Debated in Parliament on 20 Jan 2014.
Mdm Speaker, Deputy Prime Minister Teo gave an account of the 8 December riot, the measures taken in the aftermath, and the setting up of the Committee of Inquiry to look into the causes of the riot. A number of Members have also raised questions about the overall management of foreign workers (FWs) in Singapore. Let me provide an overview of our foreign worker landscape here in Singapore.
Our foreign workforce has always been a part of our economic landscape and foreign workers have contributed significantly to our progress and the well-being of all Singaporeans. The growth of the workforce accelerated towards the latter half of the 2000s. However, in line with the recommendations made by the Economic Strategies Committee in 2010, we began to moderate the growth of foreign workers to more sustainable levels, with a greater emphasis on productivity improvements. We also took deliberate and progressive steps to raise the quality profile of our foreign workforce and help businesses reduce their reliance on low-cost foreign labour. We will continue to do so in a targeted and adaptive manner, taking into consideration three things: (i) the growth rate of our foreign workforce; (ii) the productivity growth of our overall economy; and (iii) the real wage growth of Singaporeans at all levels. This is something that we are already doing anyway, and to Mr Dhinakaran's question, the riot will not have a material impact on these plans.
Indeed, we have progressively reduced foreign worker growth every year. At end of November 2013, we had about 1.1 million foreign workers, excluding
Page: 64
foreign domestic workers. Of this pool, about 700,000 were work permit holders.
Ms Irene Ng asked whether the rate of growth of foreign construction workers is "sustainable" and whether there should be a "cap". Clearly, there is a delicate balance that we do need to strike. Many of us recognise and accept that foreign workers are needed to build infrastructure like roads, MRT networks, hospitals, housing and public facilities for Singaporeans. But we also recognise that the growth cannot be unabated. We will therefore continue to moderate the growth of foreign workers. As part of our restructuring, we should learn to do more with less. For example, construction is the biggest driver for foreign worker numbers. Hence, in June 2010, the Building Construction Authority (BCA) launched the $250 million Construction Productivity and Capability Fund to incentivise the construction industry to improve productivity and strengthen its capabilities. To require the adoption of more productive methods of construction, BCA has also raised the minimum "Buildable Design" and "Constructability" requirements for all new projects from 1 September 2013. These are important initiatives, especially for this sector. We will continue to monitor the situation closely and take further steps as needed to dampen the demand for foreign workers.
Let me now talk about how our foreign workforce is managed here in Singapore.
Ms Janice Koh asked about a study on issues facing foreign workers. Foreign workers in Singapore are, by and large, treated decently by their employers; and I would say, treated decently by Singaporeans. A 2011 survey commissioned by MOM and Migrant Workers' Centre, covering about 3,000 Work Permit holders and 500 S Pass holders, showed that more than 90% of these foreign workers were satisfied with their overall experience of working in Singapore; and more than 80% would wish to continue working here. MOM conducted another survey in November 2013 with departing foreign workers and the results were largely similar. Of the over 150 foreign construction workers interviewed at the airport, more than 90% did not have any employment issues and 80% were happy working in Singapore. A few who worked in other countries said Singapore was still the best as it provided a safe and good work environment for them.
Ms Tin Pei Ling asked how we compare with other countries. Let me put it this way: foreign workers choose to come to Singapore, and these days, with information being freely available – certainly online and elsewhere, they are not ignorant. If the situation here is chronic, bad news will spread. So, what is the
Page: 65
reality?
Many consider Singapore to be an attractive destination country, and many foreigners at all levels continue to want to come here for work if they have the chance and opportunity to do so. Their rights and the help available are clearly listed. For example, before they arrive here, we make sure that workers know what their pay will be via the In-Principal Approval Letter that is issued to them. During the Work Permit card issuance process, workers are also informed of channels of assistance provided by both Government agencies and NGOs. Obviously, they always have recourse to their own Embassies or High Commissions as well.
Does it therefore appear that all or most foreign workers here are poorly treated? I believe that the situation is generally good, but it is not perfect. There is always room for improvement.
From January to November 2013, MOM assisted approximately 7,000 foreign workers with difficulties – about half of these cases were employment-related, covering things like salary and overtime claims. So, these ranged from minor issues to relatively major issues. This represents less than 1% of foreign Work Permit holders.
When we come across cases of errant employers who flout our laws – and they do exist – my Ministry takes a strong enforcement stance, and will continue to do so. To Mr Pritam Singh's question, MOM also regularly reviews our legislation to ensure that the protection accorded to workers remains adequate and appropriate. For example, under the recent changes to the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act, we doubled the maximum penalty for the contravention of any condition of the work pass, including the condition for employers to ensure that workers have acceptable accommodation. Other enhancements to the Employment Act, which will take effect this April, will see a new 25% sub-cap against excessive deductions. The penalties for employers who fail to pay workers' salaries will also increase.
To Ms Mary Liew's question, my Ministry works closely with NGO partners who refer cases of mistreatment they come across to MOM officers. And they do so regularly. For example, last year, there were about 640 of such NGO-referred cases. It covers about less than 0.1% of the Work Permit holders here in Singapore.
Page: 66
I, therefore, find it puzzling as to how some individuals can so quickly conclude or criticise that there is widespread and systemic abuse of the foreign workforce; and that these were the reasons for the riot. In the same vein, some foreign media just echo these points but offer only scant evidence for their assertions. We do not think that there is a basis for these assertions, but we do look forward to the COI's perspective on the matter. We also believe that it is wrong for these individuals to portray Singaporeans and our employers in this light because that is not how things are, nor who we are as a people. During our visits to the dormitories after the riot, many foreign workers told us that they were actually ashamed by the conduct of those responsible. The Indian High Commissioner to Singapore, Ms Vijay Thaur Singh, also shared that there was no discontent discerned among the Indian community of foreign workers here in Singapore. Our various sources in the industry also do not indicate any perceptible disquiet.
Managing our foreign workforce well is important. Ms Denise Phua would be glad to know that since 2008, an inter-Ministerial Committee has been working towards better management of the foreign workers in Singapore, covering issues like housing, transport and security.
Let me talk about housing for our foreign workforce. Foreign Work Permit holders are currently accommodated in a variety of premises, including purpose built dormitories, workers' quarters on construction sites, converted industrial properties, HDB flats and private residential premises. Assoc Prof Eugene Tan may wish to note that the vast majority of these housing premises are well within existing regulatory norms.
