Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill

Much obliged, Madam. Some Members have also highlighted this particular aspect of the more intrusive search provisions and I think the term used was "strip searches". I want to clarify and put this in context. The Bill allows for full searches to be conducted, as is the case for all events under the Public Order Act. The Police do not take this lightly and they have well-established protocols to assess when such searches are necessary and how they are to be administered, based on operational experience with various special events, including the National Day Parade each year. As with all such events, Police will calibrate the level of searches, depending on ground assessment of risks posed to the law-and-order situation at that time.

Mr Baey Yam Keng asked about the considerations in deciding whether to cancel or suspend the licence of a business operator. The objective of this provision is to deter businesses from committing egregious or recalcitrant violations of the alcohol restrictions. In extremis, we want to prevent them from continuing their operations while investigations and prosecution are ongoing. In particular, there will now be a measure of parity and proportionality in the

Page: 118

treatment of errant business operators, whether or not they hold liquor licences.

Nevertheless, I recognise that the ability to order these powers is a strong one and the Police will carry out, in answer to Mr Baey Yam Keng's question, thorough investigations to ensure there is sufficient basis that an offence had been committed and is of sufficient severity before any action is taken with respect to the licences. Due process mechanisms are also in place to provide adequate avenues for aggrieved parties to seek redress, including an avenue of appeal to the relevant Minister in charge of the licences.

Madam, several Members have spoken on the need for safeguards against arbitrary exercise of powers. I touched on this earlier, but perhaps the most significant safeguard in this regard is the fact that this Bill seeks to curtail the powers available to the Police, compared to the present situation. If Members can accept, and Ms Sylvia Lim in fact said so, that the extensive powers under POPA will be exercised with due restraint and safeguard by the Police and the Ministry – and many others are implying that by advocating the continued use of POPA – then, surely, you should be assured that the exercise of the limited powers under this Bill would be similarly restrained.

Let me also assure Members that significant safeguards are in place for each power. First, the provisions themselves prescribe specific thresholds or considerations to guide the officer in his assessment. As an example, to conduct searches under clause 12, the Police must, first, have reasonable grounds to suspect that an offence under the law has been committed or is about to be committed, and that the effect and act of searching a particular person, vehicle or item would aid in detecting or stopping the offence. As an added precaution, the search power under clause 12 can only be exercised by a Police officer of or above the rank of Sergeant. No such power has been conferred on an Auxiliary Police Officer.

Similarly, clause 11 prescribes that a Police officer or an approved auxiliary police officer may only ask a person to leave the special zone if he has reasonable grounds to suspect – from the person's demeanour or conduct – that the person is likely to breach or has breached the prohibitions, or if the person's presence or actions are likely to threaten or prejudice the maintenance of public order. In short, this power cannot be used to exclude persons without a good basis.

Assoc Prof Eugene Tan and some others have asked if police action is warranted on the basis of reasonable suspicion or likelihood, as opposed to a

Page: 119

higher evidentiary threshold. The intent of these provisions is to identify and defuse potential public order threats, before they escalate. That purpose will be defeated if we are to allow these threats to substantially materialise or crystallise before intervening. Nevertheless, there still has to be, I repeat, a good basis for the actions. Ultimately, Police officers have doctrine and training to ensure that they carry out these tasks responsibly and exercise sound professional judgement to take action, as appropriate, to deal with the situation before them.

There is also recourse to judicial review. All actions taken under this Bill are subject to judicial review and the Court will have to assess whether decisions taken by the officers/authorities are reasonable, in accordance with principles of natural justice and whether due process has been observed.

Several Members have touched on the empowerment of Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) under this Bill and measures to ensure they are properly equipped to exercise the powers and what are the safeguards. Firstly, only selected APOs who are authorised by the Commissioner of Police in writing can exercise the powers under the Bill. The Commissioner will only do so if he is fully satisfied that the APO being authorised is well trained and competent enough to do the job. This is the most important safeguard. Next, APOs can only exercise certain powers under the Bill, as I have explained. They do not have powers of arrest, except to remove a person, nor do they have powers of search and seizure, which are only available to Police officers of or above the rank of Sergeant.

