister provide more resolution of the other areas in Singapore, for example, where such liquor-related disamenities take place?

In addition, the Minister stated that nine out of 10 of these incidents occurred after 10.30 pm. This statistic could do with more resolution as well. Does the cut-off time of 10.30 pm dovetail naturally with the law-and-order problems that the Minister stated in the earlier set of data? Or do some areas come alive, so to speak, in terms of public disamenities well after 10.30 pm like midnight, for example? Additional clarity on all these data would be appreciated.

Mdm Speaker, the public feedback to this Bill has been inconsistent and somewhat contradictory. For example, the Ministry's feedback and public consultation exercise on the Bill garnered strong support for measures to reduce threats to public safety and order and to mitigate the disamenities associated with the sale and consumption of alcohol in public places.

As informed MHA's press release dated 7 November 2014, this support came through 395 pieces of written feedback and the participation of 624 members of the public in the electronic poll, including the Ministry's discussions with 200 stakeholders. This officially strong support contrasted markedly against an informal Straits Times poll which revealed an opposite response. One day after the First Reading of the Bill in Parliament, 78% of 9,000 Straits Times readers who participated in the poll disagreed with the proposed Bill. Ostensibly, in response to this poll, a telephone survey conducted by the Government feedback unit swung the pendulum back the other way with strong support for the Bill from over 1,000 residents.

This oscillating difference of opinions suggest that certain operational aspects of the Bill may need to be looked at and fine-tuned to achieve a calibrated application of the law in

Page: 25

practice.

I seek the Minister's reconsideration of two specific regulations that this Bill will introduce into law, in tandem with the wide-ranging public feedback which differs in some cases even among those who agree with the Bill. And I hope these can be accordingly considered.

Firstly, the proposal to restrict the drinking of liquor to 10.30 pm at residential areas, such as void decks, is welcomed. This is borne out of the lived experience of many residents in various HDB estates. However, greater policy clarity is required for certain public areas like hawker centres which may not be situated in residential areas and where the liquor consumption rules can be made subject to greater flexibility. For example, it is understood that liquor sale and consumption in places like coffee shops would be subject to liquor licensing conditions and customers will be allowed to consume alcohol within these premises beyond the 10.30 pm guidelines, depending on the conditions of the respective licence.

However, it is unclear whether a similar licensing philosophy can be extended to hawker centres where customers drink liquor, purchased from stalls within their premises where patrons could, for example, be allowed to continue consuming liquor till midnight. In this context, I ask if the Ministry can consider allowing the consumption of liquor at hawker centres, akin to the licensing framework similar to that applied in the case of coffee shops.

Similarly, a more liberal liquor consumption regime should also be considered at places away from residential areas, like East Coast Park. Such a regime would also address the real concerns of the unnecessary atmosphere of control, prejudicing and targeting the majority of Singaporeans, who, I would argue, drink responsibly. It would also obviate the need for permits that add an administrative burden not just for the Police but for the public as well.

Secondly, the Workers' Party is of the view that the blanket ban covering the retail sale of alcohol up to 10.30 pm may be too interventionist and too strong a measure, one that operates to underestimate and may even undermine the capacity of Singaporeans to engage in responsible behaviour, as alluded to earlier.

The Workers' Party proposes that the retail sale of alcohol be allowed to continue as long as an individual does not consume the purchased alcohol in a prospectively disallowed public area, as it is foreseeable that such purchases may be for private consumption, rather than at bars and clubs where alcohol is usually more expensive to purchase.

It follows that the operational implementation of the new liquor control measures should not be applied bluntly, painting every liquor retailer with the same brush. A flexible

Page: 26

licensing regime can be accommodated, as licensing officers are empowered with extensive powers to add or remove conditions from retail licences. This is conceivable in cases where community feedback, for example, determines that a certain retail outlet should stop the retail sale of liquor after a certain point and depending on the individual case, even before 10.30 pm, if necessary. Such a regime puts self-regulation and community engagement in as a first step before regulation kicks in. It is also likely to be fairer in principle and more calibrated in application.

Mdm Speaker, my colleagues will share with the House, perspectives on Police enforcement of the measures proposed, amongst other points relevant to the Bill.

To recap, while the Workers' Party agrees with the principle of the Bill, we are of the view that the regulations proposed by the Bill need to be scoped more finely to better balance and to reflect the public interest.

Mdm Speaker, I speak in support of this Bill. I first learnt about the problems related to the public consumption of alcohol very early on in my stint as a Member of Parliament. As soon as I did a block visit near one of the local shops, I was told, "You have to stop liquor in this coffee shop. People drink beyond the hours. They make a lot of noise. We cannot sleep. It is even worse at about two, three o'clock. There are no toilets and they urinate at the void deck". This is a perennial problem. It continues. There are probably one or two tables of people at most who drink beyond the coffee shop hours, but they create disamenities for the entire three or four blocks that are in that vicinity. The Police are called every now and then and that creates the "cat and mouse game" that some Members mentioned earlier. They disappear for awhile and they come back later.

In that sense, this Bill addresses a very real concern for many residents in the heartlands. It also addresses concerns for residents who live near the so-called hot spots, the party areas. Many people were saying that areas like Clarke Quay and so on should be permitted to be designated party areas. But my understanding is, the local hon Member, there was probably one of the first to crusade against the sale of alcohol to the public in Clarke Quay because of the public order issues. So, I believe that even in the so-called party areas, there is a necessity to limit unruly behaviour and public consumption of alcohol.

When this Bill first came up, I was quite happily in support of it. Of course, as soon as the Bill was announced, the immediate reaction perhaps from the more vocal group was quite different. Some of my colleagues came up to me and said "So, do you support the anti-alcohol Bill?" I answered, "Anti-alcohol Bill – what does that exactly mean?" Actually, we

Page: 27

were talking about this Bill. Well, I said, "I support the Bill. I do not quite think it is an anti-alcohol Bill". So, then they said, "Do you drink?" "Yes, I do, but not in public and not after 10.30 pm in open areas." When you ask the next question to many of them, "Do you actually drink on the bridge, drink at the void deck?" They would say, "No, actually we do not, but our right to do so has been taken away." And they were quite indignant.

The reality is that when you talk to people more and you explain to them the issues that arise and how other people suffer as a result of it, many people start to understand why this Bill was necessary. Everyone wears two hats: one hat is of them as a resident, and the other hat is of them as a free-spirited person who likes to do what they will. And sometimes, the two are inconsistent.

If you look at how this Bill balances things, I think it strikes the right balance. There is no one answer. You cannot have a perfect solution to deal with the two competing tendencies. On the one hand, people want the freedom to drink; on the other, people want the right to have a quiet and peaceful life at home. This Bill does do a good job in striking the right balance.

Let me talk about the components of what I mean is the right balance. This Bill could have taken many different forms. In countries like Australia and the US, in many parts of those countries, there is a complete ban on public consumption of alcohol. In many parts of the US, you cannot even have an open bottle of alcohol on the street. That is one extreme that you could go to. We did not go that far. We only stopped the public consumption of alcohol between specific times – between 10.30 pm and 7.00 am. And this is flexible. The Minister has the flexibility to amend those times, if necessary, at a later stage. So, we certainly did not go to the most extreme measure of banning public consumption of alcohol.

I also think it plays an important part in allowing intervention before problems get serious. Right now, the current legislative framework allows you to intervene only when things go seriously wrong, if there is a public order issue, say a fight starts or there is affray or violence. Or, in the other extreme, where the person is incapable of taking care of himself after getting drunk. But there is nothing that allows you to intervene before we get there. So, you can have people getting very drunk in public areas, making some noise but not exactly committing an offence. That is when you have the problem with the Police coming by but not being able to do very much.

At least, with this Bill, you are giving intermediate power for the authorities to step in and prevent problems from getting that bad. That, I think, is an important part of striking the right balance, too.

Page: 28

The third aspect that I think is very important is the flexibility to designate special zones. Clearly, you cannot treat every area as the same. In some areas, the problems are greater than others. Where the problems are greater, it makes sense to have greater restrictions.

At the moment, I understand the special zones that will be designated are Little India and Geylang and this is largely a result of the figures based on the public order issues there. Having experienced the Little India riot, I think everyone here would not disagree that Little India is definitely an area that needs special care.

I also understand that the figures of public order issues in Geylang are quite serious. We definitely do not want another issue like that there. Certainly, the legislation is flexible enough for more special zones to be designated. In that sense, this legislation framework, I think, is broad and flexible enough for us to expand, if necessary, or even cut back, if necessary. If an area gets safer and there are less concerns, it may no longer need to be designated as a special zone.

One other aspect of this Bill that is quite interesting is that the Police have gradated powers of intervention. So, it is not envisioned that the first thing the Police would do is to go round and arrest someone for being caught with an opened bottle, as I think some scare-mongers were spreading. What they would probably do in the first instance is to tell people that they should move somewhere else, move back home and that power is within the framework. If the person does not listen, then the Police have escalated powers. These powers are a step-up provision and it is something that allows the Police to have some teeth but also give them the flexibility not to have to wield too heavy a stick. In that sense, I think this is quite an interesting component of the Bill that gives enough flexibility for the enforcement authorities to do what they feel it is necessary in a particular situation.

Like Mr Hri Kumar, I also share the concern about whether or not Police resources will be adequate to deal with this. I envision there will be a lot more complaints, at least when this Bill first comes about. And given the additional powers, there will probably be an expectation from residents that the Police will intervene. There might be expectations that the Police will have to come down very quickly to deal the issues relating to public consumption of alcohol.