Mr Alex Yam asked about the security requirements at foreign worker dormitories. Dormitory operators are required to comply with security requirements imposed by the Police. For example, they have to install CCTVs around the dormitories and draw Emergency Response Plans to deal with public order incidents. Since the riot, the Police has also advised dormitory operators to step up security and will also provide them with training. SPF reviews and calibrates these requirements regularly.
Ms Tan Su Shan and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked how we can improve the living conditions of foreign workers in Singapore. Mr Alex Yam also asked about measures to manage areas where they congregate. Even before the riot, we had identified the need, and it is an important need, over the next two to three years, to speed up the construction of more dormitories so that more foreign workers can move to purpose-built accommodation. These dormitories must set aside adequate living space, and provide basic amenities and
Page: 67
recreational facilities such as gymnasiums, canteens, television rooms and computer access. These help to ensure that the daily basic living needs of foreign workers are taken care of.
To supplement the basic facilities in dormitories and also to provide for those who are currently not in purpose-built facilities, the Government decided to establish dedicated recreation centres for foreign workers some time ago. The one at Soon Lee Road was launched in 2009. The others at Kaki Bukit, Woodlands and Penjuru were initiated thereafter and were fully operational by 2011 and 2012. These centres provide a wider range of amenities that individual dormitories may not be able to, such as remittance services, supermarkets, sports facilities and AXS machines. They are well-utilised by foreign workers, ranging in the thousands on weekends. The number of visitors is especially high when these centres host events such as sports competitions, cultural celebrations and movie screenings which are organised regularly. I have attended some of these and clearly, the response has been very positive amongst the foreign workers. The Government will launch more of such gathering spaces, to better cater to foreign workers' needs.
But while these recreation centres are important and they provide alternative options, the reality is that they can never totally replace popular spots like Little India, which have naturally evolved over time to cater to foreign workers' physical and, importantly, their emotional needs. Foreign workers need a place to come together to catch up with old friends, to catch up on news from the village, have a taste of food from home, and meet friends and relatives from across the island for a few precious hours that they have. This is actually really not that different from any Singaporean worker looking to relax and hang out with friends after a hard week at work. Recreation centres can try, but I do not believe that they can always meet these psychological and emotional needs.
But I also believe that actually Singaporeans do understand and appreciate the need for these shared spaces. Unlike the picture painted by the critics, I do believe that Singaporeans are generally big-hearted and accommodating. I think that this is in large part why many foreign workers are also comfortable coming to Singapore to work. On the part of the Government, we will continue to try to manage these areas well, so that we can exist harmoniously.
On that note, I would like to assure Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Alex Yam that active steps are being taken to address the safety and security concerns in areas where foreign workers tend to congregate – some of which have already been listed by Deputy Prime Minister Teo. I also agree with Ms Tin Pei Ling and Mr Teo Siong Seng that the Government should continue to
Page: 68
encourage businesses that are able to roster their off-days to do so.
Another strategy, obviously, is education. MOM works closely with NGO partners to educate foreign workers about Singapore's social norms and laws. And we do so through various avenues, such as during compulsory safety training courses and guidebooks in their native languages, which are issued to them when they collect their work passes. And we also conduct regular road shows in the dormitories, reaching out to many, many thousands of foreign workers as well.
Let me therefore end by reiterating that foreign workers contribute positively to all our well being; and the vast majority of them are hardworking and responsible. It would be wrong to make negative generalisations about the foreign workforce from this incident. Neither should we generalise about the chronic and poor treatment of these workers. The Government will continue to monitor closely the overall number of foreign workers and their impact on the communities they interact with. Importantly, we must also continue to enhance the management of their well-being.
Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Deputy Prime Minister and the Acting Minister for Manpower for their comprehensive Ministerial Statements.
First, for Deputy Prime Minister, I have three supplementary questions and one for the Acting Minister for Manpower. I am firstly reassured that the SPF and the SCDF are reviewing the security provisions for our HomeTeam men and women on duty. I would like to enquire if there is a timeline for the said review to be completed. Secondly, on a more general note, if the Deputy Prime Minister could share with us his reading of the current morale of our men and women within the Home Team. And lastly, on a broader perspective of drinking in public areas, whether the review of the legislation would also consider similar open container laws that are already in place in countries like Canada, Finland, Hungary and I think most recently in Spain.
My supplementary question for the Acting Minister for Manpower is with regard to communicating information to our foreign workers. What are the main means of the communication at the moment and how do we ensure that all of them receive timely information as well as updates on laws or regulations?
Page: 69
And last of all, as a point of note, I think it is appropriate for us to also put on record the recognition of our men and women in the Home Team for their bravery and their reaction to this very unfortunate incident during the riot
Thank you, Mdm Speaker. First of all, on the open container laws, I am open to the idea. We will consider all the things that other countries have done and see whether they are practical and implementable here.
One of my concerns in implementing alcohol laws is that they have to be practical and enforceable. We can have very detailed laws but if they end up not being enforceable in a practical sense, and you require a linesman, or two linesmen, like in a tennis game to watch whether you are on this side of the line or that side of the line; you are doing this and you are not doing that; and you require that all over Singapore, I think it will be very intrusive on Singaporeans' everyday lives and it may turn out that even if we have those laws, they are not so easily enforced. So, that is one of the things I am very mindful of.
On security provisions for our Home Team officers, we have been looking at the equipment, the training, the protocols and so on. We are not going to wait, as soon as we have arrived at conclusions, we will implement them.
I would also like to thank Mr Alex Yam for his commendation for our officers – those who have done well. That is really very much appreciated.
He asked about the morale of our officers in the Home Team. I think they were disheartened when they hear criticisms, sometimes unfounded, of what they did or what they did not do. I spoke to many of the first responders, to understand what was going through their minds, and what kind of decisions they had to make on the spot to deal with the situation. And I spoke with the individual officers, not just with their commanders because I wanted to know what was going on in their minds, how they made their decisions.
My sense is that they knew what they were doing, acted responsibly, they were well aware of the weight of responsibility on their shoulders. The SCDF rescuers had to carry out the rescue operations even in the face of very difficult circumstances. And the Police Officers who responded, they weighed very carefully the actions that they would need to take, including the consequences of their actions such as use of lethal force and the use of firearms.
