Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill

Mdm Speaker, the 8 December riot was a rude shock for all Singaporeans. We never imagined witnessing acts of violence and destruction we usually watch or read about happening in other countries. It was a timely reminder that we are not immune from, and cannot be complacent about, such matters.

But, as Deputy Prime Minister Teo said in his Ministerial Statement last month, the incident is also noteworthy for what did not happen. No shots were fired, no one was killed or even seriously injured on account of the riot itself. And while a small minority of the foreign workers involved clearly broke the law, we have seen videos, pictures and heard accounts of some who helped people to safety and tried to restore calm. But all that was not by design. It could so easily have been far, far worse. And if there had been large numbers of casualties, if Singaporeans had been killed, if properties and homes were damaged, I wonder if those objecting to this Bill would be so enthusiastic.

The real question is where do we go from here. This Bill gives the Police a wider array of powers so that they can calibrate their responses to different situations. Some charged that this Bill is an over-reaction and premature, and that we should first wait for the findings of the COI. However, that process may take some months. And more importantly, if the incident has identified gaps in our legislative framework to prevent and more effectively deal with such risks, then it would be wrong and irresponsible of us not to act now. Nonetheless, I hope the Minister will confirm that the legislation will be reviewed when the COI releases its findings and, if necessary, amend it. And this would ensure that the measures that this House ultimately enacts will be effective and deal with

Page: 50

the real, as opposed to perceived, risks.

But having said that, I wish to make a few points about the Bill. First, it is important that we avoid speculating on the causes of the riot, as it risks us training our scopes on the wrong issues. The COI has been convened to look into the incident, including what caused it and provide recommendations. Hence, may I ask the Minister for the rationale behind the significant emphasis of this Bill on alcohol consumption in the subject area? Clauses making expressed reference to alcohol consumption include clause 3, and this appears to pre-determine that alcohol consumption was the main cause of the riot.

Mdm Speaker, while it is indeed possible that alcohol consumption had a role to play in the rapid escalation of events, as well as the behaviour of the crowd, we should wait for the findings of the COI before passing judgement. I accept the necessity for decisive steps to be taken now to safeguard the peace, but I think the language of the Bill could have been more neutral.

Second, some will express discomfort with the significant discretionary powers this Bill gives our Police officers. But as the Minister has explained, these powers are not unprecedented. And I think it is an easy criticism to make of the Bill. It is telling that no one, at least to my knowledge, has been able to offer a viable and practical alternative. And the reason is simple. Police officers on the ground will encounter a variety of circumstances and situations, and it is impossible to legislate what they should or should not do in any given situation. They have to be given discretion so that they can properly carry out their duties to preserve public order. And if they abuse those powers, they should be taken to task.

Nonetheless, the Bill can and should ensure that with such wide discretionary powers, there must be a commensurate level of oversight and supervision. In this regard, the Bill does state that the discretion conferred is not unfettered – standards, such as a reasonable level of suspicion, have to be met before measures like search and seizure can be carried out. Moreover, it is important to note that judicial review is available. And even though clauses 5(6) and 13(8) express finality against appeal, the option of judicial review is not precluded.

Likewise, clause 19(3) grants the authorities immunity, but only when acting with good faith and reasonable care when exercising their powers under the Bill. Again, some may argue this is being overly generous to the Police, but again, what is the alternative? That the Police can be sued even if they acted in

Page: 51

good faith and reasonably? How are they expected to do their jobs?

But there are important things we can and I think we should do outside this Bill. And as part of its oversight, I urge the Ministry to look carefully at implementation issues. Giving officers discretion is clearly necessary. However, in matters like these, a good outcome will depend on a sensible exercise of that discretion. For that, there is no substitute for experience, good judgment and temperament. It is vital that we deploy experienced Police officers in the subject area. They will, in the main, be dealing with persons from different countries of different cultures, who may have limited understanding of English and, more importantly, with different perceptions of law enforcement, based on experiences in their home countries. A cool, experienced officer, who is able to communicate effectively, will be more effective in defusing a situation than well crafted pieces of legislation. I would like to ask the Minister what assurances we have that experienced and properly trained officers will be deployed in the designated zones. Furthermore, as auxiliary police officers are given the same powers under the Bill, I would like to ask the Minister if there are adequate steps to ensure that these officers from external sources are properly qualified and trained to wield these additional powers.

I have two further specific queries. First, clause 3(2)(b) provides that the Minister may "declare as part of a special zone, any additional area in Singapore that is adjacent to any area described in the Schedule". An incremental approach in widening the boundaries of the special zone has merits. However, should incidents arise in areas separate from, and not adjacent to, the proposed special zone, what recourse would the Minister have to deal with those situations? And is there a need to pass further legislation?

Second, clause 1(2) provides that this Bill, if passed, would continue in force until the end of 12 months after its commencement. It does not expressly provide for any renewal mechanism. Could the Minister clarify whether this Bill, if passed, will require the approval of the House at the end of 12 months for renewal?

Finally, just one other argument I have read. It has been argued outside this House that this Bill is discriminatory towards the communities living in the gazetted zone. I find that surprising but, on that issue, I look forward to hearing from my colleague, Ms Denise Phua, on the concerns of her residents, and she, no doubt, could have spoken to them. And those views are certainly important and should be given some weight. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Page: 52

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Bill. First and foremost, allow me to express my deepest condolences to Mr Sakthivel Kumaravelu's family for the unfortunate accident that led to his demise on 8 December 2013. I would also like to send my greatest appreciation to the first responders, Civil Defence and Police officers for risking their lives to render assistance to the victim and to keep Singapore safe.

The riot in Little India on 8 December 2013 was seen as one of the worst public order disturbances in more than four decades. Least of all, it shocked many Singaporeans, for the scenes on that fateful night were images we did not expect to see here in peaceful Singapore. Even foreign media took notice of this rare incident, which made news not just locally but also all over the world. The message that needs to be conveyed to Singaporeans is important and clear, that we should never take the peace we enjoyed over the last four to five decades for granted.

I have not personally lived through nor experienced any riot but have read about the darker days in the 1950s and 1960s when riots such as the Hock Lee Bus riots, Chinese Middle Schools riots and the race riots in the 1960s were not uncommon occurrences. Thus, I am unable to fully comprehend what it will be like to be near or, worse still, caught in the midst of such a mob.

Eyewitness accounts of the recent Little India riot, some of whom stay in the HDB block above where the riot took place, shared the following, and I quote:

"I felt quite scared during the riot. I've studied rioting incidents in other countries in school but I didn't think it would happen so close to home. It was my first encounter and it's quite traumatising!"

"I heard what sounded like bombs going off, three times."

"Some of the men lit beer bottles with fire and threw them at the Police."

I can imagine how terrifying it was for Mr Lee Kim Huat, the bus driver, and Mdm Grace Wong Geck Woon, the bus coordinator, to be caught in the epicentre of the anarchy. I wish them well as they recover physically and emotionally from their injuries and also the harrowing experience they have

Page: 53

gone through.

I am thus glad to hear that a Committee of Inquiry (COI) is convened to ascertain the causes of the riot, assess the handling of the riot and the management of areas where foreign workers congregate. I am sure that the recommendations of the Committee will do Singapore well as we seek to learn from the lessons of the riot.

While in Singapore, large scale riots, like the one in Little India, are, to say the least, unheard of since the race riots in 1969, riots have occurred in many other major cities all over the world. Some of the more infamous ones, which I think we will all remember, were the riots in England in August 2011, the Gujarat riots in 2002 where many Hindus and Muslims were killed, and even further back, the Chicago riots in 1968, sparked by the assassination of Martin Luther King Junior. These riots were similar in that they caused either significant damages to properties or loss of lives.

The invocation of the memories of these riots here is deliberate. It is perhaps easy to say that the England riots of 2011 were caused by the shooting of Mark Duggan, a local who was shot dead by the Police two days prior to the start of the riots; that the Gujarat riots were because of the Godhra Train Incident and that the killing of Martin Luther King started the Chicago riots. Yet, as any study of the riots will tell you, these were just triggers. There were underlying causes which would have contributed to the outbreak of violence, be it socio-economic, marginalisation or underlying tensions. Perhaps, it is prescient that Martin Luther King Junior spoke about rioting just a month before his assassination. And I quote him here:

"But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard."

While it is unfair to compare the situation in Singapore to that of Chicago or Gujarat, the reasons why I recalled the words of Martin Luther King seek to remind all of us that, very often, riots arise because people feel that they are silenced, or that perceived grievances are unheard, or if they feel any social injustice.

Page: 54

In our case, foreign workers do have needs that have to be met, be they economic, social or emotional. We need to examine deeply to evaluate the welfare and living conditions of the foreign workers working in Singapore. I am thus glad that Minister Tan Chuan-Jin had on 20 January 2014, acknowledged that foreign workers do have such physical and physiological needs – to catch up with friends, to eat or just to relax. On this note, I would like to ask the Minister on the measures taken to look into the welfare of these foreign workers and the provision of recreational facilities for them, besides their living conditions in their dormitories. I also hope that COI will dwell deeply into the root causes that have contributed to the perceived exaggerated reaction of the foreign workers on the night of the riot.

On the subject of needs, it is thus interesting to note that Little India has become a place of congregation for many foreign workers. Every week, we see thousands, if not tens of thousands of foreign workers descending upon that area. However, it is always a fine line when we ask if the provision of services follows the congregation of people or vice versa. For me, I would believe that these grow hand-in-hand, and that services grow alongside the growth in population. Thus, Little India has become busier and busier, and we see the evolution of more and more types of services to cater to the needs of these workers.

On this matter, the temporary measures, which confer wide-ranging powers on the Singapore Police Force, including the ban of alcohol consumption and sales in designated "special zones", may be useful in preventing possible spontaneous actions, pending the COI's findings on the riot. On the other hand, there is skepticism on the enactment of this Bill as it is being perceived as draconian and disproportionate, curtailing the basic privileges and rights of citizens and non-citizens. The timing of the Bill, before the conclusion of the COI and criminal proceedings, has also been questioned as being presumptive and reactive. There are some quarters who also question why this temporary Bill is necessary when existing statutes are already available to address the concerns arising from the Little India riot.

Clause 1 of the Bill states that the Act "shall continue in force until the end of 12 months after the date of its commencement". I would like to clarify with the Minister what happens after these 12 months as the Bill is silent on this.

With the imposition of these measures, it could also mean that Little India becomes an area shunned by people, both for the restrictions on alcohol sales and its consumption and a possible risk of being stopped and searched by patrolling officers. What then is going to stop foreign workers from

Page: 55

congregating at other areas and consuming alcohol there? There are also other areas where foreign workers congregate in large numbers, for instance, the Thais at Golden Mile and the Burmese at Peninsula Plaza. While these areas have remained relatively peaceful, if alcohol consumption holds such an impact, then should we not be concerned about these areas where foreign workers congregate?

Should the unlikely eventuality of a similar nature of incident occur elsewhere in the country, further away from Little India, will another "special zone" be designated under this same Act?

At the same time, while we turn our attention to these foreign workers, let us remember that business owners and the provision of services have also been hard hit by the riot and the subsequent measures, especially those small businesses that depend on the sale of alcohol. These are small businesses, owned by Singaporeans who are just making their livelihood. I would thus like to ask the Minister if the impact on business in Little India is being monitored and, if so, are there measures being taken to help these small businesses.

Clause 12 of the Bill allows a Police officer not below the rank of sergeant, without warrant, to stop, enter, search and remove or retain any vehicle; enter and search any premises or place; stop, detain and search any persons on the basis that an offence has been or is likely to be committed. My concern is that with so much discretionary powers conferred on Police officers, some of them who can be relatively junior and inexperienced, even if he is above the rank of sergeant, how will the officer be adequately trained to ascertain that an offence is likely to be committed? What measures will be put in place to ensure that our officers will not be put in a difficult situation to exercise reasonable judgement and that over-zealous officers will not abuse the power vested on them?

I would also like to ask the Minister if any consideration will be taken in the monitoring of indicators to lift any measures, permanent or temporary, during the 12 months of the imposition of the Act.

Mdm Speaker, I speak with concern because my constituency in Sengkang West is in close proximity to foreign worker dormitories along Jalan Kayu. I have received much feedback from residents that they have witnessed many foreign workers sitting in void decks and along the pavements, drinking beer and "staring" at passers-by. Some of my residents expressed concerns and worry over the safety of their family members, especially in the night when they return home from work and need to walk along the quiet streets back to their

Page: 56

flat. While I have no objection to foreign workers visiting the nearby shops and making use of amenities in the estate, I am concerned about the effect of alcohol intoxication on the human faculty and behaviour, especially in public areas, such as streets, parks and HDB void decks.

I would like to urge the Government to take the bold step and go further and seriously consider banning the consumption of alcohol in public places, not just in Little India, but island wide. There have been numerous recorded events of riots associated with drinking in public in many countries, many resulting in massive damage to properties and loss of innocent lives. Countries that prohibit drinking in public places include Australia, Canada, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Russia, Spain and the United States. These are precious lessons we can learn from, and we should not wait for another incident to happen before looking at such a measure.

Mdm Speaker, the riot in Little India has taken many Singaporeans, including myself, by surprise. Did we expect a riot to take place in Singapore after 40 years of peace? Probably not. Will it happen again in the future? Maybe. Do we want to do something to prevent this from happening again in our beloved homeland? Definitely, yes!

The unprecedented serious damages to emergency response vehicles and injuries to Police and Civil Defence officers and the significant disruption to our peace and sense of security definitely warrants quick, decisive and bold measures to equip our law enforcement team with the appropriate powers to deal effectively with the local issues within Little India. I certainly hope that the Ministry will give due considerations to subsequent longer-term legislation, including banning consumption of alcohol in public, to ensure the peace and safety of Singapore, not just within Little India, but in the rest of Singapore, too. With that, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, that the "one-off" riot on 8 December last year did take place is disconcerting and troubling enough. The disturbance and the consequences flowing from it have interrogated and challenged the legitimacy of our economic and immigration policy. The Government has assiduously sought to manage public opinion seared by the images of the riot that have offended our sensitivities and sense of well-being. I see this Bill as part of this effort.

Page: 57

In order to win support, the Bill before us now is designed as a temporary law, portrayed as a necessary and tightly scoped law. I must emphasise that the violent actions of those involved in the disturbance cannot be justified, and that we must have a zero tolerance of such conduct.