I expect this concern to get better with time. As the public understands the new rules, behaviour normally changes. This is what has happened in places like Australia and the United States. And once behaviour changes, I do not think there will be a need for an extended period of policing. But at least in the initial stage, I expect the Police will get a lot more complaints on this front.

Page: 29

I have a few questions for the Minister as well. The first is, at the moment, with the designation of special zones, I understand the main concern with public order-related issues and Geylang and Little India have been designated as the main ones. But are there any other zones that the Minister thinks we should be keeping a look out for, based on these public order statistics? Anecdotally, different people have mentioned different names. I will not mention any here but I am just curious whether or not there is a range of places that have been monitored and whether others may also be designated based on these public order concerns.

The second is whether the Minister might consider a slightly more flexible framework in the future. Some areas of flexibility include longer hours in areas that are further away from residential areas. One area that has been mentioned quite commonly is the beaches or, at the very least, the barbecue pits at beaches.

I can understand why the Minister would not want to designate this as purely an area where drink is allowed at all times, just in case that becomes a congregation area for anyone who wants to drink, including foreign workers and everyone else. But I can see a fair argument in favour of maybe slightly longer hours, say, at the barbecue pits at East Coast Park, up to midnight or something, because that is quite far away from the public and that is the place where people ordinarily gather to have drinks and parties. This could even be tied up to, say, the booking of the barbecue pits, if you want to restrict it even more. But I think there is some merit to having a slightly more flexible framework going forward.

Broadly speaking though, I think this is a very good Bill, it solves very real problems we have. It strikes the right balance in not being too heavy-handed in approach while, at the same time, doing the minimum necessary to deal with the problem of public consumption of alcohol. With that, I support this Bill.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. This Bill is the result of a one-year long public consultation by MHA to counter problems caused by public drinking. Eighty percent had supported a partial ban on alcohol consumption and sales. I, too, support a partial ban and find the Bill's current form overly restrictive. In fact, according to a recent Straits Times online poll, over 75% of the 12,000 participants indicated that they did not support the Bill. The main concerns were "over-regulation and discriminatory practices".

However, 81% of a recent REACH survey involving 1,145 respondents supported the Bill. As these are randomly selected Singaporeans and Permanent Residents and data had been

Page: 30

weighted to ensure it represented the demographics of Singapore, it does show that the majority of the general public is supportive of such a law. However, most netizens have painted a different picture. Just on my own social media pages, I have received comments, such as "This law is silly", "Singapore is again a nanny state, with a drinking curfew", "It is nice to know that the Government wants to take care of us but please do not treat us as small kids". Is this merely a difference between online and offline comments and maybe, between younger and older members of the public?

So, I do not think that these people who find the law restrictive are frequent or even regular drinkers, but they feel that if Singapore wants to be a mature society, this measure is regressive, drastic and unnecessary.

While I have no issue with stopping retail alcohol sales at 10.30 pm, I do not think that it is necessary to ban alcohol consumption in all public areas from 10.30 pm to 7.00 am. Generally, most drinkers here are responsible. Singaporeans do not have a drinking problem. To deal with the minority who create trouble, the Bill is taking pre-emptive measures several steps upstream. If one drinks in public after 10.30 pm, one might get drunk, hence, one might end up with undesirable anti-social behaviour, therefore, no public drinking after 10.30 pm. Perhaps, the solution is not a ban but an increase in our efforts in public education. The focus should also be on managing the law breakers instead of imposing a blanket ban. Or we could reduce the number of retail stores that could sell alcohol, especially in residential areas.

So, while the good intent of this Bill is clear, it, unfortunately, sends a dampening message. Therefore, Madam, I would like to make a suggestion. Instead of a nationwide ban, we could increase the number of Liquor Control Zones. In addition to Little India and Geylang, other areas may include Clarke Quay, Boat Quay, Chinatown, Golden Mile Complex and locations with existing problems of frequent public nuisances due to drinking. The law could empower the Minister to designate additional areas as Liquor Control Zones, as and when necessary.

We hear the problem of displacement. So, therefore, the Ministry may consider increasing the buffer zone by between 500 m and 1 km. The Little India Liquor Control Zone has a well-delineated border surrounded by commercial and Government buildings which contains potential displacement. For example, a 500-m buffer zone around Little India would cover areas up to Orchard Road, Kallang Road, Boon Keng Road and the CTE. It is unlikely that people who frequent Little India for the shops, services and activities would spill over to these areas just to drink in public. The Geylang Zone, however, may benefit from an enlarged buffer zone in the north and south as there are a number of residences beyond Sims Avenue and Guillemard Road.

Page: 31

I would also request that the Ministry ensure that approval for extended hours of drinking at social activities, such as barbecue parties, be simple and easy to obtain. Regulations should spell out clearly under what circumstances an application would be rejected. It should also be made clear what constitutes a public place. For example, are chalets public or private places? Now, Madam, I would like to continue my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, drinking can put you in a happy mood but it can also make you lose self-control. So, the aim of this Bill is to control the latter, not the former. Some people take to drinking to forget their sorrows but they get even more sorrowful. We also do not want people to live a befuddled life, getting drunk whenever alcohol is available or to be emboldened by alcohol to commit dangerous acts. To have a few drinks, get slightly tipsy but still in full control of oneself is a good way to be relaxed and to enjoy life.

In modern city living, the pace of life is fast and, after a long week of work, on a Friday or weekend night, you would want to relax. But after 1 April, after 10.30 pm, you can only do so in licensed coffee shops, restaurants and bars. Some low-income people may not be able to afford this. Of course, you can drink at home, but you must buy the alcohol before 10.30 pm.

What I am more concerned about is the impact on some of the Chinese traditions, such as the Seventh Month dinners. Currently, when organisations, such as temples, community or commercial groups, apply for a permit, they have to agree to end their activities by 10.30 pm. However, there would usually be auction of items at such events; people can get enthusiastic and it would overrun past 10.30 pm sometimes. The organisers will tone down the volume after 10:30 pm so that it will not disturb the nearby residents. People are generally tolerant of this.

Public areas with tentage are also considered a public space. I would like to ask the Minister, upon reaching 10.30 pm, do they have to clear or pour all the alcohol on the tables? Or is it considered not an offence as long as they do not drink alcohol?

It is easy to simply turn the knobs on the sound system but not so easy to clear glasses on dozens, or even hundreds of tables quickly. Can they apply to drink after 10.30 pm? What documents are required – the number of people, their names, the type and quantity of the alcohol? How long beforehand do they have to apply and how long will the authorities take to make a decision?

Page: 32

Four months after the new Bill comes into effect will be the Seventh Month of the lunar calendar. So, I hope the Ministry would provide the detailed information as early as possible so that people can get ready in good time. Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mdm Speaker, fellow Members, good afternoon. Firstly, I would like to declare that I am the President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

I support the Bill. From the feedback that I have gathered from those in the business community, their reaction has generally been positive. Businesses, including the most affected ones, such as the mini-marts, share the same concerns as the Government about public order, safety and anti-social behaviour arising from public drinking. The coffee shop operators are also relieved that the Government did not shorten the hours stated on their existing liquor licences and recognised that they need to smartly manage their operations on the ground in order to comply with the law. However, having said this, we hope the Government can find a balance between achieving public security, being pro-business and maintaining Singapore's tourism appeal.

Please now allow me to elaborate on my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, last week, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) invited the trade associations affected by the Bill to a closed-door dialogue to understand their views on the proposed Bill, especially the challenges that SMEs will face after the Bill comes into effect. Earlier on, in English, I have briefly shared the main content of the meeting.

At the dialogue, the trade associations' representatives talked about four main points.

First, can the licences which have been revoked be reinstated? In the past year or so, the liquor licences of about 40 coffee shops in Geylang have been revoked and the reason is because they have contravened the regulations. Inspectors have found people drinking in their premises outside the hours stipulated on their licences. Because their liquor licences have been revoked, their business is down by 20% to 30% and they do not know whether they are going to get their licence back eventually, or it has been permanently revoked. These businesses hope that the Government can give them a clear answer so that they can adjust their businesses if necessary.

Page: 33

Second, our members suggested introducing a demerit point system. If they really contravene the regulations, we suggest that the inspector issue a written warning upon the first violation, instead of the current practice of informing the business only when their licence is about to be revoked. The businesses hope that with this demerit point system, they will have a point deducted for each offence and at each offence a written warning will be given. When all the points have been deducted, then the licence will be revoked. This measure will have a strong warning effect to the businesses, reminding them not to contravene the regulations. The consequences can also be seen clearly. Compared to the current practice, the demerit point system is more transparent and will help the operators to exercise self-discipline.

Third, deal with drinkers who have contravened the rules. Of course, the business operators have to comply with the laws strictly, but the drinkers who have repeatedly violated the rules should also be severely dealt with. Hence, the businesses hope that the Government will use different channels to educate the public on the Bill. From past experiences, although the operators have reminded their customers to buy and consume their liquor before midnight, there are still some customers who refuse to listen to them. If the inspector happens to turn up at this time, it will be the business operator who will get into trouble.

Fourth, maintain Singapore tourism's vibrancy. Singapore is a global metropolis. There are many flights to and from Singapore and tourists arrive round the clock. When the new Bill comes into effect, no drinking will be allowed at public places after 10.30 pm, which aims to reduce the potential threat to public order. Many of the nightlife places frequented by tourists have liquor licences which allow them to sell liquor up until 3.00 am or 4.00 am. They hope that this can be extended to 6.00 am. Many places start the merrymaking after midnight. Stopping the selling of liquor at 3.00 am or 4.00 am does seem a bit early.