So, I would say that they were disheartened at some of the unfair comments that were made against them but they were also, at the same time,
Page: 70
heartened by the many expressions of support from others in Singapore for the work that they did in bringing a very difficult situation under control within two hours. Once again, I like to thank Mr Yam for adding his words of encouragement.
Mdm Speaker, with regard to Mr Alex Yam's question about how we could better reach out to foreign workers, I will repeat what I shared in my reply. We work closely with our NGO partners and certainly we work very closely with the Embassies and High Commissions to reach out to the foreign workers. The main purpose is really to educate them about our social norms and laws. There are various avenues through which we do so. There are compulsory safety training courses that we conduct. Those are useful platforms to reach out to them. Guidebooks are also available so that we can communicate with them in their native languages. And also, when they collect their work passes – that is another contact point through which we can make sure that information is conveyed.
I thought it would be also useful to just give a very quick sense about the whole-of-Government education and outreach effort. Certainly, the outreach effort is not just by MOM alone. There is also NEA, SPF and we do need to make sure that the messages go out to foreign workers in a coordinated manner. We have collaborated to put out education notices on various channels which I have mentioned.
We augment this with about 20 to 30 dormitory road shows a year, reaching about 150,000 foreign workers. We publish a foreign worker newsletter three times a year, with 160,000 copies per issue. We also set up and update notice boards across 30 dormitories.
There is a wide range of things that we are doing and we will continue to be open to ideas. Working with NGOs partners makes a lot of difference. Working with dormitory operators also makes a lot of difference in terms of reaching out. So, that is something we will continue to work on.
Madam, I have two questions for the Deputy Prime Minister and two questions for the Acting Minister for Manpower.
Madam, we want to make sure that there is no recurrence of the riot and we need to take all steps to prevent a recurrence. Can I ask the Minister whether he agrees that there is probably a range of factors involved and it is important for the COI to examine in detail all the possible factors in its analysis and to be
Page: 71
as open and transparent as possible in its final report? Can I ask the Minister to give an assurance so that the public can be confident that the COI will examine all possible factors?
For example, how much of the riot was fuelled by alcohol and adrenalin, much like some of the soccer riots that you see in the UK caused by hooligans who are high on alcohol? How much of it is due to their cultural map which they bring with them from their home countries, which informs the perception of how they behave towards uniform groups like the Police? Were there aggravating factors to do with festering grievances that may be related to their employment issues or social exclusion? All these factors are important and need to be looked at. I hope to hear an assurance from the Minister on this.
The second issue has to do with a debate that is now going on in society about the rights of our migrant workers. Some Singaporeans want to integrate them into our society within a broader social justice agenda, while some want to see more restrictions on foreign workers to keep them as separated as possible from Singaporeans, away from HDB blocks.
Can I ask for the Minister's views on this? And in this regard, I would like to express my concerns about the new regulations to regulate the movement of persons that Minister has mentioned about, with the new powers. Can I ask the Minister whether it is important to also guard against aggressive measures attempting to restrict every aspect of life upon migrant workers, including their leisure? And to also guard against subjecting them to what they may consider as Police intimidation and harassment, just because they are foreign workers and of low status, they may feel that they are being targeted unfairly? And such a perception, true or not, may build up resentment and frustration at the unfairness of it.
So, can I ask the Minister for the assurance that we will guard against over-reacting in situations even as we take bold, necessary short-term measures to soothe public fears?
For the Acting Minister for Manpower, I agree with him that it is important not to draw —
Ms Irene Ng, please keep your clarifications short.
Simplistic explanations and I agree with the Acting Minister for Manpower that the report by The New York Times is quite
Page: 72
damaging to Singapore as there is no evidence that the riot was caused by mistreatment of foreign workers. Can I ask the Acting Minister for Manpower, instead of dismissing it based on the knowledge that the Ministry has, to consider engaging the NGOs which has been putting out this line, to engage them on the issue and to try and address some of their concerns, which has been ongoing for some time, even if the Minister believes that this is not the reason for the riots?
Finally, can I ask the Acting Minister whether he agrees that 300,000 foreign construction workers in Singapore are, indeed, a huge number and it is inevitable that labour issues will arise because of the sheer numbers. Three hundred thousand is more than Tampines GRC which has only 180,000 residents, and it needs five Members to look after it.
No speeches, please. Ms Ng, just ask your questions.
Can I ask the Acting Minister for Manpower whether he could look seriously into reviewing the numbers of foreign construction workers and how to manage them in a way that is effective?
Mdm Speaker, I had put up the terms of reference of the Committee of Inquiry on the screen just now and they are available in the factsheet that was distributed. The first term of reference is to establish the factors and circumstances that lead to the riot in Little India on 8 December 2013. The chairman of the Committee of Inquiry and the members are respected members and I think they know how to conduct a Committee of Inquiry. Therefore, I do not have to instruct them precisely what to do. But I would say that we should be careful not to speculate on various kinds of causes. I do not mean to be critical of Ms Ng, but which she is indulging in as well. Because she is suggesting a variety of causes – some of which may be true; some of which may not be true and I will leave it entirely to the COI to examine it under its first term of reference which is to establish the factors and circumstances that lead to the riot in Little India on 8 December 2013 rather than indulging in speculations on what the causes might be.
On the second question, on the rights of movement in Little India, the restriction on rights of movement is in order to make sure that the Police are able to maintain order and maintain calm in Little India over the period during which this temporary law will be in place. This is neutral, with regard to whether it is a foreign worker, foreigner or a Singaporean. So, I can assure Members that the Police will implement the law strictly, firmly and fairly, regardless of
Page: 73
who the person is.
With regard to the regulation of foreign workers, perhaps, I would leave that to my colleague the Acting Minister for Manpower.
Mdm Speaker, Ms Irene Ng raised two main issues. One is with regard to the engagement of NGOs, which I will answer in a while. But first, the issue of numbers. Perhaps, a useful reference point would be to consider: should we, therefore, not build the MRT station at Tampines? These are the realities that we would need to deal with. There are many public infrastructure projects that we need to consider. We build roads, we build hospitals, we build polyclinics, we build schools. Many of these do depend on foreign workers and that is something that we all accept and understand. There are real needs that are coming up and we do need to address them. Does having a foreign construction workforce of 300,000 mean that inevitably, there will be problems – like these? I do not believe that.