There is also clear accountability and oversight by the Police on APO matters. As part of the established protocol, APOs can refer and seek advice from the Police where required. And, importantly, in difficult situations, Police will also step in to take control.

We have had significant experience; there has been questions raised about the training and the preparation of APOs. In the interest of time, I will keep this short. In this House, we enacted the Police Force Act expressly allowing the formation of auxiliary police forces to assist the Singapore Police Force. This was done in 2004. The APOs have been involved with the Police in a range of activities on a routine basis, including conducting spot checks during special events and policing anti-social behaviour in known congregation areas.

All APOs are required to undergo training for these purposes before they can be deployed, to ensure they have the requisite competencies. So, there is

Page: 120

no reason to suggest ex ante that APOs are incompetent or incapable of performing roles under the Bill. You may have individual cases, but the system and processes are in place to ensure that they are well trained and prepared for the job. And, secondly, the specific powers in this Bill will be accorded to them, only after the Commissioner of Police has done so, specifically.

Ms Foo Mee Har sought clarification on the immunity provision in clause 19(3), and several other Members mentioned this as well. This provision allows officers to exercise their powers to deal with various public order threats and concerns without fear that their actions will expose themselves or the Government to consequent liability to compensate for any loss incurred. This is a common provision found in many of our laws, and it is necessary where coercive or intrusive powers are provided. The immunity is only available, however, where the act is done in good faith, with reasonable care, and in the furtherance of duty. It does not exempt actions outside of these parameters. The Government and its officers remain liable for negligent acts or for acts in excess of legal powers.

Let me now touch on the some other points that the Members have raised.

Several have asked whether the Government has pre-judged the causes of the riot and influenced the Committee of Inquiry process, especially with the moving of this Bill. Mdm Speaker, the stability that was restored to Little India did not come about by chance. It was the result of deliberate measures taken by the Government.

In the aftermath of the riot, we identified several risk factors, based on operational assessments and other inputs, that could further aggravate the public order situation in Little India. These included, as I have mentioned before, large congregations and, of course, the access to alcohol. In fact, as several Members have pointed out, these were some concerns that had been there even before, and were part of the impetus behind the wider review of liquor licences and alcohol consumption that commenced before the riot.

Given the volatile situation following the riot, the Government and other agencies adopted a proactive and prudent stance to do what was needed and sensible to restore order quickly and prevent a recurrence of civil disorder. Collectively, these measures have been accepted as useful and necessary by many stakeholders, and it has helped to restore confidence and calm. I am sure that many Singaporeans, and Members of this House, will agree that it would have been remiss of the Government, if we had reverted to business as usual

Page: 121

and waited several months for the COI to complete its work and establish the approximate causes before taking action.

Madam, taking proactive and prudent measures does not amount to pre-judging the issue. This is the duty of the Government and our agencies. Let me emphasise that these measures do not in any way intend to be definitive on the actual causes of the riot or its etymology. That is for the COI to study and ascertain. The COI is a fully independent process and has been given full latitude to gather the facts in order to ascertain the causes of the riot, and, among other terms of reference, it also is assessing the agencies' response to the situation. In the interim, to protect the peace that was restored, this Bill provides for the continued implementation of the measures.

Mr Hri Kumar and Dr Lam Pin Min have queried the 12-month duration of the proposed Bill. Our aim is to develop a long-term solution, informed by the COI's findings and the Government consultation process on measures to restrict the consumption of alcohol in public. Twelve months should be sufficient for this purpose. This Bill will allow the Police to maintain law and order in Little India in the interim period. The law can be extended only by passage of another Bill in Parliament.

Some have asked if the Bill is or should be a precursor to an eventual island-wide regime. This is not the case. The objectives of the Bill are distinct from the wider review of the liquor licensing regime. That review will take into consideration the views of stakeholders, as well as any findings and recommendations of the COI. We will also draw on the experience with the measures taken in Little India in considering what is sustainable in the long term. I urge Members to let the process run its course. The full set of liquor control measures will be announced when they are ready, and where new legislation is deemed necessary, it will be brought to this House for debate.