In conclusion, we support the new Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Bill. It will mitigate a threat to public safety. However, we hope that the Government can strike a balance between being pro-business and maintaining public order. In particular, we hope they will be sympathetic towards the small businesses. We want to maintain public order, as well as to maintain the vitality of Singapore as a tourist city.

Mdm Speaker, I echo the position presented by my Party colleague, Mr Pritam Singh. While I welcome additional measures to better manage unwanted and rowdy behaviours caused by drunkenness, especially in residential areas, I am concerned if some parts of the Bill are too far-reaching.

The Bill makes it an offence to consume alcohol across Singapore during the prescribed "no drinking" period, which is currently planned to be between 10.30 pm and 7.00 am. The exception would be to drink at licensed premises, or, if consumption permission has been applied for and granted, to an event organiser prior to an event.

Madam, I am of the view that there are public spaces where the consumption of liquor can be permitted without disturbing residents. An example would be in areas popular for barbecues and gatherings, such as the Changi Beach, East Coast Park and West Coast Park.

I live near one of these parks and would often go there in the evenings. The people at the parks, even those who have been drinking, are generally well-behaved. Many are the occasional social drinkers. They are far away from any residence, so, there are also no disturbances caused to households.

I believe we can relax the Bill to allow the Minister to designate areas where drinking can be allowed at all times. If there are frequent undesired incidents related to drinking in these areas, the Minister can publish an order in the Gazette to restrict the drinking period or totally ban drinking in that area, just as the Minister will be able to do so for liquor licence holders under this Bill.

In any case, under existing laws and also under section 14 of this Bill, we have powers to deal with drunkenness in public areas at all times and against behaviours that cause public nuisance. So, we have the means to take action against drunkards and those behaving in unruly manners. I believe this will lighten the administrative load of having to grant consumption permission for events in areas where drinking is unlikely to cause problems.

During weekends and on public holidays, it is common to find many of the barbecue pits in popular public spaces occupied. How responsive will the processing of permits be? Will we have enough security personnel to patrol these areas to enforce the "no drinking" rule? Is it necessary to have the Police patrol such public places to catch people drinking?

Already, we have heard during the Committee of Inquiry (COI) on Little India that our Police force is understaffed and highly stretched. Paragraphs 196 to 198 of the COI Report

Page: 39

had called for more officers but this issue had barely been addressed. The then Commissioner of Police Mr Ng Joo Hee closed his testimony before the COI with a plea for another 1,000 more officers to be added to the Police ranks. Given this situation, how ready are we to enforce this "no drinking" rule in all public places across Singapore? If enforcement of the Bill is weak, it will not reflect well on our law enforcement officers.

Next, I would like to seek some clarifications from the Minister on the Bill. First, there is some public disquiet over what may seem to people as excessive powers to search individuals for any container of liquor and to search premises. I would like to seek clarification that an individual who was consuming liquor in a licensed premises and who leaves the licensed premises with open and unconsumed liquor in a container during the prescribed "no drinking" period has not committed any offence under this Bill. That is, the presence of liquor with the person in a public place but who is not at that point consuming the liquor, this is not an offence if the liquor was purchased earlier in a licensed premises or during the allowed sales period.

Second, I seek confirmation that while a foreign employee dormitory is deemed to be a public space under this Bill, it is only for the purpose of being drunk as defined by section 14(1) of this Bill, that is, it is not an offence to drink in a foreign employee dormitory after 10.30 pm unless the person becomes drunk.

Finally, I would like to seek an update from the Minister that with this Bill and the designation of Little India as liquor control zone, what will happen to the measures that had earlier been imposed on Little India in the aftermath of the riot and subsequently, with the Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill on Little India.

There are still a couple more months before the expiry of the Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill. Will the restrictions be immediately superseded by this Bill when it takes effect? What were the key lessons learnt on the ground from the imposition of the restrictions on Little India?

Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, whilst I support the principle of this Bill, I would like to urge the Minister to review the scope and the regulations to leave more flexibility for the sales and consumption of liquor in areas that are far away from private residence.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the Alcohol Control Bill. Excessive alcohol consumption is the fourth leading preventable cause of death in the United States and I believe it is also a cause for concern in Singapore.

Page: 40

Today, we are not debating about the ills of drinking alcohol per se. We are debating on how drinking alcohol in public places can cause public nuisance and the need to curb public drinking after 10.30 pm.

Many hon Members in this House would have received complaints from residents about parks, HDB void decks and lifts that are littered with beer cans and wine bottles, and soiled and reeking of vomit or urine, possibly the doings of groups of inconsiderate people after a night of drinking. The make-up of these groups is quite diverse, ranging from youngsters, young adults to foreigner workers. Not only do they create noise, the sight of the drinkers also poses fear and anxiety to the women residents and parents with young children. So, therefore, I strongly support the Bill.

I am also heartened to read that more than 80% of the people who were polled supported the alcohol restriction as reported in The Straits Times although some online commenters have doubts about the validity of this poll. But notwithstanding the wide support of the Bill, I have a few concerns and suggestions for the Minister to consider.

When this Bill passed through the stages in Parliament and formally comes into being law, I would like to suggest that MHA considers adopting a transition period of say, two to three months, for the public to adapt to the new restrictions. During the transition period, the Police could consider issuing warning letters instead of issuing summons for first and second time offenders. The particulars of the offenders would be recorded and the Police could consider charging the recalcitrant repeat offenders.

In addition, MHA could also consider working with the merchants who are adversely affected by the restriction of sale of alcohol in Little India and eventually Geylang, to set up low price drinking places for foreign workers – at dormitories or at places near the dormitories with the help of SLA or URA – so that foreign workers could still consume alcohol after 10.30 pm on the eve of their off days. Otherwise, there may be a spill over to illegal sales of liquor during the restricted hours, when the demand is not met, especially during the initial stage.

Clause 13 of the Bill requires an event organiser to apply for the consumption permit for alcohol to be consumed at an event held in public places, for example, a BBQ outing at the East Coast Park. I would like to ask MHA to share with this House the application procedure and assessment criteria for granting such permits. I request that the application procedure would not be too tedious and cumbersome. It would be good if the application for alcohol consumption could be made online at the same time with the application for the permit to organise the event in a public place.

Page: 41

As for the prohibition of sales of alcohol after 10.30 pm at all retail outlets island-wide, the several feedback that I have received indicated that it is too restrictive, even for those who do not drink, like myself. It is also being viewed as too paternalistic. In the past, most supermarkets or hypermarkets close at 10.00 pm. Increasingly, we see more of them operating 24 hours to cater to the changing lifestyle of Singaporeans, who work late and could only do their grocery shopping late at night, including the shift workers.

I suppose the main objective of the Bill is to curb consumption of alcohol at public places after 10.30 pm. Hence, the prohibition of sales of alcohol after 10.30 pm can be seen as too restrictive. I would like to urge MHA to be more lenient in granting permission for supermarkets to sell alcohol beyond 10.30 pm, especially for hypermarkets that are not too near to housing estate. This is especially so during this festive period where many retail outlets are extending their operating hours and shoppers are doing late night shopping to stock up for Chinese New Year.

But to compensate for the seemingly more lenient approach as suggested earlier, I would like to suggest that the Police consider tapping on technology for better enforcement and it is difficult to enforce island-wide "no drinking" after 10.30 pm. For example, the Police could consider developing a smart phone application for Singaporeans to snap photographs of people violating the alcohol restrictions and send these to the Police via the app. This is similar to the app developed by the Municipal Service Office (MSO). The photographs snapped by the smart phone will reveal the date, time and place where the photo is taken using the Global Positioning System or GPS technology. To deter frivolous submissions, only registered user logging in with SingPass password will be allowed to send violation photographs via the app. And such submissions will also allow the Police to track public feedback and identify problem areas where the public is most concerned with.

The rationale of my above proposals such as having a transition period, simplifying the process of applying consumption permit, allowing some supermarkets to sell liquor beyond 10.30 pm is to soften the onset of the new alcohol restrictions. However, it should be accompanied by tight enforcement of the law and the phone app is one of the ways the Police could involve the community to assist in the enforcement. In this way, offenders know that the chances of being caught are high and thus serving as a strong deterrent. At the same time, the Police could also be compassionate towards first-time offenders, giving them prior warning before prosecution. Many first-time offenders may be ignorant of the law or have committed the act out of carelessness. But we know that the recalcitrant should not be condoned.

I hope the Police could cast the enforcement net wide and tight and at the same time, be compassionate and light on the first-time offenders. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Page: 42

Mdm Speaker, the ill-effects of the consumption and the over-consumption of alcohol are well known to all Members of this House. Like the Minister of Home Affairs, I too want to see the eradication of public drunkenness and alcoholism.

I am agreeable to the gist and intentions of this Bill but have reservations in regard to the implementation of it. However, in attempting to do so, we must aim to tackle the root of the problem and not resort to a legislative overkill.

It concerns me that this Bill is not only properly drafted as it leads to many ambiguous areas in the law and there also seems to be a lack of quality public consultation by MHA prior to the drafting of this Bill.

In response to queries about enforcement, a spokesman for MHA said that the Police will be able to "take a more calibrated approach ...based on the circumstances of the situation". This gives too much discretion to policemen and auxiliary policemen which would lead us to uncertainty in the law.

Clause 22 of this Bill outlines the powers of the police and APOs to inspect individuals. Specifically, clauses 22(1)(b) and (c) empower officers to conduct strip searches on individuals that they reasonably suspect to be in breach of the clauses set out in this Bill, which include not only consumption of alcohol but also mere possession of it.

I take issue with this as I believe that Police Officers and APOs should not have the power to conduct strip search, as it infringes on the modesty of individuals. Also, why is there a need for a strip search when a pat search would suffice at the airport? I would also like to seek a clarification from the Minister on what constitutes "reasonable suspicion".