When you have congregations of large groups, incidents will happen. Incidents are happening every week in Little India and elsewhere. There are skirmishes, there are fights, people get drunk, not just amongst the foreign workforce but even among Singaporeans. Do you, therefore, amplify these issues and say that they represent a chronic problem and, therefore, you need to take massive measures against it?
I would say that it is again a delicate balancing act. We do recognise that the foreign workforce will remain a significant part of our economy. But we also recognise, as I mentioned, that we do calibrate their growth – which is a step that we are taking. But if you go too far, you will have a serious impact on our companies and businesses and that in turn impacts the employment of Singaporeans. If you go too far, you also will have a serious impact on infrastructure programme that we have, to provide for the needs of Singaporeans.
We believe that the path that we are charting is the approach that we should take for now, and we will continue to review it.
Secondly, we are actively working with all NGO groups that are out there, even those who are critical. There are a lot of things that we do with them on a day-to-day basis that are not mentioned nor acknowledged but it does not matter. Our officers have close working relationships with them. They exchange information. A lot of issues are raised, discussed and resolved. There will be
Page: 74
disagreements. I will be surprised if they agree on every single thing, but that is the nature of advocacy.
But does it therefore mean that when you amplify one particular story, two particular stories; and claim that it represents the entire landscape? It is not about dismissing editorials like The New York Times. I think it is about asking, "On what basis, do we, therefore, say that there is a chronic problem in Singapore?"
There are cases but when you look at the numbers that are surfaced by the NGOs – and this is from the entire domain space of all the various NGOs – the numbers amount to 600-over, 700 cases. That is less than 0.1% of the entire foreign workforce. Do we, therefore, then make statements like, "Oh, foreign workers are being systematically abused and taken advantage of in Singapore"?
In MOM, we handle a lot more cases than all the NGOs. Even when we put together all the different types of disputes and disagreements, it is about 7,000 and they are wide-ranging. There are serious ones and also minor ones. That is about 1% of the foreign workforce.
In my personal view, it is far-fetched to therefore use this brush to then tar not only employers but Singaporeans as well. Because the picture painted – and foreign media, some of them happily just echo it – would just give the impression that Singapore treats foreign workers poorly. I believe that there are egregious practices and we will endeavour to stamp it out and take actions accordingly. But I do not believe that that represents the scene here. But we will continue to work with all partners on this matter.
Mdm Speaker, I have two clarifications for Deputy Prime Minister Teo. The first relates to the COI hearings. Earlier in his statement, he mentioned that the Committee would decide which parts of the Inquiry would be held in public or otherwise. My understanding of the Inquiries Act is that the Minister can also give directions to the Committee on whether parts of the Inquiry should be held in public or not. So, I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister Teo whether he agrees that in this case it is highly desirable that the COI hearings be held as publicly as possible. In this respect, would he be directing or at least encouraging the Committee to look at this aspect.
The second clarification concerns policing arrangements which I asked about in Little India. Earlier, Deputy Prime Minister Teo mentioned that prior to 8 December, the task of dealing with anti-social behaviour as well as the
Page: 75
concerns of local residents were dealt with by the Auxiliary Police. I like to clarify whether he meant that these roles have been outsourced to the Auxiliary Police or whether he could tell us more about what roles the Singapore Police Force retained in dealing with anti-social behaviour and the concerns of local residents in the area prior to the riot.
Mdm Speaker, the laws on the COI provide for the Chairman to decide which parts of the hearing will be held in public and which parts should not be. But I do expect the hearings for the most part will be held in public unless there are strong reasons not to.
With regard to policing arrangements, in Little India and in several of the other congregation areas where we have foreign workers, what we are dealing with is social dis-amenities. As others have pointed out, we should try not to have a very heavy hand in managing the social dis-amenities. Ms Irene Ng, for example, pointed out that we should try and educate foreign workers on our social norms.
That is one of the reasons why we have used Auxiliary Police Officers and security officers because their main duty is to deal with some of the social disamenities that may occur. It is quite appropriate to use Auxiliary Police Officers and security officers to principally deal with these social dis-amenities. Where there are people who are defiant, and do not follow the direction or the advice or the guidance from Auxiliary Police Officers and security officers and they do require Police Officers to step in order to enforce the law which means then to take a stronger approach, then the Police are called in and they will deal with it. I think that is probably the most appropriate, calibrated and graduated approach to deal with such issues.
Mdm Speaker, can I just clarify on the earlier points on my position?
Keep your clarification short.
A very short clarification. One, I want to make clear that I do not believe that Singapore systematically mistreats its foreign workers. Nowhere in my questions did I state that. I did not say it is the key factor in causing the riots. But I did raise the question of whether the COI should consider it as a factor because it has been raised on the ground as a possible factor. Even if it is not a factor, COI could very well dismiss it after investigations that it is not a factor. But it does not mean that we should rule it out entirely for
Page: 76
the COI to consider.
My second point is that I take exception to being accused of indulging in speculation. I am a Member of Parliament reflecting issues on the ground and the concerns on the ground and hoping that the Minister will assure me that these are factors that would be taken into account by the COI.
Mdm Speaker, I do apologise if I mistook what Ms Irene Ng said for speculation. But as I explained, the terms of reference: (1) to establish the factors and circumstances that led to the riot in Little India on 8 December 2013; (2) give the COI the latitude to examine any factors that they find relevant to consider them as causal factors or to dismiss them.
I have three supplementary questions for Deputy Prime Minister Teo. The first is what were the specific incidents exactly that gave the Ministry reason to identify alcohol as one of the underlying causes of the riot?
Secondly, regarding the safety of foreign workers in Little India as a result of the death in the traffic accident, are there safe places for the drop-off and pick-up of foreign workers in the very high traffic areas around Little India? And how do we moving forward intend to manage the high pedestrian traffic and vehicular traffic there?
Finally, what is the Ministry's view that it was largely the emergency vehicles and Police personnel who were the target of the rioters, and whether that is indicative of the attitudes of foreign workers towards these figures of authority and the state of their ongoing relationship?
I will try and answer the last question first. I am sure this is one of the areas which the COI will look into. I would not want to indulge in speculation.