This Bill speaks of the Government's resolve to possess the full range of legal and coercive powers, even if it is for 12 months, to prevent the disturbance of 8 December from happening again.

We would want to facilitate the recovery of and healing in Little India, particularly for Singaporeans who live and work in the area, and of the South Asian foreign workers who gather in the area over the weekends and on their days off.

The fundamental reason for this Bill is important. After all, who would be against a law that seeks to keep Singapore safe? But how we get there is just as important, if not more important. We must not lose sight of the "how" question.

Having considered carefully this Bill since its First Reading exactly four weeks ago, Madam, I do not support the Bill. I do not doubt at all that the Members of this House – and I include myself here – are steadfastly for the maintenance of public order in Little India and throughout Singapore.

I am unable to support this Bill because, first, the current suite of laws, while inelegant and perhaps cumbersome in their application, is sufficient; second, this Bill is a disproportionate and a knee-jerk response to the concerns of law and order in Little India; third, given that the Committee of Inquiry has begun its inquiry, this Bill proceeds, prematurely, on the basis that alcohol was the cause of the disturbance on that fateful night of 8 December; fourth, that the Bill will not aid in the healing and recovery of Little India, and instead pushes the discourse of immigrant criminality and risks erecting social boundaries between Singaporeans and the South Asian migrant workers when we can least afford it; and fifth, the Bill will enervate Little India of its vibrancy and relevance. I will now elaborate on each of them.

Firstly, the current exceptional measures in Little India are underpinned primarily by proclamations issued under the Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA). POPA provides that if, in the opinion of the Minister charged with the responsibility for internal security, public order in any area in Singapore is seriously disturbed or is seriously threatened and he considers it to be necessary for the purpose of maintaining or restoring public order in that area

Page: 58

to do so, the Minister may proclaim the existence in that area of a state of danger to public order.

So, we have had weekly proclamations under POPA since 14 December 2013. The proclamations take effect for 48 hours, typically from 6.00 am every Saturday and conclude at 6.00 am the following Monday. This is not elegant, but POPA still gets the job done. The authorities have not needed to use the full suite of powers under POPA.

The Government has indicated that there is nothing between the big stick that is POPA and the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. Hence, there is a need for this Bill. Save for the curfew and some other provisions, however, this Bill has incorporated most of the hard-hitting provisions of POPA. This makes the Bill a very sharpened instrument in dealing with a non-emergency situation.

By all accounts, Little India is now more orderly, and the crowds are returning. It appears that the series of measures implemented to restore calm and maintain public order in Little India are working. The measures include a ban on public consumption of alcohol and restriction on the sale of alcohol at specific times. As such, I cannot see how this Bill will make a significant difference. Instead, I fear that a heightened legislative and regulatory posture would raise the stakes and hinder a return to normalcy.

Secondly, that the Bill is a disproportionate and a knee-jerk response. Madam, the Minister has explained that this Bill is scoped more tightly compared to POPA's "wide-ranging powers" to deal more effectively with the local issues within Little India. It was explained that this temporary law will enable the Home Affairs Ministry to enact longer term legislation to take into account the findings and recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry (COI), and the recommendations arising from the public consultations on the review of the liquor licensing regime.

I listened attentively to the Minister's Second Reading speech but am still unable to see why we need to resort expediently to this Bill at this point in time. This Bill also clarifies, in clause 11(5), that the Police can also use the powers conferred on them under the Public Order Act. When it is enacted, the Bill will add to the law enforcement agencies' enforcement arsenal.

Page: 59

My concern is that this proposed law will have a chilling effect at a time when Little India is well on the road to healing and recovery.

I must confess that when I reviewed this Bill, I was worried whether there were clear and present dangers posed by migrant workers following the riot – information and intelligence which the Government is not at liberty to share.

Proportionality must be a touchstone of any coercive legislation. Unless the Government can show that relations have deteriorated between Singaporeans, the authorities, and the migrant workers, the powers sought by the Executive in this Bill strike me as excessive.

So, while the Bill is supposedly for Little India's "local issues," it, nonetheless, provides for powers that can extend well beyond Little India. For example, clause 12 provides for the police to stop, enter, search, remove any vehicle, vessel or aircraft whether or not it is within the special zone of Little India. Vehicles in and outside of the special zone I can understand, but vessels and aircraft? This wholesale porting of powers over from POPA strikes me as manifesting the Government's abiding desire to retain emergency-type laws and powers when we are far from experiencing an emergency situation. Are we generating a moral panic here?

Furthermore, clause 12 enables a police officer to perform certain actions, such as search persons and vehicles and effect seizures, even in situations where the officer reasonably suspects an offence is "likely to be" committed. This is a low threshold to use the powers of search and seizure.

And to boot, the police officer can do so without a warrant. I am prepared for such powers to be given to a police officer if he reasonably suspects an offence has been or is being committed. However, to exercise such powers without a warrant and, particularly, on the suspicion that an offence is likely to be committed, strikes me as affording too much discretion and pre-emptive power to the Police. Additionally, clause 12(2)(a) provides for search and seizure powers to be exercised "on a random basis" for the detection of an offence. This strikes me as being incompatible with reasonable suspicion. This might give licence to the Police to engage in fishing expeditions.

Madam, this Bill is a disproportionate response to the riot in Little India. Yes, it was the worst public order disturbance in Singapore in more than four decades, and resulted in substantial damage to emergency response and private vehicles, injuries to Home Team officers who responded to the scene,

Page: 60

and significant disruption to public order and our sense of security. It is also worth noting that the alleged rioters were rather discriminating in their targets.

Madam, we have been assured that the riot was a one-off spontaneous mayhem. Are we, therefore, using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut here? Could the Minister state categorically what are the clear and present dangers posed by the migrant workers to necessitate this sharpened, proposed legislation?

In his Ministerial Statement in this House on 20 January 2014, the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister said that:

"The majority of Singaporeans recognise that foreign workers are generally law-abiding and do contribute to our society and economy. As many foreign workers told Minister Shanmugam and Minister Iswaran, Mr Dhinakaran and Mr Vikram Nair during their visits to the dormitories, they want to continue working here, appreciate our rules and laws, and want to continue to live in peace and not be tarred with the same brush as the few who had done wrong."

Madam, the Police and other agencies must be provided with the necessary resources, including legislative ones, to do their jobs. It is certainly within the Government's realm of prerogative to seek to enact this Bill. However, we must be mindful of the impact it has on Singaporeans and the foreign workers. Passing this proposed legislation opens up a range of possible interpretations of the conduct of migrant workers in Singapore.

It is correct that this Bill is drafted to be of general applicability, but it would be naive to pretend that its implementation would be of general applicability. The powers proposed are likely to be used when the transient population in Little India swells by the tens of thousands over the weekends. We must be very mindful of this reality since the migrant workers will primarily be subjected to the proposed law.

Third, that this Bill proceeds on the basis that alcohol was the cause of the disturbance on 8 December.

Madam, the COI will begin its public hearings tomorrow. In the riot's immediate aftermath, Singaporeans were urged not to speculate on the causes but to allow the COI to go about its task.

Page: 61

Alcohol regulation has a strong presence in the Bill: see clauses 4 to 7 specifically, and clause 20 generally. The Bill proposes a general prohibition against the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol in Little India, and the creation of a permit regime to allow such activities to be carried out there under specific conditions. In my view, this Bill proceeds on the basis that alcohol was the primary cause of the disturbance on that fateful December night.

I accept that alcohol controls are necessary. In fact, Singapore has, by far, a too liberal regime governing the sale and consumption of alcohol. I have filed PQs on this matter of liquor licensing in Little India. In this regard, I find it worrying and very hard to comprehend how the Liquor Licensing Board could have issued 374 liquor licences in 2013 within a 1.1 square kilometre area in Little India where alcohol, until recently, could be purchased and consumed at will and for a long time, had been fingered as a major cause for much of social disamenities there.

It is all too convenient to blame alcohol consumption for the riot. It was certainly an aggravating factor but we must be careful not to make it a scapegoat for the poor controls with regards to alcohol, generally and in Little India, by the relevant government agencies. This Bill may seek to paper over the regulatory and policing inadequacies that contributed to the chaos of 8 December 2013.

And if long overdue controls on alcohol sale and consumption are needed to stabilise the situation, then let us address them by making the necessary amendments to the relevant legislation, such as to Part VIII of the Customs Act, or introduce other appropriate legislation.

Fourth, the Bill will hamper the healing and recovery of Little India. Madam, the Bill gives law enforcement officers enhanced powers to deal pre-emptively and decisively with potential public order threats in the special zone of Little India. For instance, officers will be empowered to inspect and interview any persons who enter the special zone for alcohol. This will also have powers to exclude or ban persons from entering the special zone for specified durations if a person's presence or actions are likely to threaten public order.

At one extreme, the powers envisaged under the Bill make Little India out to be a dangerous place. At the other extreme, the Bill may create the perception of immigrant criminality tendencies. In either case, we risk erecting social boundaries between Singaporeans and the South Asian migrant workers, and

Page: 62

perhaps migrant workers in general.

The crime rate of migrant workers is lower than that of residents. This Bill creates the mis-impression that the riot would not have occurred, had there been stronger alcohol curbs, and/or had there been stricter controls on the number of migrant workers in Singapore.

Madam, this Bill comes swiftly and specifically as a pointed response to the Little India riot. It draws unnecessary and suspicious attention to the transient workers who congregate in Little India. Given the long history of disamenities there, including minor illegal acts, the perception of immigrant criminality is reinforced by this Bill. Given, at best, Singaporeans' ambivalent sentiments towards short- and long-term immigration, this Bill unwittingly and ironically provides a top-down self-critique of our immigration policy.

The Bill will stoke the fear that migration threatens our wellbeing, the fear of being overwhelmed by foreign values, cultures, and influences, and the fear that Singaporean's identity, integrity, and innocence are under siege from within. Such negative sentiments towards immigration are infectious and counter-productive. Once immigration is largely equated with an existential threat, then the essence of an openness of mind, spirit and heart – so vital in an immigrant society like ours – will certainly concede to and be crushed by growing angst, anger and anxiety among Singaporeans and migrants alike.

I fear that this image of the "criminal" migrant worker will become firmly entrenched in public perception and discourse. I wonder whether this perception has actually crept into the Government's thinking and so now finds its way into public policy, even when the statistics have failed to provide a link between immigration and criminality.

Madam, we must do our best to avoid this in-group/out-group mentality in which the latter is threatening to the former. This racialised public sensitivity must be avoided because it would ultimately affect and infect inter-ethnic relations here in Singapore.

Fifth, the Bill will enervate Little India of its vibrancy and relevance.

This Bill makes Little India a special zone. But specialness here means a coercive regulatory framework that will be in place for 12 months. Given the heightened security regime in Little India, it will not be surprising if locals and migrant workers alike consciously and conspicuously avoid Little India. In some

Page: 63

respects, this Bill will transform Little India into a de facto gated community devoid of colour, charm and character that had made it attractive to locals and foreigners alike.

The special class permits required during the freeze period and the inspection regime for entrants to the special zone in clauses 5 and 9 to12 respectively would make Little India a much less appealing place for social engagements for locals and foreigners alike. The power to search will make movement into and within Little India inconvenient at the very least.

It is likely that Little India will become less vibrant and less congested. The latter is probably preferred from a crime control perspective. However, has the Government considered the Bill's impact on social life and the legitimate business activities in Little India? Again, I question whether the response manifested in this Bill is an over-reaction, an over-kill.

Madam, I now conclude. As I emphasised in my speech at the Second Reading of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Bill last year, we are all in full agreement with the goal of a safe and secure environment, something which Singaporeans enjoy today and perhaps may even take it for granted. The question of how we get there – the means to achieve the end of a low crime-rate of a safe environment is of utmost importance. Put simply, the approach cannot be one of the ends justifying the means.

Will the Police and other agencies be hampered in their efforts to maintain public order in Little India without this Bill? Not at all, as it has been demonstrated since 14 December 2013. In fact, POPA, the Public Order Act, the Penal Code and many other laws will always be there for the authorities to use. There is a spectrum of laws that allow for a calibrated approach.

Although this Bill is temporary, and will have a non-renewable 12-month or shorter life span, I fear that this Bill will be the precursor of, the test-bed of permanent legislation that will come about after the COI has completed its work. If indeed the COI recommends that tough laws, especially relating to alcohol are needed, I am prepared to support them. But until then, we should hold our horses and not pass judgement. We must proceed with utmost caution and not put unnecessary strain to a delicate situation.

Madam, this Bill can be more tightly scoped. It can be stripped to its bare essentials, primarily providing ancillary support for the maintenance of law and order such as those in clauses 18 and 19 on the Liquor Licensing Board's powers

Page: 64

during the freeze period, and clause 20 for the swift cancellation or suspension of any business licence of a licensee who commits or is reasonably suspected of contravening the law.

But this Bill is designed for much more than that and will be implemented as a substantial law. It will be the primary legal tool for the special zone of Little India during the freeze period. I regard the Bill as a coercive tool that is not justified by the circumstances. It is hard to quarrel with the individual provisions of the Bill given that the priority is to maintain law and order.

However, they are not stand-alone provisions, and when the provisions are collectively considered, which this House must, then a different narrative is played out. When it comes into force, this Bill will probably pass muster any legal challenge to its constitutionality. But it is a loaded legislation; it carries far too many connotations. And we must be very careful of the unintended consequences that this Bill elicits. Mdm Speaker, for the above reasons, I do not support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill, which I believe is in response to an unfortunate incident in Singapore's short history.

The riot that took place last December came as a shock to all of us, and elicited all sorts of responses from Singaporeans – from empathy to rage. The response from Government leaders, authorities and workers' groups was extremely important and necessary to calm down the situation and emotions. In this respect, I wish to commend the initial measures taken in Little India to ensure that the matter did not escalate or spill over to the days after.

The Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA) rolled out then alongside the ban on alcohol sales and consumption in the immediate week after, helped to bring calm and stability to Little India.

We can all agree that that move was necessary then. The Bill we are discussing today addresses how the Little India area will be characterised moving forward – one which is deemed as a high-risk security area and, therefore, this Bill is designed to deal with that threat. In fact, the rationale given in the Explanatory Note explains that Little India poses a security risk and that

Page: 65

more powers are needed for the officers to maintain public order.