I believe these abovementioned clauses have not been well thought out and I am not convinced about the extraordinary powers bestowed upon not only Police Officers but even APOs when a smaller power would serve the same purpose.

This clause also states that the officers may seize the alcoholic drinks even if they are not being consumed. This does seem rather odd and unfair. Hypothetically, let us assume, say a layman buys a bottle of beer at a convenience store after a long hard day at work at 10.29 pm. Does it mean that he would be in breach of a law if he did not finish the entire

Page: 43

bottle of beer within the next minute?

The Minister may designate an area as a Liquor Control Zone where there is a significant risk of public disorder associated with excessive consumption of liquor. To date, Little India and Geylang have already been demarcated as Liquor Control Zones.

In 2013, there were 49 public order offences – such as serious hurt, rioting and affray – in Geylang, making it a less safe place in that regard when compared to other areas of congregation, such as Clarke Quay, Boat Quay, Chinatown and Joo Chiat. Little India was second on the list with 25 public order offences. However, correlation is not causation. Yes, both Little India and Geylang might have the highest number of public order offences and areas where people congregate and consume alcohol, but there is still a lack of data to show that these public order offences were caused by alcohol.

Businesses in these Liquor Control Zones will also be heavily affected. A key stakeholder, Mr Chandra, the Chairman of the Little India Shopkeepers and Heritage Association raised objections.

I quote him, "If this policy is going to be in place every day, then it is going to be terrible for the stakeholders. Little India is also a place for a lot of tourists who want to be entertained. There are a lot of backpackers and hostels and they love to stay around Little India and they too spend their evening having their drinks. So, if the ban is imposed daily, then I am sure it will make a lot of difference for businesses in Little India, which will also affect the tourism industry."

I would like to ask the Minister how will the Government help these businesses which will be affected by the proposed restrictions.

The number of public order offences in Little India for the whole year of 2013 was 25 and this number has decreased after increased policing in 2014.

Testifying before the COI for the Little India Riots, former Commissioner of Police, Mr Ng Joo Hee said in a passionate plea that, I quote him, "a deployment of 300 pairs of boots on the ground should bring noticeable police visibility to both locations."

He also added that, "My planners tell me that police presence is defined as a police patrol passing a point once every 15 to 20 minutes...This is a useful benchmark, but one which we cannot come close to achieving in either Little India or Geylang on present levels of resourcing."

Page: 44

If increased policing can solve the problems this Bill aims to tackle, why do we not focus our efforts on increasing the strength of the police force instead of passing over-reaching legislation?

In this view, I believe that the proposed Liquor Control Zone is nothing less than a legislative overkill. We do not need to use a sledgehammer to kill a fly. Just like how we do not ban drinking because a minority of drivers drive under the influence of alcohol, imposing a Liquor Control Zone in a place where only a miniscule number of people cause disorder is disproportional.

Also, under these laws, foreign-worker dormitories will be designated as public areas for the purposes of enforcing laws on drunken behaviour. These draconian laws may potentially deprive the poor workers of the source of solace and trample on their dignity. I will understand if the dormitories have their own rules and regulations, but to turn it into a law that comes with fines and jail terms, is very harsh. Most of us have homes to go back to drink, but the dormitories are the foreign workers' homes yet they are subjected to the proposed rules, where there might be checks and penalties which are higher than their monthly wages.

As most, if not all, these foreign workers only have one day off per week, I would like to seek an amendment from the Minister for the cut-off time for consuming alcohol at public places be extended to 11.30 pm, instead of 10.30 pm, on weekends. Drinkers who frequent hawker centres and coffee shops will also welcome this change of time.

While we may draw parallels with other countries which have similar control liquor zone but do we face the same problems plaguing the cities to warrant such a heavy-handed approach to curb drinking issues? According to the World Health Organization's report, Singapore has one of the world's lowest rates of alcohol consumption at two litres per capita. In comparison, Australia, United States and the United Kingdom's alcohol consumption rates are 12, 9.2 and 11.6 litres respectively.

While United Kingdom and Singapore both have control liquor zones, but what is notable is that United Kingdom's Alcohol Consumption Rate is more than five times that of Singapore's.

Our partial restriction may be comparable to that of cities like Texas, Sydney and Prague. Just like in Singapore, most of these above-mentioned cities also passed laws to restrict the consumption and supply of alcohol to combat public drunkenness and public disorder associated with the consumption of liquor. For example, the New South Wales government passed the new laws as "part of the New South Wales government's crackdown on drug and

Page: 45

alcohol-fuelled violence".

Mdm Speaker, all these cities have comparable degrees of alcohol restrictions comparable to the restrictions in this Bill and yet their alcohol consumption rates are almost five times that of Singapore's. Also, why do we not make a comparison on how alcohol is prohibited in neighbouring secular countries like Thailand and Malaysia where social, political and cultural influences are similar? What happened to the "Asian Values" Mr Lee used to talk about? Or do we practise selective comparison to make this Bill appear attractive?

Is there a growing trend of crimes in Singapore linked to alcohol that MHA warrants such strict restrictions?

During the First Reading of this Bill on 19 January, MHA claimed that after conducting two public consultation exercises, discussing with 180 stakeholders and reviewing more than 300 pieces of written feedback, there was strong support for the proposed restrictions.

Before we examine the public consultation itself, the number of people consulted for a bill that would have such far-reaching effects is disturbing. If we were to assume that everyone who had taken part in the consultation process is unique, it would mean that only 1,000 were involved in the consultation process, out of which, only a mere 180 were stakeholders like grassroots representatives and business owners.

It is very strange that the people whom would be most affected by the Bill were not consulted. I understand that many of them may be transient workers, but transient workers count too. I believe they definitely need to be represented in the consultative process.

It is, indeed, very strange that for a Bill which would affect millions, less than a thousand were consulted. This is a miniscule sample size that should not be construed to represent the views of the general population.

For a Government that has recently went on record to say that it would be in touch with the ground, this would defeat the Government's attempts to reform the relationship between the people and the Government.

Upon closer examination of the process, I was surprised to discover that those giving feedback were not given an option to reject restriction during Phase 2. They only had the choice to decide on varying forms of restriction, but were not given the choice to reject all forms of restriction, even if that was what they believed in. This is a fundamentally flawed methodology of choice.

Page: 46

Setting aside the miniscule sample size and the fundamentally flawed methodology, MHA also proclaimed that more than 83% of respondents supported the proposed Bill.

However, within 24 hours of the First Reading, only less than 20% of 9,000 polled in The Straits Times survey supported the proposed laws. In other words, more than 77% of respondents were not supportive of the Bill.

I must concede that neither the Straits Times Poll nor MHA's public consultation have sample sizes big enough and methods to reflect the will of the people, but this discrepancy in results only begets the questions: do these proposed laws truly have "broad support" as claimed by MHA? Do these restrictions truly reflect the will of the people?

More data and effective public consultation from social outreach and recommendations is definitely needed before this House arrives at a decision to pass such a Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I am not agreeable to the proposed laws of this important Bill concerning national policy together with its regulations and restrictions that do not entirely reflect the will of the people of Singapore. I feel that this Bill has been hastily drawn, leaving such a short notice for the House to debate properly and being also so close to the coming Chinese New Year period. I propose this Bill be committed to a Select Committee for further scrutiny, taking into consideration all recommendations by Members of this House before this Bill is passed.

Madam, as mentioned by my Party colleagues before me, the Workers' Party agrees that there is a need to strengthen liquor controls, in particular, the consumption of alcohol in public. While we support the Bill, we believe the Bill may cover too much and ask for particular areas to be relooked.

For my speech, I will touch on protecting the quality of life in neighbourhoods, takeaway sales of alcohol and the policing approach to the Bill.

First, protecting quality of life in neighbourhoods. The need to have tighter alcohol controls stems largely from the density of human activity in Singapore. The scarcity of land has led to intensified and mixed land use where residential and commercial spaces co-exist side by side. Over the last few years, the increased density of population has seen alcohol-related public nuisances and disorder spill over into residential spaces, affecting the quality of life in neighbourhoods.

While it is true that many drinkers are responsible and do not disturb anyone, others camp at HDB void deck tables, merrymaking into the wee hours and leaving broken bottles and unfinished food in their wake. In private residential estates, too, spillovers can happen, especially in areas where there are nearby nightspots and liquor sale points. Thus, having a prohibition of alcohol consumption in public places after 10.30 pm will be welcomed.

Nevertheless, I am of the view that the status quo need not change for public places, such as hawker centres, where retailers sell alcohol till midnight and patrons consume the drinks purchased within the hawker centres. Can we not preserve this, which is a self-contained space and an important outlet for Singaporeans of all income levels?

Another concern is community events where alcohol is served, such as Seventh Month dinners, a point touched on by Mr Baey Yam Keng earlier. While the permits or permission for such events require the events to stop at 10.30 pm, it is common in these social gatherings for bottles of alcohol to be shared in the course of the evening. Even after the events formally end, it is common for attendees to stay back to quietly finish up their drinks together after 10.30 pm. To now say it is illegal to drink after 10.30 pm would mean everyone would have to either waste their drinks or to drink up to meet the timeline, which will be harmful and an overkill. Can the Government not accommodate this innocuous activity?

Page: 50

Madam, there are also other aspects of the Bill I am concerned about.