With regard to the alcohol issue, we do have indications that alcohol was a factor and that certain of the individuals who may have been directly involved in the incidents leading to the riot or in the riot were under the influence of alcohol to one extent or another. We do know that alcohol containers were used during the riot because our Home Team officers received quite a number of them. We think that alcohol was a contributory factor though probably not the only factor.
Page: 77
The safety of foreign workers in high traffic areas: indeed, in 1997 already, there was an inter-agency working group to look at Little India to engage the stakeholders to look at some of the things that should be done. This again was looked at in detail in 2009. Some of the measures that were taken included putting up barriers along the road, in Serangoon Road, widening some of the footpaths, covering some of the drains to make sure that there is more space for pedestrians to move in that area and also the organisation of the Little India bus services to have timekeepers, persons who organise the queues and so on. These things are in place to make sure that the bus services, the traffic, the pedestrian traffic in Little India are kept in as orderly a manner as possible.
Of course, it is not possible to prevent every accident from taking place, and even accidents that can result in fatalities. And it does require also the responsibility on the part of individuals to take care of themselves. That requires a combination of measures and, by and large, we have been able to do so even with large numbers of people there, in a relatively safe and controlled way.
We will continue to look at what further measures are needed. As I mentioned, some of the measures that LTA is looking at include putting up more barriers where the buses are. And also establishing queue heads; so foreign workers know these are the places where they can queue for the buses and so on. So, these are some of the other measures that we are looking at.
Mdm Speaker, I have two supplementary questions for the Acting Minister of Manpower. First, to remedy the damage to the international reputation of Singapore as portrayed by the foreign media as well as to correct the unfair portrayal of Singapore and Singaporeans who are largely civil and gracious, may I ask what will the Ministry be doing to engage these foreign media, perhaps together with NGOs, so that they have a clearer understanding of how we treat our foreign workers in Singapore and, hopefully, to put the fact out there that Singapore remains a civil and gracious society even towards the foreign workers in Singapore? This is something that I am concerned about.
The second supplementary question is that the Acting Minister mentioned in his speech that MOM is looking into encouraging employers to schedule their days off on different days so as to reduce the concentration of foreign workers in certain popular areas. I presume that that is an acknowledgement that this is one possible way of addressing the issue. May I ask what will the Ministry be doing in concrete steps to coordinate and, perhaps, facilitate this?
Page: 78
Mdm Speaker, if I may take the second question first. We are exploring the possibilities with companies to juggle the days off. Companies with a larger capacity will have more flexibility. Rather than rostering all their days off on the weekend, they could rotate it and work out some sort of a schedule. This is something that we are open to and will work with the industries to explore how best to do it.
What it does is it spreads out the numbers. At the end of it, foreign workers do need to go to places on their days off, whether it is the recreation centres, or Little India, or elsewhere. I think that is something that will continue to happen but there are various measures that we can take; and this is just one small measure that we believe we can work on with the industry.
With regard to the first question, well, there will be editorials and there will be newspapers that will quite happily carry these lines. I believe many of them choose to echo the perspectives shared by some Singaporeans. I would believe that the views of some of these individuals may not necessarily reflect the NGOs' views. I fully understand where the NGOs are coming from. If I am an NGO that looks out for foreign workers who are having problems: within my domain space, foreign workers who come to see me will all have problems, would I be frustrated and angry? Yes. But does this therefore mean that every single foreign worker is unhappy and being ill treated? No. I do not believe so.
We do watch that carefully because we are concerned. We do want to maintain harmonious industrial relations in Singapore. The statistics from what we can see, the numbers, the cases that we deal with, and our sense of the situation working close with the NGOs, do not indicate that there is a systemic problem.
We will continue to work with the NGOs. We will continue to put out our positions. How the foreign media choose to carry them depends on them. When there are occasions for us to speak to foreign media who might be keen to find out more, we will do so – as I have, for example, in my Bloomberg interview. I shared my perspective and what is left is for the international community to determine for themselves.
Inevitably, there are some negative perspectives. Do they therefore represent the realities on the ground? Unfortunately, amplification does have an impact. I am sure it will impact those who are less familiar with the scene in Singapore. It is important for us to continue to put out our positions, put out clarifications as best as we can. It is more important for Singaporeans to also
Page: 79
have a perspective about the situation. I know that sometimes we do feel annoyed or angry when we read of cases of individuals, whether foreign or local, who are taken advantage of by their employers. We will try to deal with them as best as we can, but those cases, when amplified, do not necessarily represent the entire scene. It is important for us to understand that.
Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I have two questions for the Deputy Prime Minister. The first relates to alcohol. The Prime Minister indicated that there were 374 liquor licences issued for 2013, of which 43 are inactive. But generally, the figures show an upward trend.
I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether 300 over liquor licences in a 1.1 square kilometre area – roughly – would that not be an excessive number of liquor licences? Perhaps, the Deputy Prime Minister could explain how the Liquor Licensing Board issues these liquor licences, given that alcohol has been fingered for a long time for the many social disamenities there.
The second question relates to the information dissemination by the Police, as well as by the mainstream media. The lack of information actually contributes more to public anxiety and panic. The Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that Police issued an advisory two hours after the accident. By then social media was already abuzz with information on this riot. A lot of inaccurate information was flying about. The Police needs to relook information dissemination. The lack of information contributes to greater public anxiety.
Yes, thank you. On the issue of public information, I do agree with the Member. The dilemma that agencies face in such a situation always is "How much to say", "What to say", particularly when the situation is not entirely clear to them. They usually want to go out and say something that is sensible and which is more informational, and when they have more information on the situation. This is something I have asked the Police to look into to see whether they can improve on the information flow and the speed of the information flow.
On the number of liquor licences in a proclaimed area of Little India, Assoc Prof Eugene Tan said there has been an increase, but when I looked at it, I do not see an increase. In fact, I see a stable situation in the last five years. I do not agree with the mathematical interpretation.
Page: 80
We are looking at alcohol control measures as a whole in Singapore and to see whether there are things which we need to do, additional control measures that we need to put in place, not just in Little India but other places as well. That public consultation began on 29 October 2013 before this riot took place. In fact, quite coincidentally, one of the major newspaper items in The Straits Times on 9 December was a feature on the consultation on the alcohol control measures that we had been proposing to put in place. We will look at those measures to see what makes sense.