Dr Lam Pin Min and Ms Denise Phua have asked about the broader management of foreign workers. There is an inter-agency effort under MOM's leadership. It has been at work even before this incident. They have addressed a range of issues, not just about social disamenities, or concerns about foreign workers and their welfare, but also on security matters, and on what else can be done to educate the workers, and implementing appropriate measures in their neighbourhoods. The committee will certainly consider the feedback that is being provided after the riot, and put forth and execute appropriate measures as needed.

Page: 122

I also want to add that in the aftermath of the riot, Mr Shanmugam, myself, Mr Dhinakaran, Mr Vikram Nair and several of us went to the dormitories and other areas. There is work afoot to enhance some of the facilities and services for the workers who reside in these dormitories, or visit the recreation centres. These include remittance services and other recreational facilities.

Ms Ellen Lee's point on making employers more responsible for educating their workers on our laws is an important one. I assure Ms Lee that the relevant Government agencies will continue to work on this effort.

There were some concerns about the impact of the measures on foreign worker congregation and on Little India. Since the implementation of the measures, our agencies have not noted any significant displacement effect on foreign workers to other areas. Police will continue to monitor the situation and adjust their resources as necessary.

Assoc Prof Eugene Tan has argued that the Bill casts a chilling effect on Little India. I would offer a different perspective – if another incident were to occur in Little India, the effect would not be chilling; it would be disastrous. Little India is, and continues to be, a place of interest and enjoyment for residents, business operators, foreign workers and tourists alike. Drinking continues to be permitted in licensed premises during weekends, and most activities can continue unencumbered. By providing a safer law and order environment, the measures we have taken, in fact, serve to preserve and enhance the colour and vibrancy of Little India, not detract from it.

In this regard, I want to state that we are very heartened that stakeholders in Little India, including business entities, have come forward to support the measures taken despite the fact that some of them have been affected adversely by some of the restrictions imposed. Many have, in fact, welcomed the measures and saw them as an improvement over the pre-riot conditions.

Nevertheless, we are mindful of the potential impact on residents and businesses, and will seek to minimise them wherever possible. For instance, many of the measures imposed in the immediate aftermath, such as the restrictions on alcohol and bus services, have subsequently been relaxed. The Bill also provides for discretion to vary or tweak the measures over this period. Much will depend on the ground situation, which the Police will carefully monitor and assess. And we will continue to engage our stakeholders and take into account their feedback as we look at the longer-term solutions.

Page: 123

Madam, Ms Lina Chiam has suggested that we commit this Bill to a Select Committee. I would argue against that. First, there is no need to put this Bill through a Select Committee because, as I have repeatedly stressed, the powers in the Bill are, in fact, far less than what is available in the POPA and there are no new powers. The POPA is far too powerful for our needs in Little India. There is also, secondly, an immediate need for the law to allow our ground agencies to continue to implement the measures effectively.

I believe all the substantive issues raised by Members have been well-debated. There is a range of views, and I think we have addressed them substantively. In the absence of any exceptional circumstances that one can point to, we should not delay the implementation of this Bill. Therefore, we should not consider committing it to a Select Committee.

Madam, I think I have substantively covered the points that have been made. I want to stress again that the riot on 8 December 2013 was a very serious one, and it is important that all of us, Members of this House and Singaporeans, recognise that we cannot afford to take our safety and security for granted. We must be ready to prevent the occurrence of a similar incident. This means taking proactive steps where they are necessary, and ensuring that our law enforcement agencies possess sufficient and effective means to deal with and defuse situations that can threaten public order. This Bill that is before the House today is a very important part of this effort. We have sought to balance the powers that are needed against the impact on the community. This Bill provides for a limited set of powers, far less than that presently available, to be applied to a limited location, for a limited duration.

Until the Committee of Inquiry's recommendations and the longer-term measures are ready, this Bill will serve to maintain peace and public order in Little India for the safety and security of all. Madam, I urge Members to support the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

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

Page: 124

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