First, takeaway sales. Let me touch on the proposed prohibition against sales after 10.30 pm for takeaway consumption. This will be stipulated by Police as a licensing condition for alcohol retailers. Currently, most retailers of alcohol for off-premise consumption are able to sell alcohol until midnight, for example, convenience stores, supermarkets and petrol stations. I am not convinced that this should change. Many consumers purchase alcohol for takeaway between 10.30 pm and 12 midnight to drink at home or to bring along to social gatherings at the homes of relatives and friends. Since alcohol consumption in public after 10.30 pm will soon be outlawed, one will no longer be permitted to hang around a public place to consume alcohol after 10.30 pm. Therefore, the main concern about disamenities caused by public drinking late at night would have been significantly addressed.

On the other hand, by prohibiting takeaway sales between 10.30 pm and midnight, a person who wants some drinks, say, after working late, can no longer purchase takeaway alcohol for consumption at home. He or she will have to go to a licensed premise to consume the alcohol there before the journey back. This may inadvertently lead to a higher incidence of persons riding or driving under the influence of alcohol.

Since the Bill will already curtail consumption at public places after 10.30 pm, I do not see the need to have a general prohibition on takeaway sales between 10.30 pm and midnight for private consumption.

Next, Madam, let me move on to some questions about the intended policing approach.

Firstly, for public places in general that are not liquor control zones, will the 10.30 pm rule against consumption be actively policed? For example, do we expect to have foot patrols searching for violators or will the Police only act on complaints?

Secondly, what will be the approach to drinkers found drinking in public after 10.30 pm but do not appear drunk and are not creating any annoyance to anyone? Under clause 12(4), such an individual commits an offence of prohibited consumption. How will the Police handle this? Would the Police just ask the person to leave with no questions asked or will records be kept? As for persons found drunk and incapable, or drunk and causing annoyance, clause 14(3) seems to favour an approach of just directing the person to go away and pouring away the alcohol. Are there expected to be further follow-up steps after these or will the authorities prosecute only when persons do not comply with directions of the Police to leave the place?

Page: 51

Another matter of interest is the division of work between the Police and the auxiliary police. The Act distinguishes between Police Officers and the auxiliary police, the latter of whom are termed "approved persons" under clause 3 of the Bill. While there are some powers under the Bill that can be used by both Police and APOs, under clause 30 of the Bill, only a Police Officer may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence in the Police Officer's line of sight. Thus, if an offence of drunken trespass under clause 14 is committed in front of APOs, it would seem that these APOs cannot arrest the suspect but can only direct the suspect to leave the place. If he does not, it is not clear what, if anything, the APOs can do at the scene.

Accordingly, I would like to ask if the proposed mode of operation is to team up both Police and APOs in joint patrols, or to respond to cases jointly. If they are to be working separately, there could be some awkward situations where auxiliary police may have to wait for Police to arrive to take certain actions, by which time, harm may already have been caused.

Finally, Madam, I would like to make a general observation about the approach to enforcement. During the Committee of Inquiry into the Little India riots, the then-Commissioner of Police spoke about the policing challenges in Geylang and noted that there was open hostility and antagonism towards the Police in Geylang. He called Geylang "a potential powder keg". Have the Police thought about how the open hostility and antagonism can be ameliorated?

Force-wide, the Police have embraced community-oriented policing as a model. This model requires relationship building and partnerships and removing distrust. It is important that the public, whether local or foreign, understand the need for enforcement measures and believe the enforcement approach is fair and also reasonable.

To this end, I was glad to note that just five days ago, the Police launched Project Transient Workers Outreach, an initiative aimed at promoting mutual understanding and creating awareness of Singapore's laws among foreign workers. While various Government agencies were reportedly involved in the project, such as the Civil Defence Force and the Central Narcotics Bureau, it was not mentioned whether the auxiliary police are in any way involved in such outreach.

As auxiliary Police will be at the forefront of enforcing the Act, I am concerned that they are traditionally not trained in community policing and relationship building. Their historical focus was to protect the property of their clients and guard installations, though in recent years their roles have expanded to include policing migrant workers in public places. I believe it is critical to look at how to involve the auxiliary police in building bridges with the

Page: 52

community. Otherwise, all the outreach efforts by the Police may be undermined.

Furthermore, if we expect the auxiliary police to engage the public and manage potentially hostile situations, they must be given the training and support to enable them to enforce the law purposefully and with discretion. I note that in the Police Force (Amendment) Bill tabled for First Reading yesterday, there is a provision to formally expand the role of auxiliary forces to include assisting the Police in detaining and arresting offenders. This further underscores the need for the training and mindsets of our auxiliary police forces to be raised closer to the level of the state Police.

To summarise, Madam, I support in general the Bill's purpose of restricting the public consumption of alcohol after 10.30 pm for the greater good of all. However, once this is done, I believe that we can retain the status quo for takeaway sales. We also need to ensure that those who are enforcing the provisions of the Bill act with reason and discretion, and that the auxiliary police are adequately trained.

Mdm Speaker, please allow me to address in Malay.

(In Malay): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I have received feedback from several grassroots members in my area and also from the employers of foreign workers about this Bill.

One area of concern is that the definition of "public areas" is too wide. Will the public areas in condominiums or private housing estates be subjected to the ban on liquor consumption under this Bill? Will a person commit an offence if he consumes liquor after 10.30 pm when he is relaxing at the poolside of his condominium?

Seeing that this Bill has designated two areas that are frequently visited by foreign workers as Liquor Control Zones, many employers and foreign workers are questioning the need for foreign worker dormitories to be designated as public areas. Those who gave their feedback to me felt that we should exercise more flexibility so that these foreign workers can relax with their work colleagues to recover from fatigue and work stresses. Therefore, it would be good if, for the consumption of liquor within these foreign worker dormitories, it is left to the dorm operators to establish their own conditions.

Mdm Speaker, there are also grassroots members who want the ban on liquor consumption in public areas to be imposed at all times. This approach has been implemented

Page: 53

in several cities like New York, Sydney, Perth and Oslo. Allowing the consumption of liquor during the hours before 10.30 pm can still bring about problems related to liquor consumption like drunkenness, brawls and indiscriminate littering. Therefore, in their opinion, it will be better to ban the consumption of liquor in all public areas at all times.

I have also received feedback from liquor retailers for the restriction on the hours of liquor sales not to be imposed. This is a reasonable request because this Bill has already banned the consumption of liquor in public areas during certain hours. Therefore, why impose the ban on liquor sales on these retailers after 10.30 pm? Some feel that this ban will burden the lower and middle income groups who want to consume liquor in their homes after 10.30 pm because the prices of liquor in the retail shops are much lower than the prices at the coffee shops in the housing estates.

Mdm Speaker, with regard to the payment of fines for the offence of consuming liquor in public areas during the restricted hours, many would also like to know how it is derived. Some feel that the fines imposed should be lesser compared to the penalties imposed for anti-social behaviour that is worse, for instance, littering and spitting in public areas.

(In English): On the issue of enforcement, will the public call for effective enforcement put a greater strain on the local Police force, channelling their efforts into controlling consumption of alcohol in a public area rather than focusing on more pressing issues? What are the plans by the Ministry to ensure effective enforcement?

Mdm Speaker, I would also like to know what are the Ministry's plans to ensure that sufficient outreach and awareness is made known to foreigners on the restrictions placed on the consumption of alcohol as stipulated by this Bill. I fear that this may produce a dilemma for local authorities given that they have to balance a thin line between tempering mercy for tourists who are genuinely unaware and also tackling the problem of locals who may have flouted the law. Should these groups be found in the same place, what is the course of action that we would undertake in the interest of fairness for all?

Mdm Speaker, I believe that this Bill has noble intent to create a living environment that is fair to all parties. I believe our society would be worse off than without it. Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, this Bill is enacted with a view to reduce public nuisance and mitigate law and order issues in Singapore.

I support the Bill as I believe and support the principles on which it is based. I also support the Bill on behalf of many residents in Geylang Serai, many of whom have been working with me, provided inputs, suggestions and contributed to the public consultation exercises which were carried out.

Much has been said since the Bill was introduced, but none will really understand the real issues unless one has been on the receiving end, day in, day out; night in, night out; year in, year out; of intoxicated persons sitting in your back lanes, outside your gate, next to your boundary walls, misbehaving, vomiting, speaking loudly, maybe singing loudly and, at times, ending in a misunderstanding or even a fight, releasing shattered glass, injuries and more noise. The next morning, the environment reeks of alcohol, vomit stench, urine, litter, broken glass and other stuff.

Whilst some may say this is only the picture in certain areas but, Madam, it is spreading to parks, near residences, commercial areas and even in the city centre. One just needs to walk in some of these areas and one will find the din and the ambience not conducive to a quiet evening out.

Pertaining to the Workers' Party's call to allow alcohol to be sold and consumed at hawker centres until midnight, I would really very strongly caution against this as this has been one of the major sources of disamenities and feedback. Who is to say that the consumers will only drink within the boundaries of the hawker centre and not spill over to the adjacent blocks, apartments and public areas?

We are not the only country, Madam, grappling with this. Many states in the United States, for example, have got alcoholic beverage control laws, including even the type of liquor that can be sold at supermarket and convenience stores versus that in a licensed liquor

Page: 55

store. There is also, for example, the 200-feet rule, 500-feet rule and other legislations which may vary from state to state. Other countries like Canada, Japan, Australia and Norway, have got different variations to restrictions as well.

I have a few points to raise. What will be the stand, with this Bill, if any, on "non alcoholic beer"? Secondly, the authorities may bar a person from entering the Liquor Control Zone for up to 30 days if he has committed a liquor-related offence or demonstrated drunkenness. Can I ask why it was set at 30 days, please?

Thirdly, for the alfresco dining areas in restaurants or retail outlets, will they be considered a public or private domain? Can diners, who are patrons of these restaurants, drink their wine and beer with their meals if they are there beyond 10.30 pm?