Madam, on the COI, I see that the Chairman is a legal expert but there is one Police Officer, then there is a Unionist and there is a grassroots leader, but I see there is a missing link. Would it have been better to have a businessman from SBF or Chambers of Commerce who would understand the business needs, because all the other areas you are well covered but that one is a missing link. Deputy Prime Minister, would you like to comment on that?
Yes, indeed. We did consider whether we should put in somebody from the Singapore Business Federation but we thought that for some of the issues related to the riot, people may feel that the employer may not be in the best position to look at these things from an objective point of view.
We have decided that we will choose four people; each with different types of expertise. Judge G Pannir Selvam is a well respected judge and he has also had experience, with an appointment by the Commonwealth, looking into issues in relation to another country in the Commonwealth. Judge G Pannir Selvam is a well respected judge.
We have a representative from the grassroots, Mr Andrew Chua Thiam Chwee, who has experience in working with the community and foreign workers who are living and working in the vicinity. He has experience working these relationships. Mr Tee Tua Ba, is a well respected former Police Commissioner. He understands these issues and has seen riots himself. He would have a perspective on this which I think would be very useful.
We also decided to have someone who has union experience. Most Members may not be aware but a number of our unions do have members who are foreign workers. These are workers in the shipyards, shipbuilding industry as well as in the construction industry. We felt that a unionist would also bring a useful perspective. If there are perspectives which the business community
Page: 81
has, I am sure that the COI would be happy to look at them.
Mdm Speaker, to have quelled a riot without a shot fired and to contain it within the vicinity is certainly admirable. The Home Team has worked very swiftly and operationally effectively. My question ready for the Deputy Prime Minister is what if the riot actually turned into a more grave situation?
Operationally – and this goes probably beyond the scope of the COI – would MHA be considering whether they needed any further equipment or whether for personal protection of the SOC or any deterrent measures, or deterrent equipment that would be needed? So, arising from the riot, is there going to be an operational post-mortem on what more we need to beef up or assist our anti-riot Police Force.
That is a very thoughtful question from Mr Christopher de Souza. In fact, these were things that were going through my mind and going through the minds of the Police commanders that night.
Before going to Little India, I was in the Police Command Post to get an assessment of the situation and to make sure that Police had put in place, not just measures to deal with the particular incident at that site, but they had enough resources to deal with incidents should there be a spread to other areas. Having reassured myself of that, I went to the site with the Deputy Commissioner of Police to have a look at what was happening on the ground and met the Commissioner of Police there.
A number of the things that we put in place that night included bringing on the alert the Gurkha contingent, because the Gurkha contingent does have some forces who are able to deal with public disorder situations. But in the event, although we put them on alert, we did not need to deploy them. They remained in the camp and were not required because the SOC forces were adequate to deal with the situation at hand.
Furthermore, the situation did not spread into other areas. I have pointed out what happened that night, but I think more importantly, what did not happen that night. And what did not happen that night was that it did not spread, for example, into the surrounding residential area. There were no running battles in the streets, the dormitories were calm. The Police were there at the dormitories to make sure that things were calm. There was no disorder the next day, and the workplaces were calm. So, there was no need for any additional
Page: 82
forces to be deployed.
But, that night, we did consider and the Police commanders did tell me that this was one of the things that they were putting on standby in case they were needed and I concurred that that was a sensible thing to do.
There are various levels of contingencies available if things had got out of hand. As it stood, the SOC was well able to deal with it. There was no need for additional forces to deal with things which could have happened in other areas. We are looking at equipment and other factors – such as force levels – to make sure that they remain adequate.
I have two quick supplementary questions for Deputy Prime Minister Teo. I have noted Deputy Prime Minister Teo's comment earlier that he will consider no alcohol control laws. Given some of us who are handling areas where there are large congregations of foreign workers, I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister Teo whether this study can be expedited so that we can quickly look at measures that are necessary to control alcohol intoxication and related problems in local areas.
The second supplementary question: Deputy Prime Minister mentioned that additional security measures have been put in place for Little India, for instance the number of Police Officers in the area. I would like to ask Deputy Prime Minister Teo whether similar security measures can also be put in place for areas like in Penjuru Road where there is a big cluster of dormitories, for the similar reasons as Little India.
There are number of different views on alcohol. We have Ms Janice Koh asking just awhile ago whether indeed alcohol was a factor; and how do we know that alcohol was the factor. There are a number of different views and there are people who say that we should restrict alcohol consumption and not allow it in public areas. When I point out to them that if they go for a barbeque in the park with their family and they would like to have beer or a little bit of wine, then that will not be allowed. That is when they say, "Oh! If that is the case, then maybe we need to calibrate it."
I was saying earlier, that the calibration is quite important. Also, we need something that is enforceable, otherwise we would have enforcement officers chasing around just enforcing alcohol laws all over Singapore. That is not necessarily the most productive use of their time, particularly if there had not
Page: 83
been an issue.
With regard to measures in other areas, in 2013, in fact, a number of measures had been taken to improve security and the sense of safety and security of residents in a variety of areas. For example, in Teban Gardens and in the Koon Teck and Soon Lee area, 20 CCTV cameras were installed. I think the residents were quite happy with that. These facilities also complement the presence of APOs and the security officers and help us to give a sense of security and safety without having to use much more manpower because manpower is short everywhere in Singapore. We can also do it in a way which deters without actually having to have a very heavy physical presence.
Thank you, Mdm Speaker. I refer to the chronological events. Madam, at 9.45 pm, a request was made for assistance by Special Operations Command. The first SOC troop arrived at the scene at 10.42 pm, nearly one hour after the request was made. I would like to seek clarification from the Deputy Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the response time of the SOC.
The second clarification is that it was recorded that at 10.30 pm, the first vehicle was set on fire. When the first SOC troop arrived at the scene, no more vehicles was overturned. So, I wonder if SOC had responded faster before 10.30 pm, the setting on fire of vehicles could have been averted.
And, Madam, I thought, perhaps, the bright side of the incident also shows that as a society, we have become a matured multi-racial society. The public was largely unaffected by the incident and they remained calm. Good race relationships in the society remain intact after the incident.