However, in reality, the Little India area is just like any other area in Singapore where members of Singapore's South Asian community shop, dine and do business. It is also a home for many Singaporeans as well as foreigners.

I think it is fair to say that the riot in December was an unfortunate but isolated incident. The people who were responsible for that and who participated in it, whether actively or passively, have been taken to task and dealt with. The swift actions taken by our police force in handling the investigations and arresting the suspects, did send a strong signal to others that such incidents will not be tolerated in Singapore. Mdm Speaker, just because of one incident, it does not mean that people who visit Little India, be they foreigners or Singaporeans, pose a high risk.

Mdm Speaker, I am afraid that the situation could worsen because of some of the ambiguity in this Bill and the powers it accords to the Police. For instance, the Bill gives the police the powers of strip-search anyone based entirely on the suspicion of the police officer. These are violations of the privacy of a person and not to mention a blow to his self-respect and dignity.

I fail to see how giving Police officers such powers would help cool things down and mitigate risks in this area. Further, the Bill also empowers Auxiliary Police Force, indirectly, to perform random and judgemental searches as per sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Bill. With the delegation of powers all the way to Auxiliary forces on matters which require caution and informed judgement, it may cause emotions to influence judgements across a wide variety of people who visit this area and have nothing else but looks common. This may also affect genuine tourists who come to visit or stay in this special zone. An inadvertent action on a tourist with no bad intent will also result in loss of collective goodwill for Singapore.

Impact on businesses. Mdm Speaker, I declare my interest as a businessman as well as the Vice President of Singapore Retailers Association. I am concerned about the businesses in this area. I have consulted the Little India Shopkeepers Association (LISHA) and they have shared their concerns and sentiments with me. Allow me to share with you some of their thoughts.

The Little India Precinct in Singapore has been catering to the foreign workers for the past 30 years with regular visitorship of about 100,000 workers over the weekends. Of these numbers, only a fraction, about 1%, of the foreign

Page: 66

workers consumes alcohol there. The remaining 99% are there to visit relatives and friends, run errands and also purchase their necessities. Little India is considered their home away from home. Approximately 95% of businesses in Little India cater to the foreign workers market which takes place during the weekends on Saturdays and Sundays. Apart from the liquor shops, which only form about less than 5% of these businesses in Little India, there are provision shops, remittance centres, prepaid cards and mobile shops, barbers, restaurants, eating outlets, medicine shops, ayurvedic treatments, homeopathy centres and so on, all of which depend solely on foreign workers as their customers. All these businesses are very dependent on revenue from the foreign workers on Saturdays and Sundays. Almost 70% of the revenue during the weekend is generated from 8.30 pm to 11.30 pm from the sales to the foreign workers.

These businesses pay very high rentals and are affected due to liquor sales and consumption ban and also limited timing of the transport arrangement from Little India back to the respective dormitories of the workers. The current transport timing ends at 9.00 pm to encourage the foreign workers to return to their dormitories earlier. However, the foreign workers prefer to work on weekends due to extra revenue from overtime on weekends and public holidays. Thus, they are most likely to visit Little India after 7.00 pm. They do not have enough time to run their errands and shop within such a short span of time, also bearing in mind that it takes about 30 minutes to queue for the transport. Therefore, the foreign workers leaving Little India by 9.00 pm has affected 95% of Little India's businesses drastically these days.

Further, the ban on sales of liquor from 8.00 pm to 6.00 am within the Little India boundary seems to be a double whammy to the liquor businesses as there is already a ban on consumption of liquor in public areas within Little India Zone. It affects residents who prefer to buy liquor and consume it within their premises. They are unable to do so now. The restriction of sales should be lifted as the patrons purchasing liquor automatically have to consume within their residences or outside the Little India boundary. Without the ban on sales of liquor, customers will still be able to buy alcohol but the consumption of liquor must be outside Little India or within the restaurants or coffee shops with permits. The ban will affect the businesses in the precinct and will lead to severe financial losses and loss of jobs which is currently unwelcome for all the parties involved.

Madam, I fully agree with the principle of having the ban on alcohol sales and alcohol consumption in public areas in Little India, in the weeks after the riot as it was a necessary step, to calm things down. But at this point, I am not

Page: 67

sure if it is the best decision to continue with the ban on the sale of alcohol.

First and foremost, while alcohol may be a contributing factor to the riot in December, whether it was the most important factor remains to be seen. We have vested that responsibility with the Committee of Inquiry (COI) to determine the root causes for the riot. Are we not literally jumping the gun by taking such strong measures that will hurt businesses there and even perhaps tourism in the Little India area? After all, we should not punish everyone else, including businesses, for the folly of some.

Secondly, if it is determined that alcohol is, indeed, the main threat to security in the area, then it should be asked if the bans are the best way to handle alcohol consumption in the localised area. There are other ways – investing in public education, partnerships with groups and governance over the issuance of licences to sell alcohol. To maintain calm and order in the area, a longer term and more sustainable approach would be more appropriate and perhaps more effective.

I would like to say that while we have witnessed an unfortunate and severe incident, our efforts should not even inadvertently harm the very people we are trying to help and protect. Today, with a tough economy and high costs, every business is struggling to keep itself afloat. The small businesses in the area are bystanders of this unfortunate incident but are paying a very heavy penalty with the clampdown and ban on alcohol sales and restrictions on movement which are affecting their livelihoods.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, we all understand that foreign workers are an important part of our workforce and we must put in more efforts in making their lives here better, and to better integrate them with our ways, culture and law and order practices of our country.

Madam, Little India is a very special place. Many Singaporeans are proud to have such a unique quarter of vibrancy where Indian culture and custom, and the uplifting aroma of Indian spices, seem to transport India to our shores.

I remember bringing a visitor there. He was a young man when he left India 30 years ago for the United States where he later became a naturalised American citizen and taught at a leading American university for more than three decades. Once he and I arrived at Little India, he was so reminded of his home country that he kept returning to the area on his own every day for the following days of his visit.

Is it any wonder that our foreign workers from South Asia find comfort relaxing there on their off days? Such is the magnetic draw of Little India to both Indians and tourists alike. The authenticity of Little India has stood the test of time, unlike what has happened to many other parts of Singapore, including Chinatown. The legacy of Little India is to be preserved and defended.

At the same time, the social disamenities created by overcrowded streets on weekends and holidays are not new. Residents and the Members of Parliament for the area have been giving feedback to the Government authorities for years. As far back as 20 years ago, I recall being deployed as a Police Officer on operations in Little India, to give out information to foreign workers and visitors not to obstruct road traffic, to walk on footpaths and not to use drains as urinals.

Over the years, the overcrowding worsened and made it impossible to drive through roads at weekends and public holidays. I am sure that the authorities are aware of the situation, but I am not sure what the authorities have been doing to manage the situation all this while.

The hasty introduction of this Bill in the aftermath of the 8 December riot is, to me, a knee-jerk reaction. Though the Government's desire to act is understandable, this Bill will instead stigmatise Little India as a "special zone"

Page: 69

requiring special legislation from Parliament.

This Bill is unnecessary at this time, especially when the Committee of Inquiry (COI) set up to investigate the causes of the riot is set to release its recommendations by June. There are already sufficient powers under our laws and administrative regimes to manage the situation until the COI findings can be acted upon. I also have some particular concerns about the Bill. Let me elaborate on these points.

First, COI findings out soon. The COI was appointed on 13 December and has six months to complete its report, which will take us to a deadline of 13 June. Assuming this Bill is passed today and comes into force in March, it will be effective for 12 months, from March this year to March next year. It will be in force for about three months before the COI report is out. After the findings are out, the Bill will continue thereafter for another nine months, regardless of what the COI findings are.

The Bill provides for draconian and resource intensive measures, including needing special permits to serve alcohol at hotel weddings – clause 5; Police searches for alcohol containers on persons and vehicles – clauses 9 and 12; questioning persons who wish to enter the area – clause 10; and refusing entry and banning individuals from the zone – clauses 11 and 13. What if the COI findings are such that all these measures are barking up the wrong tree? How much wastage of taxpayers' money and inconvenience to the public will be caused with continuing the measures for the remaining nine months?

In my view, the Government has taken decisive steps to calm the situation post-riot. There is no need to rush to pass a special law when the COI findings will be out soon. The Government can continue to calibrate its actions within the existing framework of national legislation and administrative powers until the COI findings can be acted upon.

Next, Madam, why the existing laws and the administrative arrangements are adequate in the interim. In the immediate aftermath of the riot, the Government used the existing Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA) to designate Little India a proclaimed area. For every weekend and public holiday since then, the Minister has issued such proclamations. This has facilitated a ban on the consumption of alcohol in public on those days. Businesses selling alcohol for off-premise consumption were also directed to do so within shorter hours.

Page: 70

As Deputy Prime Minister Teo said in his Statement to Parliament on 20 January, the authorities were able to calibrate the extent to which they utilised powers under the POPA. Earlier, the Minister said that the powers under POPA were excessive and not appropriate for the situation at hand. While it is true that POPA contains wide powers and the fit is not ideal, the Government has shown that it can calibrate its approach to the application of POPA to use only the provisions which are appropriate. In any case, this is just for a few more weekends until the COI findings can be acted upon.

Madam, there are actually some aspects of this Bill which are wider than how POPA has been applied. For instance, in applying the POPA, the Government has calibrated its approach to Little India, gazetting a proclamation only during public holidays and weekends. The Bill before us will make Little India a special zone every day of the week for 12 months. This is a stark indication of how the Bill is more onerous than the POPA in application.

The current legal framework already provides the Government vast powers to meet law and order problems. POPA stipulates that if any one commits the offences on unlawful assembly or rioting in a proclaimed area, he will be subject to double the imprisonment. In the case of rioting, this means 14 years' jail. Besides POPA, there are also many other laws at the Government's disposal. The Penal Code criminalises acts of violence and gatherings of persons intending to use violence; conspiracy, abetment and attempts of such offences are also crimes. Under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, drunkenness in public and disorderly behaviour are specific offences. Suspects can be arrested by police without a warrant on the spot. The carrying of prohibited items such as weapons and corrosive substances are already criminalised everywhere in Singapore under the Arms and Explosives Act, the Corrosive and Explosives Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, the Dangerous Fireworks Act and others. In 2009, Parliament passed the controversial Public Order Act with provisions allowing the Police to issue "move on" orders to persons it suspects may disrupt or disturb others in a public place. Are the existing laws not enough until the COI findings are out?

Besides legal measures, administrative measures are also available to manage the situation at Little India. As indicated in Parliament on 20 January, policing arrangements have been enhanced post-riot by way of 20 to 30 police officers as well as Special Operations Command troops, complementing the 81 existing auxiliary police and private security officers. Other measures initiated included more CCTV surveillance and building stronger community partnership programmes. Foreign worker management has also been reviewed. Employers and dormitory operators have provided alternative recreational activities, while

Page: 71

the transport for workers to and from Little India has been adjusted with drop-off and pick-up arrangements improved. LTA is also involved in relooking at road access and traffic management. These positive moves have been very helpful to manage the situation in the interim.

Madam, I have three other concerns about the Bill. First, stigmatisation. Is it good for the residents of Little India to be singled out as living in a special zone where a dedicated security law has to be passed by Parliament? The current arrangement of using POPA is more palatable as it is a law that can be used for any part of Singapore facing a temporary law and order situation. Passing this Bill will mean that for 12 months at least, residents can only drink alcohol outside their homes under a class permit and their friends and guests will need to be extra careful when visiting them on any day of the week. Civil defence paramedics and pharmacists in the zone who carry alcohol products for medical emergencies need to refer to clause 4(3) to confirm that they can do so. They are joined by priests serving communion for church services. Under clause 12, even driving through Serangoon Road in transit with a bottle of wine may attract searches and questions. Have we gone too far?

Secondly, a resource question. The provisions of the Bill are onerous to implement. Vast policing resources appear to be required to question persons entering into or remaining within the special zone to search for and destroy alcohol containers, to search vehicles whether inside or outside the special zone, to issue banning orders to suspects and so on. During the Ministerial Statement on the Little India riot on 20 January, the Government already expressed concerns as to whether the additional deployment rates at Little India were sustainable. How much more resources would be needed to do what is envisaged under the Bill, every day of the week? Related to this, the role of auxiliary police is going to be enhanced. My colleague Pritam Singh will speak on this point. Are they suitable for the tasks under the Bill?

Finally, displacement effects. Designating the special zone may lead to displacement effects for the duration of the Bill. Persons who would otherwise frequent Little India may go to the neighbouring areas outside the zone, for example, across Jalan Besar. While the Minister can expand the special zone to cover adjacent areas under clause 3, how this will change the landscape and living environment of adjacent areas for the next 12 months remains to be seen.

I have spoken of my concerns about the hasty manner in which this Bill is presented and the wisdom of jumping the gun when the COI is to complete its work by June. I have also elaborated on why I believe the existing legal and administrative framework can be used in the interim to manage the situation

Page: 72

until the COI findings can be dealt with. My colleagues will further elaborate on the reasons why the Workers' Party has grave reservations about the need and the wisdom of this Bill.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are aware of the plight of the long-suffering residents in the area, who have put up with social disamenities for decades. The incident of 8 December suggests that the authorities will need to make some changes. However, the current holding measures should suffice until the COI findings are out.

For these and other reasons my colleagues will elaborate on, the Workers' Party opposes the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, at the very time of the incident in Race Course Road, I was in the vicinity from about 9.45 pm to about 11.30 pm with my daughter as we had something that we urgently needed to buy and the only place open at that time was the 24-hour shopping centre, after which we had adjourned to a nearby coffee shop.

Perhaps, it was because we were at the other end of Little India, but hard as it may to believe, there was no indication at all throughout the entire time that we were there, including whilst we were having supper, that anything was amiss. In fact, the service staff, as well as the customers at the coffee shop were laughing, talking, eating. It felt like a normal Sunday evening. I later learnt that the first public statement was made only at 11.30 pm.

When walking home after that, just by taking the route that we normally do from Little India back home, I had commented to my daughter how blessed we are in Singapore to be able to walk at that time of the night, safely and without encumbrance.