How about for ships, cruises or water vessels that are docked on our shores? How do these rules apply to them?

Madam, besides the Little India belt and Geylang, as has been mentioned, will areas like the Boat Quay and parts of Clarke Quay and maybe even other parts of Singapore, be considered for Liquor Control Zones? Can I seek the Ministry's explanation to understand some of these decisions?

The Bill, when passed, involves a "whole nation" approach and thus enforcement, too, will be nation-wide. Will the authorities and the Police have sufficient resources to see this through? What will be the strategy? Will other designated authorised and trained persons and partners be considered to assist with the enforcements, especially in the heartland areas?

For the application of special permit for functions and events to serve alcohol, can we be advised on the necessary steps, online or offline, to facilitate understanding and compliance? My grassroots leaders, organisations, associations, representatives and Seventh Month groups have also suggested for this to be simplified and easily accessible.

Alcohol-related disamenities do also happen before 10.30 pm. In fact, even in broad daylight. I do hope the necessary steps, patrol presence and enforcement will be just as strict, especially in some areas, near to the heartlands and residences.

Madam, Geylang Serai is a rich cultural and heritage area, not forgetting the over 100 clan associations, temples, the Buddhist Federation, mosques, churches and other civic organisations, including some schools as well. Give them back their space, their safe and quiet space at least for several hours a day.

Page: 56

Madam, this Bill is about striking the right balance. After all, upholding public good and safety must prevail. Just as the Chinese saying goes, "小饮怡情, 狂饮乱性". I confirm once more my support for the Bill.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): (In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, the issue of liquor control is something we have to tackle urgently. Some people believe that the introduction of this Bill is a knee-jerk reaction to the Little India riots last year; some believe it is an over-reaction. But I do not think so.

In my recent house-to-house visit, many residents asked me to remove the tables and chairs at the void deck. These are newly-installed stone tables and chairs. Why? They said that since these tables and chairs were installed, they have not had a good night's sleep, because every night there would be a group of residents who would drink up to the early hours. These people do not just drink; they make a lot of noises, urinate and vomit everywhere, leaving a large amount of trash behind them. My residents pleaded to have the tables and chairs knocked off so that they could have a good night's sleep.

When I heard about this Bill, I was very happy because the problem of the residents would be solved immediately. The tables and chairs at the void deck can be spared! We do not need to remove them now and my residents can have their undisturbed sleep. However, I do not know when the new measures will come into effect; of course, I hope, the sooner the better.

Those who want to drink after 10.30 pm can do it at home or go to licensed places such as coffee-shops to drink. Drinking at home makes me think of our foreign workers. Where is their home? Home for them is the dormitory. Why does the Bill not allow them to drink at their home? Quite often, they work very late and when they reach home they might want to drink a little to relieve the tiredness and boredom and cool down after a long day's work. I

Page: 58

hope the Minister could consider allowing foreign workers to drink in their dormitory.

Liquor control in countries with a popular drinking culture such as the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia has been implemented for a long time. We know that when a person has too much to drink, he will disturb and be a threat to others. With the drinking culture getting more and more popular, it is timely to introduce the Bill. We also know that drinking has caused families to break up.

Of course, not everyone will behave the same after drinking. Some are responsible drinkers and know when to stop. But those who cause troubles after drinking will raise their voices and have conflicts with other drinkers. Quite often, it is the nearby residents who will suffer. Many times, residents will call the Police and hope the Police can come quickly. The drinkers may leave after the police intervene but the next day they will come back again to cause trouble. With this Bill, the restriction of drinking is clearer. I believe the situation will improve.

At the same time, I would like to bring up the question of enforcement. Do we have enough manpower and resources to implement the Bill? During the alcohol ban hours, do we have enough Policemen to patrol the estates to protect the peace and quiet of the area? Those who contravene the law knowingly must understand the consequences. It should not be simply telling them to leave or pouring away the alcohol. The authorities can also consider setting up a hotline so that members of the public can report incidents of illegal drinking and drunken behaviours. This is to ensure quick and effective response.

I hope the authorities can draw up the manpower requirements and the details of implementation. Only then can the Bill achieve its desired objectives. I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, as I sat here listening to the few hours of debate, it reminded me of TS Eliot's words, "We shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploration will be to arrive where we started and know the place for the first time."

I want to thank all the Members who have spoken on this Bill and for participating in, dare I say, spirited debate and bringing different perspectives to bear on the issue. In general, they have expressed support for the intent of the liquor control measures that the Ministry intends to implement. However, there have also been a diversity of views on a range of issues – the need for the Bill, geographic coverage, time restrictions and so on – and I will endeavour to address them in turn.

Madam, several Members have highlighted that this Bill is timely, even long overdue, and that it will bring relief to residents in various localities who have been enduring disorder and disturbances arising from irresponsible liquor consumption in their neighbourhoods.

Page: 62

And it is for the same reason that we commenced this review of our liquor control measures more than two years ago.

Mr Alex Yam and Mrs Lina Chiam had asked about statistics of liquor-induced crimes. I had shared them. I will reiterate one or two key points and, in particular, the fact that we have had rioting incidents, at least once a week which had been attributed to liquor-related practice. We have also had other forms of serious hurt cases, twice a week, which have also been attributed to liquor-induced practice. And we have had a variety of other crimes that have been contributing to this general concern. The problems are also compounded by voluminous incidents of affray, disorderly behaviour and public nuisance.

Mr Pritam Singh asked for more resolution on liquor-related disamenities across the rest of Singapore and in particular, in areas like Geylang and Little India. As I have said earlier, 40% to 50% of serious incidents in Geylang and Little India are linked to liquor consumption. That is twice the national average. And nationwide, 30% of serious incidents are liquor-related. Nine in 10 of all serious incidents occurred after 10.30 pm. And this is consistent across the island, including Geylang and Little India.

But after all these granularities and all this data-sharing and fine-tuning, I think we need to come to a consensus. Is there a need to take action with regard to this matter? And I think the spirit of the debate in this House has been to confirm that there is a need to do so. The question then arises, how do we go about it and, in particular, when does a Bill stop being blunt and over-reached? And when does it start being comprehensive and effective? We can have a lot of rhetorical flourishes and pose interesting questions, but at the end of the day, we need to make a decision. That decision applies not just to general principles, but also to specific steps that need to be taken on the ground.

In doing so, our guiding principle has been two-fold. The first is to make sure that we minimise the disamenities and threats to public order that would arise from public consumption of liquor. And second, in terms of our approach, we have endeavoured to be balanced, trying to reconcile quite diverse views and interests in order to achieve a pathway forward that we can all commit to and achieve some level of unanimity and take steps according to that.

Mr Baey Yam Keng and Mrs Lina Chiam suggested that we should put more men on the ground and that might be the solution; in other words, more enforcement. But while enforcement may be an important factor, it is by no means the solution in total and it is only one part of the equation. We must address the issues of consumption and sale of liquor in order to set expectations and foster a culture of shared responsibility introspect to this matter. It is equally important – which Mr Alex Yam has in fact emphasised – it is equally important that individuals and the community take responsibility and exercise restraint. In

Page: 63

this respect, the restriction of public consumption of liquor serves as the marker for members of public to abide by.

Several Members talked about the mode and representation of various polls and also how we have undertaken consultation.

Madam, I just want to emphasise that MHA engage in a concerted, inclusive and deliberate process of consultation with a wide range of stakeholders, including residents, various businesses and dormitories operators. We also put up consultation papers, two of them for the public to provide comments. Each phase of this public consultation was widely publicised in the mainstream papers. Ultimately, it is the responses of citizens, active citizens to step forward and give their views so that those views can be counted and take into account when we formulate the policy.

I do not want to get into a detailed discussion on the various polls that had been conducted on this matter. Several Members have entered opinions. It would suffice to state two points. The statisticians assure me that the sample size of 1,145 in the MCI poll is sufficient for statistically significant conclusions to be drawn. And secondly, and perhaps even more importantly, we did not base the proposed Bill and its specific measures on the basis of polls. It was on the basis of specific assessment of operational needs on the ground plus feedback we have gotten in order to achieve our objectives – reducing disamenities in preserving public order.

Ms Foo and Mr Baey were part of the Members who have raised this issue on whether we can keep restrictions to specific problematic areas and widen the coverage when problems are flagged out elsewhere. This is part of the larger discourse we have been having on various issues. Geographic coverage – should it be focused, should it be general? In terms of timing, should we put a restriction, should we have a total ban, should we delay the timing to 12 midnight and so on?

Madam, with respect to geographic restrictions, as I have explained earlier, liquor-related law and order issues and disamenities do occur island-wide. We cannot predict exactly where it might occur next. There were also strong calls based on consultation to restrict liquor consumption at void decks, parks, and other common places in residential areas. If we were to draw zones around these areas, the boundaries and rules will be confusing and to say, the least, ambiguous. I think, in extremis, you will probably need a GPS enabled app to guide you as you move around, in which zone and what rules apply. This is not the kind of situation that we want, smart nation notwithstanding. And as Mr Hri Kumar quite aptly pointed out, "the law should not be an ass".

Page: 64

Furthermore, drawing experiences from similar measures in other cities and in Little India in the past year, the displacement effect is real and it can be difficult to manage, especially depending on the terrain. And I think Ms Denise Phua attested to this in her speech.

Having a series of Liquor Control Zones (LCZs) would simply exacerbate the problem for neighbouring areas. We should not wait until we receive complaints from residents that the restrictions in nearby neighbourhoods have caused the problems now to shift, before we take further action. In that scenario, we would then be accused of being slow to react, "Why are you not more proactive?" So, is this over-reaching or is this being proactive? The greater the gradient between the measures in different locations, the greater the propensity for displacement. I think we should all acknowledge that.