Certainly, a faster response is always better but the question is whether you can be everywhere, simultaneously, all the time. And, therefore, the deployment of the SOC is generally of two types. One, they rotate their on-the-ground presence over different areas where there may be large congregations of people just to project deterrence, be ready. Thus, you will see the SOC from time to time being deployed in various areas where there may be some threats, where they may be required. That provides some level of deterrence on the ground in these specific areas, and it also gives them ground familiarity with the locations. That is one mode of deployment of the SOC.
Another mode of deployment of the SOC is essentially as a Reaction and Reserve Force for the Police for major incidents. They are held centrally at their
Page: 84
base to be deployed. While Singapore is not a very large island, it does take time to move from one place to another, even though the SOC when they are deployed in the base is on very, very high alert for deployment, within minutes if they have to. Even so, they do require time to get from one location to another.
When you have the SOC deployed in this manner, they cannot be everywhere all the time, so a certain response time is required. When the SOC is requested for, because it is an asset which the Police commanders had to decide whether to use it for this or not, there is some decision time required as well. If you deploy it for one thing, then you may not be able to deploy it for another thing and, therefore, some assessment has to be made on the seriousness and urgency. There is always a little time required.
When Mr Low asked if they were present earlier, could the burning of the vehicles have been prevented, I would say, "Yes, perhaps so. They could have been." If, of course, they could have been earlier, and if their presence could have prevented it, that certainly is possible. But is it possible to deploy SOC forces everywhere all the time where incidents may occur, it is probably not possible. In fact, on that night of the incident, one of the troops of the SOC was deployed on the ground for precisely the kind of deterrence patrols, but in a different location. When the alert went out that they might be needed, they recollected themselves and then deployed. So, you have to balance between the two.
I certainly welcome Mr Low's comment that Singaporeans, by and large, responded in a rational and objective way.
Mdm Speaker, three questions for the Deputy Prime Minister and one question for the Acting Minister for Manpower.
I understand that the COI still has work to do before the actual causes and situation around the riot are determined but in preliminary engagement that the Deputy Prime Minister mentioned by various Members of the House with the foreign worker community, has there been any feedback on the interaction with and the treatment by the Police Force of foreign workers in Singapore both before the riots on 8 December and in the aftermath.
Second question would be: has there been any indication that there is a need by the SOC to perhaps rebalance their emphasis on public order versus
Page: 85
public security as their two key priorities currently?
On the point about evidence that there was alcohol at the cause of the riot, it is probably not required for the offences that the accused were arrested for but were breathalysers used for them in any way?
One question for the Acting Minister. The workers in the sectors that were involved in the riots, I believe the emphasis is on keeping this workforce a transient workforce instead of encouraging them to lay down roots in Singapore. But at the same time, there is, of course, as the Acting Minister has mentioned, a need to look out for social and emotional welfare of these foreign workers. How do we balance between these two concerns? Are there any guiding principles of framework that help us to balance these two efforts?
I really am not in a position to comment on the treatment of foreign workers by enforcement officers. Perhaps that is a subject which COI can take up. Again, I do not want to indulge in speculation on what might be the reasons and so on.
On the SOC and its balance between public order and public security, there is a fine line between the two. The SOC has to operate and be ready to deal with both. What is public security and what is public order, they can morph from one to the other in a very short space of time.
In terms of alcohol and breathalysers, our sense is that alcohol was a contributory factor. It may not have been the main factor; it was a contributory factor. And because some of these are evidential, I think I will leave it to the evidence that is produced in court, when the persons involved are charged.
Mdm Speaker, this is not definitive and we will await the findings of the COI, but from the surveys that we have conducted with the foreign workers, one of the many reasons that they cite, for wanting to come to Singapore, is that this is a safe place. This is a place where they know they can be looked after and they can rely on the security, the laws, and so on. While that may not necessarily be indicative and a direct response to the Member's question and questions raised by others, it is indicative of how they view the society in which they are working in.
With regard to the Member's question about how to balance their needs, I would say that in the aftermath of this incident, we are very mindful that we do not generalise the entire foreign workforce as having the propensity to riot. We
Page: 86
know that problem like this can happen. It is actually remarkable that no incident like this has happened previously. It is the first riot of this nature in a very long time.
What we need to recognise is that foreign workers, as with any worker in Singapore, do have needs. Their basic needs have to be met. Obviously, they do have needs that are slightly different. They need to remit money back home and one of the areas in which they are preoccupied with is how they contact home. Those facilities have to be provided. The infrastructure, the services: these things need to be provided. That is where recreation centres or even dormitories come in. Are we able to provide some of these infrastructures so that it is convenient for them?
As to where they gather, frankly, there is no particular limitation as to where they can gather. I do not believe that we should be moving towards a society where we segregate Singaporeans and foreign workers. Foreign workers are part of the landscape. But does it mean that we should not manage that space? I think we should manage that space, but in a sensible manner.
So, clearly, in the aftermath of this, we do need to manage shared spaces in order to minimise probability of these incidents happening and to continue the education process so that foreign workers do understand the norms here.
Thank you, Mdm Speaker. My question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I attended the Thaipusam celebrations on Friday evening at the Dhoby Ghaut area as the procession made its way to the Tank Road temple. I had a chance to speak with some Indian Singaporeans who were rather unhappy about the imposition of the no-alcohol zone indefinitely. Their argument was quite simple – they are responsible drinkers. They are responsible drinkers who are Singaporeans or foreign workers. More importantly, alcohol has been available for years in the Little India area. So, their question —
Mr Singh, please confine your clarifications to the point at hand.
Yes, I am coming to it now. Their question was quite straightforward: when can the no-alcohol zone be expected to be lifted in Little India back to the pre-riot time?
Page: 87
Mdm Speaker, there is clearly a variety of opinions here with regard to whether alcohol is a factor or not a factor. And, obviously, Mr Pritam Singh feels that alcohol should be allowed back in Little India as before. There may be different opinions as to whether that is reasonable or sensible to do. As I said, we are looking at the various measures, not just in Little India but all over Singapore to see what is reasonable and what is suitable.
I should also say that on the first weekend, we had a total ban on alcohol sale and consumption. In fact, alcohol is available even on weekends in Little India today. What we have done is curtail the hours for sale or takeaway. This has been publicly stated in the newspapers. Mr Pritam Singh could have informed those particular persons who brought the matter to him that, in fact, there is no total ban on alcohol in Little India. And, in fact, the sale and consumption of alcohol within premises is allowed.