So, it is with a huge sense of irony that I discovered only when I got home, that something had gone terribly wrong at the place where we had been just hours before.

Mdm Speaker, I do not take lightly the work and the effort that the authorities have taken to ensure the safety and security for people like myself and my teenage daughter. I will also categorically state that I acknowledge and appreciate the fact that on the night of this very serious incident, not a single

Page: 73

shot was fired in what was an extremely tense situation and that the incident did not spread further than the site where it occurred.

Living not very far from Race Course Road, I can only imagine how I could easily have been personally affected, bringing back memories of 1964 when even now, I still remember even though I was a very young child then, sensing that my adult relatives, who had been gathered in my house to celebrate Prophet Muhammad's birthday, were filled with fear and apprehension as they anxiously looked through the windows of our house as they were forced to stay overnight for their own safety, away from the angry mob that was running through the streets not far from where we were. It is not the kind of memory that I wish my teenage daughter to experience.

With the seriousness of what had happened on Race Course Road, I am thankful for the restraint shown by the authorities and the speed with which they quelled the incident. I am, however, less thrilled and not at all enamoured by what is before us today and wished that the same level of restraint had been shown before tabling this Bill in the House.

Mdm Speaker, it is puzzling to me that this Bill is tabled even before the Committee of Inquiry, which was set up immediately after the incident, had barely even begun its work, and with its deadline to complete investigations only a few months from now.

Why indeed could Parliament not wait for the COI to complete its investigations, and for reasonable time to be given for the relevant Government agencies and this House to examine and study the recommendations? As it is, how would the public be assured that the COI is still able to remain neutral in their investigations and recommendations?

Even more seriously, Mdm Speaker, is how the focus in the Bill seems to be on alcohol, to the point where it seems to have been a given, a causal link, even though as I understand it, alcohol was no more than a contributory factor.

Mdm Speaker, we have been cautioned by several Ministers not to speculate as to the causes of the incident. Surely, by practically determining the link between alcohol and the incident as the Bill has done, is the Government itself not indulging in "speculation" ahead of the COI investigations?

Further, given that there are many other existing pieces of legislation that can be amended to deal with this issue, for example, the Intoxicating

Page: 74

Substances Act or the Miscellaneous Offences Act to name just two, why can these laws not be used instead?

Mdm Speaker, this Bill considers Little India as a "security risk" requiring special powers. It is a term that I find troubling as I do not have see any evidence to show that it is indeed the case to warrant the Bill, nor are we given a comparative study with places such as Boat Quay or Clarke Quay, where incidents, albeit less serious than the one in Race Course Road, have taken place as a result of alcohol, sometimes resulting in serious bodily injuries too.

One other vague term is the phrase "public space". The definition is unclear, leaving any person open to the actions of Police and auxiliary officers, in the exercise of their wide and discretionary powers of search and seizure.

Mdm Speaker, another extremely serious provision is how wide and discretionary the powers of not just the Police but the auxiliary Police as well. I seek justification for why this is so.

Even more serious is the immunity given to the Government that as long as it has "acted in good faith and with reasonable care", there can be no recourse by aggrieved parties to question the actions. These words are extremely subjective, open to interpretation and abuse, and with the immunity, no one may ever know, on one may seek redress.

If indeed this Bill is passed, I therefore call for an open and transparent process to any inquiry that might ensue as a result of any possible transgressions by a public officer, and that this process be with the full public participation and disclosure of all the relevant facts. Otherwise, Mdm Speaker, the Bill runs counter to all principles of administrative law and justice.

Mdm Speaker, far beyond all that I have raised on the clauses in the Bill is a more fundamental concern. It is the paradigm under which this Bill is based upon.

In an interview for the magazine "Challenge" of 14 February 2014, a magazine of PS21, a Public Service Division of the Prime Minister's Office, Mr Roy Quek, Deputy Secretary (Operations and Development) of MHA, when asked for the "behind-the-scenes" work of this Bill, said that it took relevant Government agencies "a few weeks" to discuss the issue, and the Attorney-General's Chambers "a week" to draft the Bill. He also stated that this is to ensure that the Bill was in time for the First Reading at the next Parliamentary

Page: 75

sitting, slated for 20 January. In short, this Bill was put together with great speed and efficiency.

Mdm Speaker, efficiency is a laudable thing and in fact, that is what we as a country is respected for. However, in a situation as serious as this, and where the issues may not be as clear-cut as we would like to believe, and given the kind of solution that the Government agencies came up with in the form of this Bill, surely this would have been a completely acceptable time for efficiency to take a back seat, make way for a deeper reflection and a more measured response in the law-making process especially with the COI already in place.

I have said that the issues may not be as clear-cut as we would like them to be. In an article called "Why People Riot" by Ken Eisold, PhD, it is clear that riots are not simply criminal acts. There are always deeper and many-layered issues of unexpressed frustrations and an absence of channels for constructive articulation of such emotions, whether real or perceived.

Mdm Speaker, life is not so neat and linear. It is not black and white but shades of grey, and sometimes very murky shades of grey.

I submit that in a situation such as these underlying issues of race, language, culture, class, the heavy hand of authority perceived or real, discomfort and suspicion of each other are only some of the murky issues which, whether we like it or not, need to be given an honest airing first in the spirit of healing all communities affected by the incident.

I submit that the speed with which this Bill is tabled springs from a linear, defensive, problem-centred, fear and worry based paradigm. It denies, or at least, does not create space to explore the possibility that human dimension and stories behind the incident are multi-faceted, multi-layered, one that requires time, one that requires hard questions to be asked before deciding on a conclusion, and one that requires the participation of all stakeholders, no matter how contrary their views may be.

To deny this process its due in a desperate need to find an answer and come up with a solution in the form of this Bill as quickly as possible, I submit, does not augur well for not only policy and law making; it does not augur well for community and nation-building and healing either. And the consequences of such unwillingness and denial to explore the levels of dimensions and cues, and not just the cues as the Government sees it, may be disastrous for the future of our country as a whole, way beyond what happened on Race Course Road

Page: 76

that fateful night. Denial, Mdm Speaker, as a wise person once said, is not a river in Egypt.

Mdm Speaker, this Bill also springs from the paradigm that a strongly worded law is what it takes to deal with the issue. No law, no matter how tightly woven, will do the trick. No law based on powers of a few over the many will be sufficient.

Instead, we need to come from a space of solution-invested, community-oriented paradigm, the kind of good solutions that Wendell Berry, a noted American community activist said, "solves more than one problem and does not create new problems". And the wise words of another Berry, that of Thomas Berry, who said, "We need to resist the impulse to command, to control, to force, to oppress and to begin quite humbly to follow the guidance of the larger community on which all life depends."

I believe the Bill is well meaning. However, unless we have the courage to go beyond the tried and tested methods that we have been so used to, beyond the fastest and most efficient way towards the answer that we seek, that we be willing to learn to be comfortable with the uncomfortable and hard questions that need to be asked and the slow though necessary process that this will take, the problem will bubble under the surface and will appear elsewhere and maybe with even more severe consequences.

Mdm Speaker, I started with a grateful acknowledgement for the work that the authorities have done in making our streets safe. I end with this. I am not convinced that this Bill, with is wide discretionary powers, with its quick dismissal of other possible factors that may have given rise to the riot, will help me sleep even better at night, when any fellow citizen, any tourist, any foreign worker who has been responsible, literally, for building our country, or indeed any person who happens to be in the vicinity of Little India, is open and vulnerable to the potential humiliating actions of representatives of my Government under this Bill.

Mdm Speaker, we as parliamentarians having a seat in the highest law-making body of the land are a privileged lot. We also bear a huge responsibility to understand that we can be violent in many ways. The incident in Race Course Road is only one form of violence. When we make laws that are not in keeping with established principles of administrative law, when we allow our citizens and all who work for us and with us and who live with us in fear of such wide and discretionary powers without recourse, when we dismiss out of hand the

Page: 77

valid concerns of many credible people in civil society, that too, I submit, is a form of violence.

I believe we are made of sterner stuff, better stuff. I believe in this moment what we need is enlightened and inspired actions. I believe in this moment, we should let the COI take its course, and that we do not need to take this step and pass the Bill right now. As it stands, at this moment, I am finding it difficult to find any good reason why I should support this Bill.

For many years now, South Asian foreign workers, the same ones responsible for building our roads, schools and HDB flats, congregate in Little India. They are ferried there in buses and after working six days a week, Sunday is the one day they come to Little India, repatriate

Page: 79

money, consume familiar cuisine, meet with friends and sit in public areas in Little India discussing everything from their local politics to the health and happiness of their families back home.

Little India has been a crowded place on weekends for many years now. Given the large numbers of such workers, the prospects of a minority of them drinking too much and congregating at HDB void decks in Little India is a reality. In fact, many Singaporeans avoid Little India on Sundays primarily because it is too crowded and work their schedules around this fact, a behavioural state of affairs that mimics drivers who try their best to avoid Orchard Road on Saturday afternoons and weekends in general.

Unsurprisingly, and for many years now, residents in Little India have given feedback on a range of issue affecting foreign workers: the lack of portable public toilets for foreign workers on weekends causing them to relieve themselves indiscriminately at times; the lack of proper drop-off points in view of the large numbers of foreign workers ferried to the area; and the number of liquor licensees in the area. This is in addition to feedback asking the Government to consider using the significant foreign worker levies it collects to be ploughed back into welfare-related concerns for foreign workers.

The Government certainly has a duty to take measures to prevent the recurrence of another riot.

However, it is difficult to understand the timing of this Bill especially since the reasons behind the riot have not been established by the Committee of Inquiry (COI), in addition to the fact that the Government has gone on record to state that there are a variety of opinions on the cause of the riot. In view of such ambiguity, a pre-emptive Bill that is clearly tailored to addressing alcohol-related concerns in a specific area only cannot represent a positive example of how laws ought to be made in Singapore.

The fact of the matter remains that as a society, we have had no sustained conversation amongst ourselves as Singaporeans, as to the reality of living with foreign workers where Singaporeans themselves already live cheek in jowl. Have their numbers grown too large for a small island to accommodate without us unwittingly impinging on their civil liberties, preferring them to be out of what we consider to be our space? Can our foreign workers really be expected only to be confined to their living quarters? This is a sustained conversation that needs to take place and unsurprisingly, educational initiatives to understand and respect the rights of our foreign workers who number almost a million, are not

Page: 80

mainstream, even though foreign workers represent a very significant minority in Singapore.

In view of this, it would have been far more propitious of the Government to await for the findings of the COI to be presented before tabling the Bill, so that a holistic legislation can be looked into how to accommodate the recreational rights of our foreign workers, not just in Little India, but throughout Singapore, especially in areas where foreign workers congregate, along with the concerns of local residents. This would also have allowed for more time for the collection of public feedback, including in areas where alcohol-related businesses and residential areas sit close to one another.

In fact, about two weeks before the riot, the Minister of National Development went on Facebook to comment, "void decks in HDB towns have sometimes been abused by drinkers who go on to urinate in staircases and that this is a common complaint from residents." This comment made on the back of the launch of a MHA public consultation exercise to review measures on liquor sale and consumption in public places which started on 25 November 2013.

Significantly, this MHA statement of 25 November 2013, while referring to the problem of alcohol sale and consumption, acknowledged that the issue was not unique to Little India. But this Bill before Parliament today targets Little India specifically and will operate in practice to curtail civil liberties of a specific community of foreign workers in an area frequented more than others by a specific community of Singaporeans.

The Bill itself grants a number of worrying powers to the authorities and, in particular, to Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) who will have to make calls and decisions based on their judgement, on the basis of reasonableness, which, in theory, sounds fair, but which may not be so simply deduced on the ground.

Clauses 9,10 and 11 of the Bill give APOs the power to inspect people entering Little India, including possible strip-searches, powers to require reasons for entry and powers to refuse anyone entry into Little India.

We can debate this Bill in Parliament and extend powers to APOs accordingly, but the practical workings of this Bill on the ground are not adequately addressed. The Minister for Law has correctly stated that South Asian foreign workers, like the rest of our foreign workers are generally a well-behaved group. However, there is concern that without the proper language,

Page: 81

mediation and cultural training, APOs who may not be Singaporeans and who are contract officers – some of whom may not have the depth and quality of training of police officers – may be ill-equipped for the job.

Are there areas of concern that foreign workers may be shouted at on the ground or spoken to rather roughly to on grounds of reasonable suspicion? Bearing in mind that these are the very same officers that will be making active decisions on the ground on strip searches, deciding who enters Little India and have powers to turn people away from Little India, can the Minister, inform Parliament what training, in particular, cultural training, APOs will undergo, lest APOs themselves unwittingly become a factor "that prejudices the recovery of the community".

As this Bill has identified a specific area in Singapore, frequented by members of the South Asian community – be they local or foreign – it is practically inevitable that South Asians will be subject to these powers more than any other community. While powers to strip-search an individual do exist in the context of other laws, with this Bill, such powers will be exercised for an extended period, in an area of Singapore frequented by one ethnic community in particular. Could there be unintended consequences that encourage racial profiling in Singapore and is this a healthy law enforcement development in the context of a multi-racial society? Even though the Bill is only a temporary measure, a worrisome precedent would already have been set.

It has been publicly stated by the Government that this Bill reduces the powers available to the authorities to manage the situation Little India today. If this is the case, then why the need for this Bill? Can the Minister further clarify what are the serious operational shortcomings on the ground that do not allow the Government to wait until the COI finalises its report? Does the Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA) preclude the authorities from moderating the exercise of their powers?

The argument that this Bill scopes existing powers better comes into distinct relief with regards to clause 12 on powers of search and seizure, which give a police officer – on reasonable suspicion – the power to "stop, enter, search, remove and retain any vehicle, vessel or aircraft" not just in Little India, but anywhere in Singapore for the reasons spelt out in clauses 4, 8 and 13(11).

Another troublesome detail concerns clause 11 read with clause 13 on the special zone banning notice. The explanatory note to the Bill states that a lone demonstration in support of causes within Little India can also be subject to the

Page: 82

banning notice. The drafters had not explicitly included this provision in the Bill proper except in open-ended terms but subjecting civil society to the threat of a banning notice through the explanatory note, likewise does not correspond with narrowing the scope of existing laws.