On timing: to address Members' questions on what is the rationale for this restriction at 10.30 pm. The Police's record of past incidents shows that the bulk of liquor-induced violence and disamenities happen at night, after 10.30 pm. We can fine-tine this and get down to the last half hour and so on, but that is a general marker. It also aligns with the end-time for many activities we have in the community, as we have all discussed, whether it is "getai", whether it is Hungry Ghost Festival or the Seventh Month dinners and so on. The restriction will not stop people from congregating and consuming liquor in public before 10.30 pm, but it does reduce the window period when people typically consume liquor, because after 10.30 pm, we have the restriction. It greatly reduces the propensity of them becoming drunk and creating noise disturbances when residents are resting later in the night. The correlation is real and I would say that wherever you draw the line, whether it is 10.00 pm, 10.30 pm, 12 midnight, there will always be a debate about why not before, why not later.

Mr Zainal and Ms Sylvia Lim asked about the rationale of restricting the retail sale hours for takeaway liquor. The first point I want to make is you cannot decouple consumption from the sale of retail with public consumption. Imagine in extremis the scenario where you have total ban on public consumption but total freedom for retail sales, do you think that is tenable solution? So, you need to start somewhere because those who buy retail sales do not all go home and drink, or at least, there will be a temptation to do other things. So, we do need to have some reference points.

Madam, unlike in coffee shops, restaurants and bars where the licensees are responsible to ensure that liquor is not served to patrons who already appear intoxicated, the consumption of take-away liquor is often unchecked. As many Members have highlighted, the problem is exacerbated by easy access to takeaway liquor sold in nearby shops. So, a curb on the supply will reduce the propensity of drinkers obtaining liquor and consuming it in public late at night. This has been an effective measure in other cities. Does it mean that there would be no gaming around the end times? Probably not. But that does

Page: 65

not mean that we should not take a position on this, which we think it is sensible and consistent with the large objectives that we have set out to achieve.

Several Members have raised concerns about the impact of restricting retail sale hours on residents and businesses. Currently, most shops and supermarkets generally close by 10.30 pm. The proposed restriction is not an absolute one, in the sense, that requests for extension of sale hours beyond 10.30 pm will be considered on a case-by-case basis and we have made that apparent.

Some businesses that depend solely on the sale of liquor retail sale will be affected. We can see that from our experience in Little India. But it is also clear that over time, the business community will adapt and diversify and they will create new business opportunities and a different mix of trades. So, I think the fact that major retailers like 7-Eleven and Cheers, have committed that they will align themselves to support the overall objectives is a welcomed development and they will find a way of work closely with the industry to make sure the transition is an effective one with minimal disruption to business.

Mr Alex Yam asked a question on the conditions that the licensing authority will impose in granting extensions on retail sale hours. In considering those extensions, the authority will take into account various factors including the impact on the community and whether licensees take sufficient measures to mitigate any negative impact. And we will impose conditions accordingly.

Several Members have asked about the criteria for designating Liquor Control Zones. Madam, the intention of having these few specific Liquor Control Zones is to better control law and order problems in areas where the risks of public disorder related to liquor consumption are more significant. Stricter restrictions on the supply and consumption of liquor will be imposed, along with enhanced powers to remove persons from the area if they pose risks to public peace and order.

Based on Police's operational assessment, Geylang and Little India are two areas where greater control over consumption of liquor in public is needed. Records of past incidents also show that the occurrence of liquor-induced violent incidents such as rioting and serious hurt have been more frequent in these two areas. So, that is where we are focusing and that is our criteria and basis for doing so.

Ms Foo Mee Har has asked how the measures can address the problems in her ward, and specifically Teban Gardens. I have some familiarity with the area.

Page: 66

Mdm Speaker, other than the restriction on public consumption of liquor, the Bill introduces other powers and levers that enforcement officers can use to deal with drunkenness and disamenities that occur at any time of the day. In cases where drinkers are creating public annoyance, officers have the power to remove their liquor and require them to move on and leave the place. These are actions that enforcement officers can take and they serve as a strong deterrent to anti-social behaviour.

Madam, as we can see from the diverse and varied interests reflected in the debate today on just these two issues, the Ministry has had to find a position that is reasonable, and balances the needs of various stakeholders. Taking all the above-mentioned factors into account, we have formulated and proposed a set of measures as embodied in this Bill that we assess to be the most appropriate and practical today.

The Bill provides us with a framework for these measures to be implemented. There is also sufficient flexibility for the measures to be re-calibrated as the ground situation evolves.

I want to turn to some implementation details which several Members have asked. One pertains to the definition of "public place" and the places that the law will cover. A public place under the Bill is a place where members of the public can have access as of right, or with permission. This includes places like void decks, parks and pavements. Places where members of the public cannot freely enter are not public places and the provisions in the Bill will not apply. Therefore, the restrictions on the consumption of liquor do not apply in private condominiums where access is restricted to residents and guests only, or in the private quarters of the foreign workers' dormitories.

There are some public places where the consumption of liquor will continue to be allowed. Individuals can continue to drink in restaurants, coffee shops and bars. This includes any outdoor refreshment area that has been approved by the relevant authorities. To answer Mr Pritam Singh's question, hawker centres are under the same licensing regime as coffee shops. Operating hours are based on the location and the environment in which the hawker centre or coffee shop is based, whether it is a residential or commercial area.

Several Members have suggested giving flexibility for the consumption of liquor in certain places, such as during a barbecue gathering in coastal parks and a grassroots event in the heartland, or in designated "party zones". Some even talked about star gazing in the park over a glass of wine. I would like to assure Members that these are not activities that we seek to restrict, particularly if the adverse impact on the community is not significant. We are committed to make it simpler for event organisers to obtain relevant permits where they are needed, or in some cases to exempt activities in certain places. The details are being

Page: 67

worked out and we will announce them when they are ready.

We have to be careful about blanket exemptions or providing for certain areas which are drinking zones. I think this was an idea that Mr Yee Jenn Jong suggested. You must be prepared for the unintended consequences of such a move. If all the other areas around you have restrictions and then you have this free zone, I think the consequences can be quite undesirable.

I want to clarify a point which several Members have raised on foreign worker dormitories. The "public place" seen in clause 38 of this Bill relates to a consequential amendment to the Foreign Employee Dormitories Act, which was passed in this House two weeks ago. Under the Act, MOM had decided that dormitories should be deemed as "public places" solely for the purpose of the provision relating to drunkenness under section 18 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act. As this provision will be transferred to this Bill, we need a consequential amendment under this Bill.

So, it is a technical matter but I want to basically assure Members that we have no intention to single out foreign workers and I fully agree with Mr Hri Kumar and many others who have expressed the sentiment. That is not the object of this Bill. The amendment does not turn dormitories into "public places", neither does it forbid workers from consuming liquor within the foreign worker dormitories. Workers can continue to drink in their private quarters according to whatever rules they have within their dorms. Some dorms have varying rules on this matter in terms of where their private quarters are. And they can also continue to drink in the beer gardens in their dormitories until such time as it is allowed under the licence. So, we will license the areas; there are these today and those areas will continue to be available to the workers. So, it will not unduly constrain foreign workers in the dorms.

Mr Zainal and Mr Ang asked about easing the public into the new measures and plans to ensure that individuals are not unfairly caught by the law. Mrs Lina Chiam also raised concerns about enforcement. Police will work with licensees and all the relevant authorities to put in place appropriate information, signages to remind members of the public of the rules. In enforcing the law, enforcement officers will take a calibrated approach.

Let me elaborate on how enforcement will be calibrated. When a person is found consuming liquor during the restricted period, that is, after 10.30 pm, the Police are empowered to take down his particulars and require him to dispose of his liquor. At any time of the day, before or after 10.30 pm, a person found consuming liquor and creating public annoyance may also be required to move on and leave the place, even if he is not drunk. No

Page: 68

further action will be taken if he complies.

If a person ignores Police's advice, or if he is a recalcitrant offender, the Police may consider stiffer actions, such as issuing him a composition fine or, in extremis, arresting him. As is the practice today under existing laws, persons who are disorderly or pose a threat to public order and safety may also be arrested and prosecuted. Mr Yee Jenn Jong has asked about the offence on consumption of liquor. To clarify, mere possession of liquor is not an offence.

Madam, it is not our intent to restrict people from enjoying liquor per se, but to encourage personal responsibility and considerate behaviour. The Police will focus their enforcement on areas where there are public disorder and disamenities associated with the consumption of liquor and take even-handed actions. It is certainly not the intent of this Bill to seek out every person who is consuming liquor peacefully in a remote place. I do not think the Police have the resources for this. Should the Police encounter such situations, they will assess each circumstance carefully and not resort to issuing penalties, whether it is fines or arrests in the first instance.

Mr Alex Yam asked about the treatment of inebriated youth. In the event that the Police encounter an individual who is drunk and incapable, the Police will as per current practice, take him back to the station and issue him a warning when he comes around. If he repeats the offence, the Police may, depending on circumstances, take further actions.

I want to come to the specific enforcement powers and penalties. Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mrs Lina Chiam sought clarification on the rationale and safeguards of various powers.

In particular, clause 30 which is a standard provision for arrest power that is common in many pieces of legislation, such as the Public Order Act, the Protection from Harassment Act and the Miscellaneous Offences Act. And given the propensity for violence and public disorder of liquor-related offences, they should be made arrestable without warrant so that Police can take swift actions. As I have reiterated – and I want to do so again – Police will not make arrest in the first instance.