The only two things that are in place is the ban on consumption of alcohol in public areas during the specified times, and also the curtailment of the sale of alcohol in retail and wholesale outlets, basically, for takeaway purposes. There may be others who have views on whether the sale of alcohol should go back to where it was before.
Last clarification, Ms Denise Phua.
Perhaps, Mr Pritam would like to know that I did a house-to-house visit, and the residents of a block that is located just above a row of shops that sell alcohol of various kinds, with alcohol decked from floor to ceiling and wall to wall, and more than 80% of the residents say, "Please do not stop the ban". That is a data point for the Deputy Prime Minister.
I also want to thank the Home Team, especially for doing their best under the circumstances during the riot, and also, more importantly, on a daily basis, the Home Team members who have been helping to manage the disamenities issues that arise from the congregation of foreign workers. The Home Teams from Rochor Neighbourhood Police Post and Marina Bay as well. So, I want to register that record of thanks.
The second point is I would like to highlight to the Deputy Prime Minister the concerns of this special stakeholder group. We have lobby groups for the businesses and lobby groups for the foreign workers. But none for the special group, that is, the residents, especially those who are living in city areas which
Page: 88
are very appealing to the foreign workers, and where there is high foreign worker congregation. Many of these residents are families with young children, elderly, daughters and wives and they are concerned with too many foreign workers congregating in their living spaces, below their flats.
I would like to seek the assurance of the Deputy Prime Minister for a whole-of-Government integrated approach to develop a series of differentiated and additional measures so that these residents will have more peace of mind; and so that they have more privacy where they live; and also, to return the use of the communal spaces that are meant for them – places like the playground, the pavilions, the elderly equipment areas and even the shops at the void decks. Can we return the use of those spaces to the residents?
I would like to ask for differentiated measures that are stricter for those zones that are closer to where residents live, especially in the public housing estates. For your consideration, please.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo, you have indicated you wish to round up; you may want to do that as well.
Thank you, Mdm Speaker. First of all, I would like to thank Ms Denise Phua for speaking up for residents. And I would also like to thank her for her help and for the consideration of her residents as well over these many years and also during this particularly difficult period. I think they have been very constructive and very helpful in restoring calm and order in Little India.
Mdm Speaker, a number of points have been raised with regard to the COI: suggestions on what they should be looking at and so on. The terms of reference of the COI provide enough latitude for the COI to look into all the issues that are relevant. Among all the many issues, the COI will be able to come to some resolution of what were the factors that caused the riot in Little India that night.
Let me close by making a few points. We talked about what happened that night, and I spoke a little bit about what did not happen that night. One of the things that did not happen that night, and which I am grateful for, is this: consider what would have happened if we had woken up to headlines the next morning reporting that the Police had opened fire, resulting in serious injuries or fatalities. We would be having a very different kind of discussion in
Page: 89
Parliament today.
We would not be discussing whether the Police's response was adequate, but we will be discussing whether they had used excessive force or had acted rashly, inadvertently escalating the situation.
We would not be discussing whether those involved in the riot were given due process under the law, but we will be discussing why they were shot at. That would be a very different kind of discussion.
Mdm Speaker, while we have discussed what happened that night and the chronology of what happened that night, I want to emphasise that the situation was evolving very quickly. Individual officers on the ground had to make critical decisions. The commanders on the ground also had to make very critical decisions.
It is very easy in hindsight to say they should have done this or that, they could have been faster, they could have done this, they should have done that, they should have had more of this, they should have had more of that. The commanders, the officers on the ground had to make decisions which could have turned events one way or another.
I have described what happened that night. I have also described what could have happened but did not happen. And I am grateful for that.
Mdm Speaker, let me close by reiterating two key lessons from the Little India riot. First, in a stable and peaceful society, serious incidents like these can happen. We are not able to anticipate everything, every detail; we cannot plan for everything, every detail. What is most important is that we are prepared and are able to deal with crises decisively, swiftly, flexibly, adaptively and appropriately when they do arise. As I said earlier, we cannot be crisis-proof. We cannot prevent everything from happening. But we can be resilient and we can be crisis-ready, both the Home Team as well as our population.
Secondly, we should never take peace for granted. We were able to bounce back quickly and recover from the effects of the riot because of a strong social compact, as well as trust and partnership between the Home Team and the community that have been built up over many years. The Home Team will continue to work hand-in-hand together with the community to preserve the safety and security levels that Singaporeans have been enjoying, and will
Page: 90
continue to earn the trust of Singaporeans.
Mdm Speaker, we will learn from the Little India riot and take practical steps to prevent a recurrence. We will incorporate the learning points and public feedback regarding alcohol control measures, as well as management of foreign worker congregation areas, and see how they can be applied, not just in Little India, but elsewhere in Singapore.
We will also learn from the Committee of Inquiry's findings and recommendations when those are ready. I will bring that Report to Parliament when I receive it. I am confident that we will emerge more prepared, more ready and stronger from this incident. Thank you, Mdm Speaker [Applause].
A clarification.
Mr Singh, the clarifications are over.
A very brief one, Mdm Speaker.
Very briefly.
I completely empathise with them, but that situation really was a licensing issue that could have been resolved earlier. Unfortunately, it took a riot to do so. More than that, the point I want to make is —
Mr Singh, you are reopening the whole debate. So, make your last point.
The last point – whatever the rules that the Government applies with regard to Little India in future and no alcohol zones, as long as they are applied across the board, I think I will be satisfied with that. Thank you.
Deputy Prime Minister Teo.
Mdm Speaker, I think it is quite unfortunate that Mr Pritam Singh is taking liberties with this very serious matter to make points in the very loose manner that he has done. First of all, I pointed out that when the matter was raised to him by members of the public, as a responsible Member of Parliament, he could have given them a very sensible reply, instead of echoing those sentiments here in Parliament. Second, now, he has stood up to
Page: 91
support Ms Denise Phua when, in fact, he had stood up earlier to argue for the restoration of alcohol consumption and sale in Little India to where they were before. I really am very puzzled by the position that he is taking and quite disappointed [Applause].
Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.15 pm.
Sitting accordingly suspended
at 4.55 pm until 5.15 pm.
Sitting resumed at 5.15 pm
[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]
PAPERCUTS