It is difficult to understand the rush to introduce this Bill, which is directed at alcohol consumption by foreign workers in Little India, when the problem is not unique to Little India and the post-riot situation in Little India has been stable under existing legislation. The absence of period of public consultation on this Bill is also a glaring omission. In this Bill's place, Singaporeans would have been better served by a piece of legislation that addresses liquor sale and alcohol consumption throughout the island, and not just Little India. Mdm Speaker, I oppose the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, the maintenance of order and safety in the country is the responsibility of the Government. For a couple of hours on 8 December night, the order and safety in a small area of Little India were disrupted. The mob overwhelmed the authorities.

It is important that the images we first saw on social media and then on mainstream media are not revived in any part of Singapore. For Little India, this is important not only for the residents and businesses there, but also the many foreign workers who visit the area.

Our approach has been to integrate foreign workers into our communities. Therefore, these spaces will have to be managed on a sustainable basis. The workers have travelled far from home to work here, attracted by higher pay and also our reputation for law and order. The riot on 8 December could have easily escalated and spiralled out of control, and casualties could have come from any ethnic group and nationality. Despite the chaos, we are all very grateful that there were no fatalities. All the more then, while we have the opportunity, we should take steps to minimise the possibility of a similar event until we can establish with more certainty its causes and the appropriate long-term measures.

Nonetheless, because this Bill involves an area where visitors are predominantly of one ethnic group, it has to be managed and handled carefully, with sensitivity. I have received feedback expressing concerns over this. I have trust in the competence of our enforcement teams. Nonetheless, I seek

Page: 83

assurances and clarifications from the Minister that sufficient provisions are in place to prevent the extended powers, albeit temporary, from being subject to abuse. I think it would be helpful to have some form of checks hardwired into the legislation.

With the enactment of this Bill, Police and Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) will have additional powers to deal with potential threats to public order. For example, they can question and search anyone in the area for alcohol or prohibited items. Will there be clear guidelines and protocol for enforcement officers to adhere to in identifying such individuals and the way they perform the checks? How will the Government ensure consistency of judgement and action by the enforcement officers, given that the training of Auxiliary Police Officers is different from the Singapore Police Force, and that they are employees of a private company? Would foreign employees of auxiliary companies be accorded the same power? By reducing subjectivity inherent in such situations due to different interpretations of the regulations by different teams, we can then avoid situations of misunderstanding and stress.

Madam, I would also like to address the issue of higher rates of interaction between enforcement teams and the visitors to the zone. Presumably, enforcement members will mostly be of ethnic groups and nationality different from the majority of the visitors to the zone. Will customised training be provided to ensure that enforcement officers are equipped with the basic linguistic skills and cultural knowledge to deal with the tasks at hand? In the event of miscommunications or when some persons being checked are being uncooperative, such incidents could lead to heightened tension between people of different racial groups or even escalate into racial riots or diplomatic rows. How can we guard against these?

While we await the results of the COI, we can at most speculate that the influence of alcohol could be a contributing factor to the riot on 8 December. This explains clause 4 which prohibits the public consumption and sale of alcohol within the special zone. Does this point the direction that the Ministry is heading? Would all areas where big crowds can be expected to be intoxicated be subjected to similar rules and enforcement in future? Or will there be a general restriction on public consumption of alcohol? If not, this Bill could be misinterpreted to be racially discriminatory. I look forward to the Minister's view on this.

Lastly, the enhanced powers will allow the authorities to quickly cancel or suspend business licences which flout the rules in the special zone and this may be as short as three days as stated in the Bill. My concern is: within such a short

Page: 84

period of time, how can we ensure that proper investigations are conducted in order to be fair to the business owners? In the event that mistakes in the investigative process were made, is there recourse for compensation for the business owners?

Madam, similar to the alcohol-related provisions, the effect of the other measures seems to be more pre-emptive. I do not think that the additional powers accorded to the police would have done much to bring the situation under control on that fateful night. In addition, it would probably require a lot more enforcement resources on the ground to prevent the same scenario from repeating itself. Usually after a major incident, it is highly unlikely that history would repeat itself in the short and medium term at the same place. The most dangerous place becomes the safest place. I would like to ask the Minister, how would the effectiveness of this Bill be assessed at the end of 12 months? Would the provisions be expanded to cover other areas, or would there be another Bill to give the law a set of "permanent teeth"? How could we be sure that just because there are no further riots in the next 12 months, the Bill has served its intended purpose?

Madam, Little India has been an iconic spot in Singapore, not just a place of attraction for tourists, but also an area which has developed its own unique character organically. I drove past the area last Sunday night and I am happy to see that the usual vibrancy and rusticity of the place still exists.

Mdm Speaker, this is probably not what the Minister could answer. While Little India has attracted many more foreign workers roaming the streets than there are local people living there, it has ironically preserved a part of Singapore and our heritage that is fast disappearing. I hope that this Bill will not dilute or sanitise the flavour of Little India, both functionally and symbolically.

Mdm Speaker, in Singapore, we have enjoyed many years of relative order and stability. The Race Course Road riot in December last year came as a shock to most of us and the news also rippled beyond our island. Some worry about how the riot affected Singapore's reputation and our standing in the world.

We must not forget that how we respond to the riot, the measures that we take after the disturbance, including passing this Bill into law, also say a great

Page: 85

deal about the kind of people we are.

We must resist the urge to come up with a reflexive reaction and should try to ensure that our responses remain proportionate and balanced, that any proposed powers and their limitations on our constitutional rights are strictly necessitated and fully justified by the clear requirements of maintaining public order and security.

The Bill before us has as its stated intention to "provide Police with powers to continue to take calibrated measures to maintain public order and calm in Little India post-riot."

By all accounts from the Government to date, we understand that following the riot, measures have been taken by the Government pursuant to powers they have under existing laws, to restore and maintain public order and calm. Second Minister Iswaran suggested that existing laws may be among other things too blunt an instrument for our current needs. But by all Government accounts to date, measures taken have been calibrated and effective for the last two months.

Could the Minister please clarify: how many instances have there been where the security forces have found that they do not have adequate tools to deal with threats to public order and calm within Little India – the proposed special zone? If any, what was the nature of the threats to public order? Could he please explain how existing powers have proved lacking in the time from the riot to today, so that this new set of powers to the security forces must be rushed into law before the Committee of Inquiry completes its work?

We are told that the powers contained in this Bill are of a temporary nature, to be in force for only 12 months. But, as was said earlier, If not strictly necessary and fully justified, even 12 months would be too long.

Even compared to the Public Order (Preservation) Act mentioned by Second Minister Iswaran, the scope of Government powers in this Bill may be deemed "extensive" in several ways. For example, under the Public Order (Preservation) Act, each proclamation of a state of danger to public order in an area in Singapore expires after one month, requiring the Minister to renew it for up to one month at a time, if he is of the opinion that "public order in [that] area of Singapore is seriously disturbed or is seriously threatened".

Page: 86

This Bill in contrast expires after one year, during which the Minister may declare an area part of the special zone if he is satisfied that it is "needed for the well-being of the communities ... or ... otherwise in the public interest".

Also, this Bill confers powers not just on police officers, but also approved persons who are Auxiliary Police Officers. These include powers to inspect personal belongings and garments, conduct strip search and car search, refuse someone entry to the special zone for up to 24 hours, and remove someone from the special zone, all if the approved person reasonably considers it necessary to do so.

Just to put things in context, in response to a question filed by Ms Sylvia Lim, Member for Aljunied, the Minister for Home Affairs replied, "The current total strength of the auxiliary police forces is about 6,000 officers. The majority of the officers are Singaporeans, while the others are Malaysians."

Also, this Bill confers powers that extend beyond the special zone, such as powers of search outside the special zone.

Also, this Bill contains an immunity clause. It provides that the Government will be protected from liability for anything which is intended to be done in good faith and with reasonable care, in exercising the powers under the Bill.

Given the wide-ranging nature of the powers being proposed in this Bill, along with the effects on residents and businesses in Little India, and in view of the fact that powers under existing laws have proved effective in maintaining law and order, and that the Committee of Inquiry has yet to complete its work, Madam, I oppose the Bill.

Madam, when the new Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill was introduced on 20 January 2014, it was explained that the intention is to provide the Police with powers to continue to maintain public order in Little India, as well as deal more effectively with local issues in the aftermath of the riot, and that this new law is scoped more tightly compared to the wide-ranging powers under the Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA).

While it is commendable that the Government is serious in its efforts to ensure the safety and security of residents and the public in the aftermath of

Page: 87

the riot, I would like to raise a number of concerns regarding this Bill.

First, regarding the necessity for this Bill. I would like to seek clarification from the Minister as to why this new legislative framework is necessary, when there are sufficient legal powers already present in existing statutes like POPA. The Minister had explained that police powers in this Bill are far less than in POPA. And, similarly, in a recent televised dialogue on MediaCorp's Vasantham channel, Law Minister Mr Shanmugam reiterated that this new provision is limited in scope and that "the Government already has more power than this". Referring to POPA, he mentioned that "the Police do not need all such powers" and that "the new law reduces such powers".

If we currently have sufficient levers under POPA to contain a situation like a riot, and given the short 12-month temporary timeframe for this Bill, why then is there a need to rush through new legislation instead of waiting until the Committee of Inquiry (COI) has completed its investigations and for criminal proceedings to be over? After all, before the 8 December riot occurred, migrant workers have been gathering in Little India for many years without a similar incident. And after curbs and measures were introduced to bring the situation under control, the area has remained calm ever since.

Second, regarding the timing of this Bill. The terms of reference of the COI include establishing the factors and circumstances that led to the riot, and recommending measures to improve the management of similar incidents in areas where foreign workers congregate. Given that the COI has yet to present its findings, there is a lack of research to support the initiatives under this Bill. I am concerned that the measures presented here, many of which deal with alcohol restrictions and regulation, while proactive, are not substantiated by data, and may, in fact, pre-empt the recommendations of the Committee.

Madam, even as we raised questions on the Little India riot last month in this House, we were reminded to be careful about speculating on the various causes of the riot and to let the COI do its work. It was acknowledged then that while "alcohol was a contributory factor", it was probably "not the only factor". Without the evidence establishing all the key factors contributing to the riot, why then is so much attention specifically given to the regulation of alcohol sale, supply and consumption in this Bill?

Tabling this Bill before the COI investigations and criminal proceedings are concluded raises doubts as to whether this piece of legislation, temporary as it may be, is a substantiated and reasoned response to the riot. This pre-emptive

Page: 88

strike gives the impression that the Government has already concluded that alcohol was a major factor and distracts from other possible causes that could have led to the riot.

Additionally, the passing of this Bill before the COI presents its report risks influencing the outcome of its deliberations and potentially undermining the integrity of the COI findings.

Thirdly, Madam, the over-focus on alcohol gives rise to other problems, including the risk of racial stereotyping and racial profiling. Public drinking goes on in many areas in Singapore, from the clubs and bars in Clark Quay to the street-side food stalls and coffee shops of Geylang and Joo Chiat, where many foreigners and foreign workers also congregate. These places, too, experience their fair share of fights, brawls and incidents now and again. If alcoholic inebriation is believed to have led to the riot, then based on this line of reasoning, riot-prevention must surely call for similar alcohol bans elsewhere.

Lest I be misconstrued, I am not asking for similar bans to be established in other public areas, necessarily. I can see that alcoholic intoxication, particularly in hotspot areas where it occurs on a regular basis, causes great inconvenience to residents and other members of the public. However, in this Bill, the targeted approach of curbing alcohol in Little India as a response to the riot, without the support of the COI's findings, without a fuller understanding of all the other factors at play, runs the risk of racially stereotyping and profiling people of South Asian descent and migrant workers in particular, as being prone to public disorder when they drink. This is potentially damaging to building good interracial and community relations between our South Asian migrant workers and Singaporeans as well as undermines the respect and dignity we should accord our guest workers.

Fourthly, Madam, the general lack of judicial oversight over how the discretionary powers conferred on the police will be exercised makes this Bill problematic. Without the mechanisms for external oversight, such as the Courts, the adjudication of reasonableness is left in the hands of the Executive, where these powers are potentially subject to abuse. Even if the powers are always fairly and objectively exercised, the Government and Police officers may be vulnerable to accusations of arbitrariness.

Clause 9, for instance, provides extensive powers to the Police and auxiliary police to stop and search, and even strip-search any person within the special zone to inspect for prohibited items and alcohol. Even though the officer must

Page: 89

"reasonably consider it necessary" to make such a request, what is considered "reasonable" or "necessary" is not spelt out in the Bill, and may lead to an officer exercising section 9 without having to explain his reasons for doing so.

Discretionary police powers should always meet the test of "reasonableness", which the authorities are required to exercise when operating the Act. However, the Bill precludes any adjudication of its operation through the Courts or other bodies, other than an appeals process on certain actions, which may be made to the Minister. Without an external adjudicator, and in the event where the police officer and the suspected individual have different perceptions of what is "reasonable", then the reasonableness of police action can never be settled. If, say, a person is wrongly accused and suffers reputational loss or other loss, he or she would have no recourse, even if the officer or officers in question might have exercised their powers maliciously.

As such, I would like to seek the Minister's clarification as to whether measures for external oversight and safeguards on the exercise of power will be put in place, and if these can be included into the Act.

Madam, my fifth concern touches on auxiliary police and standards of police professionalism. Given that the enhanced powers under clauses 9, 10 and 11 are extended to not only Singapore police officers, but also to "approved persons" such as auxiliary police personnel, how do we ensure that those from external security agencies possess the same sense of public service and duty, and the same standards of professionalism as our own police force?

The officers exercising these powers, for instance, must guard against any form of racial stereotyping and profiling, even as they continue to maintain law and order through inspections and controls. If persons of South Asian descent, be they Singaporeans, tourists or migrant workers, begin to feel that they are being singled out for inspection and checks in Little India, this could potentially increase racial sensitivities and tension not only in the area, but in other parts of Singapore as well. As such, situations must be handled with cultural sensitivity and care in maintaining the dignity of individuals. If these jobs are outsourced to external agencies, will there be specific criteria in selecting auxiliary police personnel best suited to exercising these powers? For instance, should only Singapore citizens, with the minimum number of years of training and experience, be appointed to these roles?