Clause 22 relates to inspection powers that are adopted from the special event provisions in the Public Order Act. Where an individual is suspected of having committed an offence related to liquor consumption and drunkenness and has hidden the liquor among his personal belongings including his clothing, clause 22 allows enforcement officers to inspect his belongings for any incriminating evidence. This is not a new power for the Police. We had a debate over this in the past. The Police have well-established protocols to assess when certain inspection is necessary and how it is to be administered based on their

Page: 69

operational experience applying such powers to special events such as National Day parades, for example.

Assoc Prof Fatimah asked about the rationale of imposing a banning notice period of 30 days. Under the current Public Order (Preservation) Act, there is a provision for indefinite exclusion. We do not need such strict powers in this Bill. Thirty days is a reasonable period. The Commissioner of Police or an authorised officer will then have to make an assessment whether to issue another notice or whether the individual can then be allowed to re-enter the place.

Mr Zainal asked about the penalty quantum for offences related to the consumption and sale of liquor. These take reference from the existing laws and what we already have. In enforcing the law, Police will be given the option to issue composition fines in lieu of prosecution and such composition fines will be of the lower quantum than the penalty prescribed in the law. Penalties related to the supply of liquor by businesses are aligned with those under the public entertainment regime.

On liquor licensing, Ms Foo suggested that we consider restricting liquor licences in a community and seek stakeholders' feedback in considering licence applications. I want to make the point that while restricting the number of licences is one of the tools available, the number of licences in an area per se may not truly reflect the situation on the ground because you may have one licensee who behaves irresponsibly, you may have many licensees who actually are very compliant and are responsible in the way they conduct their sales. So, the closure of any one shop will not necessarily reduce the overall problem on the ground. But what we will do – and the Police will do – is we will assess the situation in a locality and consider which levers are to be used, including whether there should be restrictions on the number of licences.

Mr Thomas Chua made several suggestions relating to the liquor licensing regime to balance the need between achieving public security, being pro-business and maintaining Singapore's tourism appeal. We will take note of all his suggestions including the idea of a demerit points system and we will review them. As of now, we do not have any plan to have such a system but we will continue to engage the industry and refine our processes.

Several Members have asked about the Police enforcement and resourcing for that purpose. I am very glad so many of you have raised this and I will urge you to hold that thought. The Committee of Supply is around the corner and you should make a strong pitch for MHA.

Page: 70

In enforcing this law, the Police will focus resources on problematic areas, particularly in the two Liquor Control Zones. In other words, the way we will prioritise. These are areas with greater law and order concerns where we already dispatch more resources today, to patrol and respond to incidents. As with the current practice, APOs, who are trained and supervised by Police, will be deployed to patrol areas such as Little India where large congregations of people frequently gather and consume liquor. These APOs are also empowered under the Bill to assist and supplement Police in enforcing the law on public consumption of liquor, including effecting arrests.

I agree with Ms Lim and, in fact, this is a point we have discussed in this House before. We do need to ensure that our APOs are well trained because of the interface they have with the larger community and that is, indeed, the basis on which the Police engage the APOs and ensure that there is a rigorous training regime for them and we will continue to do so.

In areas that do not pose as many problems, the enforcement officers also have the levers and powers to take decisive and quick actions, when they come across such cases in the course of their work or if it is brought to their attention through a report or notification. We do not envisage a significant increase in resource requirement because of this prioritisation approach and the way the Police will respond.

Madam, I want to say that we will commit ourselves to resourcing the Police as necessary to do not just the enforcement of this Bill and its provisions but, in general, we have larger law and order and security concerns. The resourcing of the Police has to take into account this larger context. It is not about this particular Bill per se.

Having said that, I do want to make the point that in the context of this Bill, it takes the concerted effort of all stakeholders to ensure that the objectives of the Bill are met. Enforcement alone will never be sufficient. We need the industry and the community to take responsibility, exercise more self-control and be proactive in mitigating liquor-related risks.

Mrs Lina Chiam has suggested that we commit this Bill to a Select Committee. I disagree with her and I will argue against it. There is no need because the policy behind this Bill has undergone a long period of deliberation and consultation with a wide range of stakeholders. The public has generally shown support and this is underscored by various polls and, indeed, I think the discussion in this House confirms it. The offences in the Bill are also not new; the powers are scoped tightly and are similar to those that we have in existing legislation and Police's enforcement approach will also be targeted, balanced and measured, as with the enforcement of any other law.

Page: 71

Madam, to conclude, the intent of the Bill – proposed measures and enforcement are guided by and focused on averting disorder and disamenities, to deter and to deal with troublemakers and trouble-making.

We have sought to take a calibrated and balanced approach to deal with a somewhat complex issue. This will guide both the geographical areas that we focus on for our enforcement and the enforcement touch and the approach that is adopted on the ground. We have heard a great diversity of views in this House and outside, but from all this diversity, I think one key clear point is that we are united in the desire for the same outcome – a safer and more secure living environment for all Singaporeans and other residents here.

We are not transplanting policies of other cities indiscriminately but we are learning from their experience and adapting some useful examples for our purposes. In general, if you look around at the examples we have cited and others that you may have experienced personally, these cities have not lost their buzz and I do not think their residents or their citizens feel unduly put upon by some of the restrictions that have been put in place.

Madam, the proposed measures are reasonable, balanced, focused and not excessive. We are not setting out to stop people who want to enjoy their liquor; rather, this Bill aims to set the norms for liquor consumption in public places and purchase of takeaway liquor to be conducted in a responsible way. Ultimately, we do need all parties to step forward – individual responsibility, cooperation of the community, industry has to play its part. We need effective enforcement and, of course, we need to educate all so that we can achieve the full intent of this Bill. Madam, I urge Members to give their full support for this Bill.

Thank you, Madam. I have three clarifications for the Second Minister. Earlier in his round-up speech, he was saying that hawker centres were treated under the same regime as coffee shops. I would like him to clarify that because in the literature of the MHA statements, they put coffee shops as licensed premises but in some of the FAQs we have seen, hawker centres appear not to be licensed premises but I am not sure whether those stallholders selling drinks there are considered to be retailers or off-premise consumption. So, I would like him to clarify that, if different rules would apply.

Secondly, could the Minister comment on the scenario that some of us brought up about the Seventh Month dinners. What would happen to the people who have opened

Page: 72

drinks after 10.30 pm? That would be important, I think.

And the third point is, Geylang, since it is going to be zoned as a Liquor Control Zone, I was asking in my speech whether the Police had looked into the reasons why there is antagonism towards the Police in Geylang and how we could actually ameliorate that?

Madam, first on the issue of hawker centres, the licence does not apply to hawker centres as a whole but particular shops will receive the licence. If I remember correctly, they are given a beer licence or a beer house licence and the requirement is that the consumption takes place on the premises, meaning within the hawker centre. What that means in practice is if a shop in a hawker centre is to sell a can of beer, they are required to pop the can, so that there is a point made about consumption on premises. So, that is the basis on which the licensing is conducted. In that sense, it is similar to coffee shops and they have prescribed times and so on for their operations.

On the Seventh Month dinner, I think what the Member is suggesting is that the 10.30 pm time limit is observed more and it is breached. Is that her point? Basically, the Seventh Month dinners are required, by permit and the licence they have, to end by 10.30 pm. I think the Member's point is that these inevitably spill over and we are aware of this situation on the ground. That is why I have made the point that for these kinds of activities, because our object is to minimise the impact on normal activities and the Seventh Month dinners would constitute that, we will see how best to facilitate that. Perhaps, in the application process – because they will need a permit if they are going to hold it in a public area – we can embed this requirement in there as well. But we will have to study this and see how to make it seamlessly. We have a few months before this is upon us.

Finally, her point on Geylang and I think the point was why is there this antagonism.

I would not say that this is a particularly sharp issue which we are seized with. In general, the Police have very clear strategies in engaging the community. It is not just in Geylang but it is across the island. Community policing is a key part of their policing strategy and that entails building relationships, bridges and bonds of trust in the community. You cannot just rely on enforcement, we need this. So, it is part and parcel of the Police's overall strategy to keep Singapore safe and secure.

Page: 73

Thank you, Madam, just a short clarification for the Minister. Yes, I understand and I agree that we need to minimise disamenities and disorder while balancing the needs of the population. The Minister shared quite a bit of statistics today. To help my understanding in the implementation, I would like to know what sort of evidence do we have of rioting and serious hurt incidents in the coastal parts, for example, East Coast Park. Have there been many complaints regarding this sort of areas about drinking?

Madam, I do not have specific data on incidents in East Coast Park. If the Member wishes, he can file a question and I would be quite happy to give the information. But I would make a more important and general point. I think the Member's consideration is whether we can leave places like East Coast Park untouched by the measures that we are proposing and specifically the restrictions on consumption in public areas.

I urge the Member to consider the consequences and whether the residents would thank you, or those who go to East Coast Park, if some of the concerns we have actually materialise. Because inevitably what you are going to have is if there are restrictions in many areas and then you have this oasis for consumption, human behaviour will sort of find a new level. I would urge the Member, therefore, to give this careful thought before he advocates such a strategy.

I do agree with the Member what it does mean is that in some of these recreational areas, such as East Coast Park, the enforcement has to be calibrated – some have used the term "light touch" – but also we need to make sure that we find the balance which allows people to have their fun in a legitimate way, which is unchannelled and, at the same time, we also ensure the concerns in terms of public order and safety are preserved. If the latter is not achieved, then you are not going to have a lot of fun in East Coast Park.

*Question put, and agreed to.*

*Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.*

*The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr S Iswaran].*

*Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.*

Page: 74