There is also a question of whether the police officers and auxiliary police personnel will have the appropriate language abilities to communicate with the

Page: 90

people whom they seek to exercise power over, namely, foreign migrant workers in Little India. Given that the penalties for contravening the new laws are high, would the officers have the capabilities to communicate their requests or instructions clearly and effectively to the foreign workers? If not, it is easy to see how a miscommunication could spark another conflagration.

Madam, Little India is and has always been an important gathering point for our South Asian migrant workers to relax on their days off; to be with friends, enjoy a meal or stock up on local provisions from home. And while, in recent years, it has become more crowded on weekends due to the growing numbers of foreign workers in Singapore, it has always been a bustling and colourful place, with a unique vibe and character of its own – an important centre of festivities and celebrations for our Singapore Indian residents, as well as a key cultural destination point for many tourists visiting Singapore.

The intention to provide calm and security to all those who live and visit Little India is a sound one. However, the hasty enactment of this Bill, with its enhanced powers to stop and search, and to control and restrict entry and movement in Little India, may inadvertently choke, not only the businesses and retailers there, but the very life and vibrancy of the area. The over-focus on alcohol may lead to racial profiling of South Asian migrants, and possibly worsen relations between the foreign migrant community and our police officers over time.

Like Assoc Prof Eugene Tan, I feel this Bill may inadvertently hinder rather than aid in the healing and recovery of Little India in the aftermath of the riot. These issues, in addition to the lack of sufficient research and data on the causes of the riot, as well as the lack of judicial oversight and safeguards in this Bill, are important concerns that need to be looked at.

Madam, in order for us to take a more considered, sensitive and substantiated approach in proposing relevant measures to address similar incidents in future, I feel it is important to wait until the COI's investigations and criminal proceedings are concluded, and until public consultation on the sale and consumption of liquor in public areas is complete. As such, Madam, I cannot, in good conscience, support this Bill at this point of time.

Mdm Speaker, this Bill provides for wide-ranging policing powers, which can be used against any

Page: 91

person who is within or about to enter the special zone in Little India, in the wake of the riot on 8 December last year.

The first thing that one would notice is that there is no provision for there to be any indication of the boundaries of the special zone to members of the public who are on the ground. Since people who are entering into the special zone will be subject to additional laws, it is only right that the Bill provides for the clear demarcation of the zone for people through highly visible public signs and warnings.

While it is commendable that the Government is taking the effort to ensure the peace and safety of the residents following the riot, the Bill cannot be seen as a reasoned and considered response as these exceptional policing powers are being granted based on preliminary conclusions made in the immediate aftermath of the event. The Committee of Inquiry has barely commenced its proceedings and has yet to report on the causes of the 8 December riot.

Since the Government has deemed it necessary to hold a public inquiry into the incident, and rightly so, we should wait until the COI has made its findings before we even contemplate such exceptional measures in this Bill. The status and standing of the COI, whose role is to objectively identify the cause of the riot, will be compromised.

This Bill appears to be a knee-jerk reaction, rather than one based on hard facts, which can result in measures that may aggravate the original problem. For instance, many of the provisions in this Bill seem to zero in on the sale and consumption of alcohol as the cause of the riot. In this regard, may I point out that the number of liquor licences granted within the special zone is at its lowest in five years, according to a report presented to Parliament on 20 January regarding the events leading to the riot. Why is it only now that a riot has taken place?

There was a clear element of a traffic accident that night in Little India which preceded the riot. Why then is there no provision in this Bill on transport safety?

While it may be necessary for steps to be taken in the interim, it must be borne in mind that we do not have a full picture of what had taken place that night, and should be circumspect in giving any additional policing powers to law enforcement agencies. There has not been any indication of a potential for such an event to repeat itself since it happened in December and until this has been shown, the exceptional powers such as those granted by section 9 cannot

Page: 92

be justified.

Strip searches. The hardest hitting provision of this Bill is clause 9, which provides for the Police officers and auxiliary police to order any person who is about to enter or who happens to be within the special zone to remove pieces of their clothing. The clause does not specify a limit to which the enforcement officers can go and based on its plain wording, the clause allows for officers to order the removal of all of a person's clothing. Such searches are humiliating, especially to innocent people. The Bill does not provide any safeguards to the dignity of the person, allowing officers to make these orders in public. Nor does the particular provision provide any protection for women who may be subjected to the search. Furthermore, the section also empowers auxiliary officers to make these orders.

I note an interview on the Public Service website, Challenge, with Mr Roy Quek, Deputy Secretary (Operations & Development) of MHA. On this Bill, Mr Quek says, and I quote: "Let me clarify: when we say for a policeman to be able to search your articles of clothing, it means, for example, you're wearing a jacket, I say, 'Can I have a look at your jacket?' and you give me your jacket, as opposed to my patting you down and frisking you."

The wording of section 9(b) in this Bill clearly gives enforcement officers the power to order the removal of garments worn by persons for inspection of any container of alcohol or prohibited items. Allowing for this is, in principle, no different from allowing the police to frisk a person, since by ordering for the removal of a person's clothing, frisking would of course be unnecessary.

I think this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of the powers of the Bill provides enforcement officers with, especially in this clause. Could the Minister therefore clarify the Deputy Secretary's comments?

This is highly troubling since auxiliary officers are privately hired by companies whose main concern is not the law enforcement but with profits earned from providing a service. Auxiliary officers are not properly trained or equipped with the right policing techniques for them to be entrusted with such exceptional powers.

However, what is most disturbing is that this provision is pre-emptive and not reactive. This means an officer does not need to suspect anyone of committing a crime before the powers can be exercised. The Bill does state that the power can only be used if it is considered to be "reasonably necessary".

Page: 93

What constitutes "reasonable necessity", however, is not defined at all. This effectively means that the officers will have absolute discretion over when a person can be strip-searched. To allow enforcement officers such wide powers goes too far.

These problems extend to each and every person who attempts to enter or are within a special zone, whether they are Singaporeans or foreigners. Any person entering the zone stands the chance of being harassed by the auxiliary officers, on the most whimsical of grounds. This includes residents, employees and business owners whose daily life and daily activities require them to be put at risk of being subject to these procedures every single time they enter the zone. My point is not that the powers should be targeted at any specific community, but that the blunderbuss approach that has been taken could and probably would result in untold anxiety and distress to the majority of innocent people who enter the zone.

It would be important that appropriate measures must be taken to ensure migrant workers understand the offences proscribed in this Bill. If laypersons have trouble understanding and interpreting legislations, what about migrant workers with a low command of the English Language?

I am also concerned about the manner in which police and auxiliary officers would approach migrant workers whom they suspect may have committed a crime within the special zone. It is foreseeable that a situation could arise where a language barrier between the officer and the worker impedes effective communication and thereby leads to misunderstanding between both parties. This could lead the officer to view the worker as suspect and to then charge the worker under the respective provisions under the Bill.

In this regard, it is highly worrying too that any offences under this Act can be compounded on the spot. I think this opens the way for potential abuse. From the point of view of the people affected, I can imagine that what then happens on the ground will not be very much different from extortion.

I would also like to highlight the fact that aggressive and intrusive policing by auxiliary officers towards migrant workers in Little India has been documented by the NGO, Transient Workers Count Too. Not only was it observed that auxiliary officers were rather hostile and belligerent in their interaction with migrant workers, it also appears that migrant workers have been disproportionately targeted with fines for offences such as littering and smoking. As a result, it may have the unintentional impact of causing a migrant

Page: 94

worker to feel disproportionately discriminated against. To allow such feelings of alienation to fester within the migrant worker community would only aggravate the tensions between migrant workers and Singaporeans, possibly sparking off a worse riot. It is certainly not in Singapore's interest to do so.

Why is it then that this Bill deals with a special zone that encompasses the whole of Little India, where the riot actually took place along Race Course Road? What is the rationale behind turning such a vast gazetted area which includes many other roads and streets into a risk-prone zone?

I note that clause 1(2) of the Bill indicates that the provisions here will be in force for one year from the date of commencement. May I ask the Minister what will the Government intend to do thereafter? And what will the Government do if a similar incident were to happen again within this year, and it is found not to be the result of alcohol consumption?

I am calling for a Motion to commit this Bill to a Select Committee for further scrutiny and until the findings and recommendations of the COI have been established. I believe this Bill has been ill thought-out and has not been adequately examined by experts.

I urge the Minister to at least consider amending clause 9 on the wide-ranging powers given for strip searches, and the extraordinary powers in this Bill that will be granted to auxiliary officers.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, I believe our citizens are as serious as the Government in the desire to enforce public order, to safeguard our country from further incidents of this nature. But we hope that this will not be done in a way that destroys the soul of Little India – which is not merely a tourist attraction, but a neighbourhood that holds special historical and cultural significance in the hearts of many Singaporeans.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to begin by acknowledging the difficulties of the Government in deciding how to calibrate its response in the aftermath of the Race Course Road riot. It is understandably facing pressure to prevent such a riot from happening again. And the authorities have a duty to protect citizens, and our image as a country. I once worked in the Joint Operations Division in MHA more than 15 years ago, and even back then, handling the Sunday crowds in Little India was already an

Page: 95

issue. So, I understand the issues.

Obviously, nobody disagrees with the intent to act to maintain public order. What some Members of this House have questions about is how we are going about it. Assoc Prof Tan has mentioned this. People in this House and outside have expressed their questions and concerns. Let me add mine.

Let me first point out that having legal powers and using those powers are two very different things. An example is section 377A of the Penal Code. Hence, even if we invoke a wider law, such as proclaiming an area to be in a state of danger to public order under POPA, it does not mean that every provision of that Act is to be triggered. I would imagine that the SOPs for the officers on the ground would be more tightly scoped, which I presume is the case in Little India now as we speak. Hence, as some speakers have already asked, can we not use current laws rather than rush through this new one?

A related concern is this: if we enact this new Act, are we then creating the expectation that the majority of the provisions will be used and this is a precursor for more permanent legislation? The irony might be that officers, with these additional powers, might become even less restrained in using these powers precisely because they have been specially tailored for the current situation. The scope of powers in the Bill are very wide still, even if they are more tightly scoped than POPA.

The question then is whether the handling on the ground would lead to an overkill. You may ask, what is the downside of an overkill when it concerns public safety and security? I think the downside may be increased distrust and suspicion between the authorities and the groups targeted, especially if there is perceived damage to the dignity of the human person. This may result, ironically, in increasing the security risk in the future, where even more force is required to keep peace.

While the COI deliberates, I think we can readily agree on a few key points. One, the Race Course Road riot was unplanned. No one entered Little India that evening expecting a riot. For many, including professionals serving migrant workers, it was a freak event. What is the risk of such an event reoccurring? This type of risk is considered idiosyncratic risk, not systemic risk like deliberate terrorist acts. In fact, the immediate likelihood of another such riot happening, say over the next 12 months, is probably at an all-time low now. As Mr Baey said, the most dangerous place becomes the safest place. Of course, we must remain vigilant of longer-term risks, which we need to approach with care and

Page: 96

caution.

Two, migrant workers are not in Singapore to cause trouble. Almost every foreign worker in Singapore is here for economic reasons. They have higher aspirations for their families, and the will to uproot from their home and families and transplant themselves to an unfamiliar place. Many come with huge debts that may take up to 12 months to repay, before they can even start saving money to send home. They want to be able to work hard and make enough money quickly, so that they can return to their families.

Most would, in fact, go out of their way to avoid conflict, even if it occasionally means accepting exploitation from unscrupulous employers. They know that Singapore's laws are strict and that their employer has a strong hold over them, since the latter as well as the State has unilateral rights to cancel their work permits without giving reasons. Under such conditions, which worker would seriously wish to perturb public order?

At the same time, we have to remind ourselves that they are human beings, and not mere factors of production. As human beings, they have physical, social, emotional, culture, and spiritual needs. They have a natural desire to acquire familiar products that remind them of home and to socialise with people who are like themselves. For many migrant workers, Little India is that sanctuary for them to recharge and escape from their gruelling and humdrum workdays.

But as a large group of people from a different culture, there could also be issues of cultural differences that could lead to miscommunication and friction. They could have values, habits and practices that could be very distinct from ours. A natural response as locals may be to marginalise and isolate them, so that we can avoid discomfort and conflict. I think this is a mistake. We need instead to seek to actively engage, understand and integrate. This would lead to a more sustainable future for all.

Three, while the trigger of riots was an unfortunate fatal accident partially caused by alcohol, it appears that there were issues with how the migrant workers responded, and perhaps with misinterpretation, to the authorities dealing with the ground situation.

My concern is with law enforcement actions that may lead to the deterioration of relationships between the South Asians and the authorities, to the extent that makes policing even harder in future, both in preventing future disturbances and in restoring order should a further disturbance recur. While

Page: 97

the Government has said clearly that there is no intended racial profiling here, the perception that there will be persists.

Some commentators, for example, in the UK had blamed the 2011 London riots on poor relations between the police and the black community. This includes a professor from the University of London arguing that the tactical use of frequent "stop and search" of young black men, caused resentment of the police in the black community. Whether we agree with this interpretation, we must consider this possibility in Singapore too.

When there is a public order situation, it is tempting and natural to turn to force to prevent, maintain and enforce. But are we, in fact, taking the easier way out, without addressing the root causes and exploring other paths? Have we engaged the target communities sufficiently to understand how they see issues? Can we not give the targeted group some degree of accountability and ownership to help design and enforce solutions on the ground? I may be overly idealistic, but I do think that this approach might lead to more sustainable, creative and robust solutions for the long term.

In conclusion, I am of the view that the Minister should defer this Bill till after the COI completes its review and that, concurrently, the authorities should continue to actively engage all the relevant stakeholders to come up with new solutions, which may or may not involve new laws.

Mdm Speaker, Singapore has not experienced a public disorder on the scale of the Little India riot for decades. It was a strong reminder that we should not take our peaceful state of affairs for granted. Instead, we must take decisive and pre-emptive measures to preserve safety and security, which has been a strength long associated with Singapore.

Thankfully, the Government was able to restore peace and stability to Little India quickly. But in the wake of the riot, many Singaporeans are left wondering: are we still vulnerable to a repeat of this incident in the future? What needs to be done to prevent similar threats to public order? Is this isolated to Little India or can it happen elsewhere? And how prepared are our law enforcement agencies to deal with such threats, or worse, if the situation becomes more dangerous, more widespread or more violent?

Page: 98

Immediately after the riot, a specific part of Little India was proclaimed an area in a state of danger to public order under the Public Order (Preservation) Act, or POPA. This is effective on weekends, public holidays and the eves of public holidays. A series of measures were implemented that included a ban on public consumption of alcohol in restricted sales of alcohol as well as controlled timings of shuttle bus services bringing migrant workers to the area. In the meantime, a Committee of Inquiry (COI) has been set up to establish what led to the riot, and to recommend how to improve the management of such incidents and reduce risk of future occurrences.

Madam, now we have before us, the Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill, or POATM, that empowers the Police to continue their work in Little India.

Madam, I am all for putting appropriate laws and regulations in place, to maintain public order. However, it is just as important that the powers given are proportionate to what is needed, with appropriate safeguards to ensure that they will be operationalised fairly and consistently on the ground.

Whilst the Minister had elaborated on the need for POATM in the Second Reading, it is still unclear to me how the proposed POATM enhances the state of security in Little India beyond what is already provided for by the current set of legislations. The Minister took pains to assure the House that the Bill is scoped more tightly to provide Police with focused powers in Little India. Yet, I share the concerns of other Members on the significant powers vested in the Police officers and under some circumstances Auxiliary Police Officers, as described in clauses 9 to 15 of Bill.

The Minister pointed out that similar laws are enforced during special events, such as National Day Parade, but this proposed Bill will enforce the laws continuously for a period of 12 months and not just during special occasions. Would the Minister please clarify how we can ensure that these extensive discretionary powers, vested in such a large group of law enforcement officers, including auxiliary police, in some instances, will be applied competently, fairly and consistently, and not open to abuse?

In clause 19 (3), the Bill gives the authorities immunity from liability and prosecution, "because of the enactment of the Bill or for anything which is done or intended to be done in good faith and with reasonable care". Are there robust and independent mechanisms in place to deter unjust or unfair police action, which cannot be conscionably interpreted as having been carried out in "good

Page: 99

faith" or "reasonable care"? What recourse do aggrieved parties have, to seek justice if they feel they have been wronged?

Aside from my concerns about proportionality and safeguards, let me be clear that I am supportive of taking preventive measures against outbreaks of public disorders, not just in Little India but in any vulnerable part of Singapore.

In one part of my own constituency, which is close to the Tuas and Jurong Industrial Estates, we have large numbers of migrant workers living in dormitories near Teban Gardens HDB estate.

Residents of Teban Gardens often complain about foreign workers drinking alcohol openly in common areas such as void decks, footpaths, car parks, staircases and neighbourhood parks, especially during weekends and public holidays. Excessive consumption of alcohol has been consistently linked to noise, littering, vomiting, urination and sometimes even fights, in the neighbourhood. There have been reports of foreign workers exposing themselves after one too many drinks. The situation has improved over the last 18 months after we had carried out some local initiatives, but it is difficult to solve the problem completely under the current laws.

I urge the Government to look beyond Little India, and urgently address similar issues in other parts of the island, including Teban Gardens. Even as we await the findings of the COI on Little India, many of us accept that alcohol consumption played a contributory role. In fact, prior to the Little India event, the Government had already started public consultations in regard to restrictions on alcohol consumption to address problems related to intoxicated drinkers in public areas. So, Madam, in this context, I urge the Government to expedite the review of policies on alcohol consumption, which they had started in October last year.

Madam, I wish to emphasise that the problems relating to excessive alcohol consumption in public places are not restricted to migrant workers. Anyone who is inebriated and not in control of his/her faculties can create a public nuisance, including locals and foreigners, young or old, rich or poor.

I also wish to point out that there is a difference between alcohol consumption in the privacy of one's own home or in a licensed outlet, and alcohol consumption in a public place. Public spaces are shared with other people. When drinkers can no longer control themselves and behave responsibly, it can be an inconvenience to others, and in the worst case, can

Page: 100

pose a significant safety and security risk to the public.

Many residents in my constituency have asked for the rules on alcohol consumption in public places to be reviewed, as part of the efforts to stop public disamenity. In a recent poll of over 120 residents in Teban Gardens and Pandan Gardens, 78% of them asked for a ban on alcohol in public places, with 85% supporting the ban at void decks and 83% for bans at neighbourhood parks and playground.

Mdm Speaker, I propose that, in selected "hotspots" or vulnerable areas where drinking has been an issue, public areas be designated as "no-alcohol zones". At these "dry zones", people will not be allowed to carry or consume open containers of liquor. Exceptions can be made for functions or events, for which a permit must first be secured.

I would also like to propose shortening the hours when alcohol can be sold at retail outlets as well as the availability of cheap liquor at shops, to address a growing problem of youths and foreign workers having easy access to alcohol. Our Government should conduct a thorough review of not only the supply and sale of liquor throughout the island, but also the pricing of alcohol, to vulnerable groups.

Legislations curbing alcohol consumption in public places have already been in place in many jurisdictions across the developed world such as Australia, New Zealand, Norway, US and Canada. In many parts of the USA, regulations prohibit the carrying of open containers of alcohol in public areas such as parks and in vehicles. The New South Wales state of Australia has recently launched tough laws to curb drink-fuelled violence, following a series of unprovoked alcohol-related assaults, including the tragic deaths of teenagers.

Mdm Speaker, the Little India riot is a wake-up call, and a valuable opportunity for us to reflect on many issues relating to security, restrictions on the consumption of alcohol and the role of the law, the Police and the public in maintaining calm in our country. We must take carefully considered but decisive steps to ensure Singapore maintains its reputation as a peaceful and secure city to live in.

Madam, I am one of the Members of Parliament directly looking after the Little India area. The other is Minister Lui Tuck Yew, in whose precinct the riot of 8 December last year happened.

For several years, both in and outside this House, the two of us have raised the concerns of our residents whose lives have been impacted by the excessive congregation of migrant workers and other visitors to the estate. We had also been working closely with the police from the Neighbourhood Police Post and the Auxiliary Police Officers who patrol Little India to ensure public safety and order for our residents.

Page: 105

I stand to support the Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill for one key reason. I believe it is better to be safe than sorry.

Let me now share why I have more reasons to support this Bill than object to it. First, I believe that this Bill is an appropriate response to the severity of the 8 December riot. Madam, the significance of what happened on 8 December last year must not be under-estimated.

The riot is the worst public order disturbance in Singapore in more than 40 years. One migrant worker lost his life – this was the gentleman whose death triggered the unruly riot. Twenty-three emergency response vehicles, including ambulances, were damaged. Out of these, five were burnt. Another seven private vehicles were damaged. Forty-nine Home Team officers sustained injuries.

Even those of us who are familiar with the concerns in Little India were shocked. The extent of the disregard for uniformed personnel and Police vehicles and the damage sustained in the 8 December riot in Little India last year were unexpected and very alarming.

Many people did not believe it was happening in Singapore when they saw or heard the news when it was first reported. Safety and security had been taken for granted for years by many of us in our country. Although the riot was quelled within the same night, the recovery from the shock did not happen as fast.

I fully agree with Member Mr Hri Kumar that the consequences of the riot could have been far worse. The scene of the riot is near the MRT and residential blocks where many families live. It is not inconceivable that residents and other visitors, both young and old, could get in the way of the rioters and be harmed physically. It is also not inconceivable that some people at the scene could decide to take advantage of the situation and begin looting nearby shops, causing greater mayhem.

Had our Home Team officers been less restrained, shots could have been fired and even more lives lost. The unblemished track record of Singapore as a safe place to live, to work and to do business in would have been dented. As it is, the very riot had already revealed a vulnerable spot in Singapore's public safety and order landscape, which, if not addressed with a stronger touch, would threaten the peace and security we had taken for granted for years.

Page: 106

Secondly, the Bill addresses the fears and concerns of the majority of residents in Little India. Madam, there are several key stakeholder groups with an interest in how the post-riot plans will pan out.

In recent months, thanks to the advocacy of NGOs, the Migrant Workers' Centre and business associations, the interests and the plight of migrant workers and businesses have been articulated, loud and clear.

Indeed, the needs of the migrant workers who frequent Little India must be addressed. Many of us appreciate these special ones who left their families and travel here to make a living by helping us build the facilities that Singaporeans want, doing work that many locals are not prepared to take on. Like the rest of us, they have physical, social, recreational and other living needs that must be met. Treating them with dignity and respect is the right thing to do. I am very pleased that more has been done and more will be done to look into the building of purpose-built facilities, dedicated recreation centres and provision of services that they need, such as remittances, shopping, sports and so forth. The idea – I think it was Member Ms Tin Pei Ling who suggested – of promoting alternate off-days so that popular places, such as Little India, will not see excessive congregation is also welcome.

On businesses. Businesses in Little India, whose bottom line and sustainability are important to them, are also our key stakeholders. Although many had enjoyed years of very good runs by catering to the high number of visitors, both local and foreign, we know a number of them have suffered a decline in business. This is the time to re-balance and find creative win-win solutions that, hopefully, will not cripple the businesses further. I urge the Inter-Ministerial Committee to look into helping affected businesses ply their trade, perhaps, within the dormitories, and expand their business network throughout Singapore for the very businesses that they are good at.

But one very important stakeholder group is the residents who live in Little India. They, too, deserve to be heard loud and clear. Madam, they have a right, like the rest of us who live elsewhere in Singapore, to a safe, secure and peaceful living environment. Let us put ourselves in their shoes. As places like Little India become increasingly popular to tourists, migrant workers and other Singaporeans, the quality of life of my residents in Little India have been compromised. They had been ceding their communal living spaces, such as the void decks, playgrounds, exercise areas and sometimes even corridors outside their flats, to others who come to visit, who congregate there.

Page: 107

On the fateful night of the 8 December riot, many residents who live just next to the riot scene and even others who live across the street at Veerasamy Road and Rowell Court, stayed indoor; some of them, in fear and anxiety. What would have been your response if this were happening at your doorstep? What if a family member of yours is still making his/her way home, along the streets or MRT close to the riot site? What if some people decide to take advantage, as I said, and start to loot the shops, spreading the riot further across the street?

Who can guarantee that it would not happen again if the post-riot measures are lifted, or if we do not apply a strong touch to this? Who is to say that another similar incident would not happen, in light of the frequent jaywalking and big numbers of people, usually men, congregating in the neighbourhood?

Resident Ms Nisa Mohamed Maideen, a 23-year-old accountant witnessed the violence during the riot. She spoke the minds of many women who reside in Little India. Ms Nisa expressed to the media that she is "not xenophobic but [she] hopes that the clampdown on the sale and consumption of liquor and the increased police presence will continue." Ms Nisa said she does not mind the workers. She said this: "I just want to feel safe like any other resident in Singapore and be able to take a walk in my own neighbourhood."

Similar sentiments were expressed by many residents on both sides of Serangoon Road – whether from feedback garnered during house-to-house visits – we did quite a lot of that – dialogues or community functions, even up to two nights ago on Sunday when I met them. Many residents have expressed support to the auxiliary police patrols that Tuck Yew and I have arranged, pre-riot. They also supported the potential of stricter alcohol sale and public consumption in the review that was started by MHA in November last year. Most of all, many of them are thankful for the post-riot measures that were implemented, and especially those pertaining to the sale and public consumption of alcohol which was what was proposed in clauses 4 to 7 in the Bill. I do not get the sense that they feel that just because they are included in this Bill that they are discriminated against or, that they feel very deprived because they are now seen as living in a special zone. That was not the sense that I get when I speak to many of them.

Community leaders who live in Little India are also willing to put on record their support for the measures and the legislative means it takes to enforce them. They include Mr Martin Periera, who is the Chairman of Tekka Residents' Committee; Mr Lim Herh Kim, Chairman of Rowell Court Residents' Committee; and even across the street, Mr John Yeo Teck Chow, Chairman of Kelantan Court which is just across Jalan Besar. He expressed concern if he and his

Page: 108

neighbours would be left out of the protection zone.

All of them represent thousands of residents in the special zone covered by the Bill.

Thirdly, the Bill further empowers and assures the safety of the Home Team members deployed for assignments of such nature.

As one of the Members of Parliament in Little India, I work closely with the officers from the Rochor Neighbourhood Police Post and the auxiliary police personnel deployed to maintain public order.

I am compelled to speak up for these officers and the others who were deployed to quell the riot on 8 December last year.

Madam, officers and auxiliary police officers on their weekly and daily patrols face pressure from residents who want better outcomes. At the same time, they also have to carry out the unpleasant duty of reducing the presence and disamenity issues that are caused by non-residents who congregate at the void decks and other communal spaces meant for residents.

During the 8 December riot, these Home Team officers faced risks that were worse than their routine pressures. I had the opportunity to speak with some – Mr Vikram called them the "first responders". I spoke with some of them when I visited the Neighbourhood Police Post on 24 December last year. The Prime Minister was there and the Minister was there as well.

For many of these officers, it was the first time they encountered such a big unruly crowd who had no respect for them, no qualms in throwing projectiles – they called them projectiles – such as bottles, concrete slabs and bricks on them. In total, 43 officers were injured.

Post-riot, some of the officers have to put up with criticisms levelled at them for running for their lives when their lives were being threatened. I am speaking about the video which went viral, showing some officers having to run from, I think it was an ambulance, before it was set on fire. Seriously, what would you do under such circumstances when you are told that the vehicle you are in would be set ablaze? Would you not run for your life?

Page: 109

On 20 January this year, hon Member Mr Low Thia Khiang also asked Deputy Prime Minister on why the Special Operations Command (SOC) took, I quote, "nearly one hour" after the request for help was made. Mr Low also wondered "if the SOC had responded faster…, perhaps the setting on fire of vehicles could have been averted." A good case of 20/20 hindsight.

There are many reasons, I guess, why help could not arrive earlier. But I think it is not inconceivable to imagine that it would have been very challenging for Police vehicles, SOC, ambulances and other vehicles to enter a riot zone where so many rioters and onlookers gather. It would have been very tough to clear the way.

Prevention is better than cure, and I am very glad that there are provisions in the Bill to ensure more timely support for our Home Team officers at the scene. In this regard, clauses 11 and 14, which empower the Police to direct persons – to manage human and vehicular traffic – and regulate the use of any roads, streets or footpaths in the special zone. This will help clear the way for the early arrival of help, such as the Special Operations Command, from other parts of Singapore.

Fourthly, the Bill bears a historical context which should not be dismissed. Before I get to that point, let me say this. I think there were many concerns in the House that powers would be abused. I believe that, notwithstanding the powers, I am very confident that the Home Team officers and the auxiliary police will exercise with restraint and not abuse the powers that they are given. Their behaviour during the 8 December riot bears testimony to that.

Next, the Bill bears a historical context which should not be dismissed. For years, there had been congregations of huge numbers of visitors to the vicinity. The growth of the foreign workforce, as Manpower Minister said, accelerated towards the latter part of the 2000s to feed the demand for labour in our country to build infrastructure, such as roads, MRT networks, housing, schools and other public facilities.

Little India is a favourite destination spot for many. The crowds are especially large during specific hours on the weekends when busloads and lorryloads of migrant workers are ferried to the popular Little India.

As more of them congregate and as more of them form a ready customer base, the profile of shops, including the HDB shops there, begin to change to cater to the needs of these migrant workers. Businesses selling alcohol, phone

Page: 110

cards, plying trades for remittance services and food items that cater to the migrant workers – all these businesses thrived.

Complaints about disamenity issues – what Member Ms Foo Mee Har said – such as littering, taking over of communal spaces meant for residents, such as the void decks, playgrounds and parks, were rife. Sprawls, fights, jaywalking and sleeping at staircase landings were not uncommon. The easy access to alcohol does not help, especially when they are available not only at F&B outlets but also at grocery shops, some of which are located on ground floors, just one floor below residential units. In some of these shops, I have mentioned in this House before, alcohol of various brands and strengths – Kingfisher, Knock Out, you name it – deck the shelves, floor-to-ceiling, wall-to-wall.

Fortunately, we had the support of several Ministries, such as MOM and MHA. The situation was somewhat abated in recent years by the deployment of uniformed auxiliary police to the area, although I must say their powers are fairly limited.

HDB has also helped by redirecting some of the roads and installing Electronic Parking Systems (EPS) to allow the residents to claim back the use of car parks that are meant for the residents, sometimes occupied by the lorries and buses that came.

Needless to say, our Town Council cleaners in this vicinity have had to work extra hard to pick up after the throngs of visitors when they leave the area.

Even before the riot, alcohol was one factor identified as one of the contributory factors impacting public order. In fact, a wider review of the sale and public consumption of alcohol was initiated before the 8 December riot. There were even calls amongst many for a stricter regime, much like the "open-container" or "open-bottle" laws in most of the United States, in Canada and Australia and parts of Scandinavia. All these before the riot. That is the history.

This is not a Bill that is borne out of a single incident on 8 December 2013. Its historical context should not be dismissed. The COI will only be completed in June this year. And thereafter, I believe we need to give time for the recommendations to be considered and also for the recommendations from the larger review of the alcohol sale and public consumption to be completed. After this, we still need to have public consultation, I guess to consider the recommendations to propose a larger plan for the country. It is likely to take more than six months, later than June. And during this period, I would ask for

Page: 111

a stronger touch still to be applied.

Finally, Madam, based on the comprehensive explanation by the Minister, I am satisfied that the Bill is temporary and it is a stop-gap measure until the longer-term measures recommended by the COI and the wider alcohol review are proposed.

I see no reason to suspect the legislative intent of this Bill to be anything more than allowing prevailing post-riot measures to be continued without reliance on the more extensive Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA); and also to address some of the operational areas of concerns, gaps that are not addressed by existing laws.

The current laws, for example, do not provide for the suspension of operations of errant business operators without a valid liquor licence. The current laws also do not explicitly provide for Police officers to question persons in possession of alcohol to give the necessary details to ascertain if there had been any illegal sale of alcohol. These gaps are now addressed in the Bill.

I am satisfied that the intent of the Bill is not, as some Singaporeans put it, used against innocent citizens for activism. If it were so, then the scope of the Bill would have been much enlarged. It would not be limited to: (a) a 12-month duration; (b) to only the special zone in Little India and; and (c) to the factors that might have contributed to the 8 December riot, such as public consumption of alcohol, and so forth.

Nonetheless, I think it would be useful for the Minister to assure persons who are concerned that this Bill will only be used for the specific purpose it was drafted.

I would also like to seek further assurance and clarifications from the Minister on a few things. How sufficient are these measures and are there measures beyond this Bill for Home Team officers to respond even more promptly in public disorder situations of a similar nature? I would like to find out how the safety of persons living and working in the special zone can be further secured should the riot happen in very close proximity or within residential zones. I want to know how Home Team officers deployed in future similar situations can be better equipped and protected. And, lastly, I would seek an update of actions taken so far to address the root causes of excessive congregation of visitors, both locals and migrant workers, in not just Little India but also other popular destinations, such as Beach Road/Golden Mile, Geylang,

Page: 112

Lucky Plaza and so forth.

So, Madam, in conclusion, I just want to repeat this. I support the Bill. I support the Bill for one main reason and, that is – better safe than sorry. [Applause.]

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. Madam, it has been a long session and I thank you for your forbearance. I want to thank all 16 Members who have spoken on this Bill and canvassed a wide range of opinions with great emotion. I hope to address their points, putting them in context and also hoping to inject a dose of reality into the discussion.

Madam, let me start first with the need for the powers in this Bill, which many have queried. Madam, the riot in Little India was the most serious public order incident in Singapore in over four decades. And, lest we forget, it occurred just over nine weeks ago. There was one fatality, several injuries, and extensive damage to property. It might seem distant, even remote, from the calm of this Chamber, but it remains a stark reality for the residents and stakeholders in Little India, our officers who were involved in the incident and who continue with their duties there, and, indeed, for many Singaporeans and foreign workers, and Ms Denise Phua has portrayed this vividly.

In the immediate aftermath of this incident, the Government and our enforcement agencies took several steps to address various factors that could have contributed, or aggravated, the incident. Indeed, many in this House have welcomed those initial responses. We needed specific powers under the Public Order (Preservation) Act (or POPA) and other legislation to implement those measures.

And that need remains valid today. There is a heightened security environment in Little India; we continue to have large gatherings in the area on weekends and public holidays; residents and stakeholders remain concerned that an untoward incident may recur. So, we need a specific and limited set of powers under this Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill to maintain public order and calm effectively in Little India.

Page: 113

Several Members – too many for me to list, I hope and I think you know who they are – have asked why can we not just continue with the present arrangement? In other words, just continue relying on the Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA).

Madam, many Members have advocated that we adopt a proportionate and appropriate response to the situation in Little India. We agree fully and, indeed, that has been the key reason for this Bill. So, it is ironic that some Members have taken issue with the powers in this Bill which are limited and significantly reduced, compared to those already available today under POPA.

The powers under POPA are extensive, some would say even draconian, as it is a law conceived to deal with a far graver set of circumstances, such as a State of Emergency. It has the powers, as I said earlier, to impose curfews and even use lethal force. This is not a case of moving the Bill because we have insufficient powers, as Mr Chen Show Mao has suggested. It is a case where the powers are grossly disproportionate to the current situation in Little India, especially as the situation has stabilised and the focus is now on maintaining public order. Therefore, the status quo of relying on the powers under POPA is neither necessary nor desirable.

Indeed, Madam, the logic offered by several Members is quite elusive – that we welcome the measures that have been taken; we are concerned that you exercise powers and have powers with proportionality; we want to make sure that there are adequate safeguards; but why do we not just continue using POPA, which has extensive powers and will not invite this level of scrutiny?

If you are prepared to accord the authorities the powers under POPA, then why are you reluctant to accord the powers which are significantly reduced, compared to POPA as reflected in the Bill? If you are concerned about the exercise of power that is enumerated in this Bill, then why are you not even more exercised by that concern in the context of the powers under POPA? And if you are concerned that somehow this Bill will tarnish the image of Little India, then what do you think the proclamation of a state of danger in Little India every week would do?

Other Members have suggested, why not defer the Bill till after the COI? The suggestion here is that the COI will finish its work in a few months, and we can just get on with whatever we need to do then. As Ms Denise Phua and others have noted, the COI will take some time to finish its work. It has been given six months and, thereafter, whatever the recommendations, they have to

Page: 114

be deliberated upon and, then, appropriate measures put in place. So, there is considerable time still ahead, and who would be answerable to Singaporeans and to the residents in Little India if another incident were to occur? It is incumbent on the Government and our agencies to take reasonable steps and measures to ensure that such an incident does not recur. This Bill provides for calibrated powers, far less than in POPA, to continue with the measures to maintain law and order in Little India.

Assoc Prof Eugene Tan has asked whether it could have been possible to amend the existing laws. Madam, we did consider this option. However, the intent and provisions in the existing laws are worded generally to deal with broad law-and-order situations. In the end, we felt it was preferable to propose a dedicated temporary piece of legislation to meet the specific policing needs of Little India, and adapting provisions in other legislation where relevant.

Some Members have asked about the timing of this Bill. Why can we not wait for the COI? Some have characterised it as a knee-jerk, hurried response. This is hardly the case. This is not a case of mindless efficiency. This is a case of a targeted and necessary response to a clear and present need on the ground.

Mdm Speaker, it seems to me that we have three choices: one, we continue with the current arrangements with all its powers under POPA. The question that we have to ask ourselves is: what precedent does it set to use such pieces of legislation with extreme powers for a situation like this, and what sort of risks does that pose? Another alternative is to revert to status quo ex ante, that is, what we had before the riot. I think Members would agree that that is not satisfactory. The third option is in the form of the current Bill: to have a specific set of powers, scoped for the situation, for a limited period of time so that the Police can continue to maintain law and order in Little India.

Are the Police powers provided for in this Bill unprecedented? All powers, specifically police powers, in this Bill are already available under POPA, which has been invoked on a weekly basis since 8 December 2013. In drafting the Bill, the specific powers of search and seizure, for example, take reference from similar provisions in the Public Order Act governing special, large scale events like National Day Parades.

I agree with the Members that in vesting such powers in our officers, we must ensure that they exercise them with sensitivity, prudence and care. That is the training and the culture in the Police force and our other enforcement

Page: 115

agencies, but it is a point that is worth repeating and emphasising.

The main exception, in these powers, pertains to the provisions with respect to alcohol-related measures. There has been a comment that this appears to be a Bill that is focused on alcohol-related measures or that appears to be alcohol-centric, and there is a good reason for it. This is because we do not have provisions in our laws for such measures. Some have asked if we are jumping the gun: where is the evidence or causality that directly links alcohol consumption to this incident?

Madam, our Police officers on the ground do not have the luxury of contemplating a variety of options when there is a clear and present danger and need on the ground. They have to make a reasonable, operational assessment of the situation; what could be the range of contributory factors and these then have to be acted upon. And one of them, in this instance, was the assessment that alcohol could have been a contributory factor. This is not to say that this is the primary cause or that somehow we have committed to a specific attribution for this incident. Indeed, the operational assessment of the Police is not unique.

Members have heard other Members of this House speak on the matter and it is a view shared by residents and other stakeholders and businesses in the area. So, this Bill introduces, out of necessity, targeted and temporary powers to restrict the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol. Many of the provisions provide clarity on the operation of this framework. It may have created the impression that this Bill is alcohol-centric, but that should not be the case because this Bill also serves other public order imperatives. This includes dealing with non-alcohol related threats, such as prohibited items and disorderly conduct.

Several Members have also asked whether this Bill and the way it is designed and its geographic limitation to Little India, is somehow discriminatory or targets a particular community. Madam, first, to be clear, these measures are specifically put up to maintain public order in Little India in the aftermath of a serious incident. We have not imposed similar restrictions in other areas of Singapore, or sought to do so, because we want to be targeted and proportionate in our response.

I want to assure several Members, like Ms Foo Mee Har and Mr R Dhinakaran, that our enforcement agencies, like the Police and NEA, continue to keep a watchful eye on other areas, and they have also increased their surveillance and monitoring to manage any disamenities and enforce law and

Page: 116

order, where necessary. So, whilst this Bill focuses on the situation in Little India, other efforts are afoot.

But is this targeting a particular community or does it have a discriminatory impact? I understand the sentiments that are expressed by some, but I want to assure all Members that these concerns are wholly unfounded, as, indeed, this was a point that was made by Ms Ellen Lee. The Bill is focused on Little India because that is where the riot occurred on 8 December 2013, with inevitable lingering security concerns. And, in fact, we continue to have large gatherings there on the weekends. So, we need measures to ensure that public order and calm are maintained at that location. And I would venture that if, in fact, this Bill had been cast more widely, reaching into other parts of Singapore, as some Members have suggested, it would have elicited a counter-criticism or accusation that it is over-reaching – and where is the justification?

Moreover, the provisions in the Bill are targeted at behaviour that threatens public order, and not at specific individuals, communities or businesses. The measures in the Bill apply equally to all persons, and business operators within the special zone without exception, whatever their ethnicity or nationality. Neither is the Bill a comment on the conduct of foreign workers or how they behave in Little India per se. The vast majority of foreign workers are law-abiding. We have said this, and I have said this many times they are here to earn an honest living and build a better life for their families back home. The measures being taken to maintain law and order in Little India will, in fact, serve their interest as much as the interest of any others who visit the area.

I now come to the specific powers. Mr Vikram Nair asked for a clarification on the intended purpose of the inspections under clause 9. Clause 9 is adopted from the special event provisions in the Public Order Act and has the following uses. First, it is used to ascertain whether a person has attempted to bring in a prohibited item into the special zone. Second, where the subject is suspected of consuming alcohol in breach of the prohibition and has hidden the alcohol, the officer may examine him and his property for any incriminating evidence. In other words, the officer is acting on reasonable suspicion. Third, where the subject is not suspected of consuming alcohol but an inspection reveals him to be in possession of alcohol after the permitted hours of sale, the officer can ask the person to reveal who sold the alcohol to him for the purposes of investigation as to whether the sale was unlawful.

Clause 9 does not, and is not intended to, penalise mere possession of alcohol. I do not think that it would be reasonably necessary for an ordinary shopper doing his weekend shopping at Mustafa – although I am told Mustafa

Page: 117

does not sell anything alcoholic – and carrying his purchase of alcohol, to be made subject to such an inspection if there are no other accompanying circumstances indicating a possible contravention of the Bill.