Madam, the riot in Little India was the most serious public order incident in
Singapore in over 4 decades. And lest we forget, it occurred
just over 9 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 PO(P)A 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.
So several Members, too many for me to list, I hope, but I think you know who you are, have said, why can't we just continue with the
present arrangement -- in other words to just continue relying on the Public Order (Preservation) Act, PO(P)A.
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 the PO(P)A.
The powers under PO(P)A are extensive, some would say even draconian, and 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 implement curfews
and even use lethal force. This is not a case of
moving the Bill because we have insufficient powers, as Mr Chen 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
the PO(P)A is neither necessary nor desirable. Indeed Madam, the logic offered by several
Members is quite elusive -- because it is 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
don't we just continue using the Public Order (Preservation) Act which has got extensive powers
and will not invite this level of scrutiny. If
you are prepared to accord the authorities the powers under
the PO(P)A, then why are you reluctant to accord the powers which are significantly
reduced compared to PO(P)A as reflected in the Bill.
If you are concerned about safeguards in 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 the Public Order (Preservation)
Act. And if you are concerned that somehow this Bill will somehow 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 to after the COI -- the suggestion here is that the COI will finish its work
in a few months and we can get on with whatever we need
to do. 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 be
deliberated upon and appropriate measures be put in place. So there is considerable
time still ahead -- 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 PO(P)A, to continue with the measures to maintain
law and order in Little India.
Mr Eugene Tan has asked whether it could have been possible to amend existing laws.
Madam, we did consider this option. But, the intent and provisions in the existing
laws are worded generally to deal with broad law and
order situations and 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't we wait for the COI. Some have characterised it as a kneejerk,
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.
Madam Speaker, it seems to me that we have 3 choices: One, we continue with the
current arrangements with all its powers in PO(P)A. The question that we have to ask ourselves
is, what precedent does it set to use such pieces of legislation with extreme powers
in a situation like this, and what sort of risks does that
pose? Another alternative is to revert to the status quo to
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 PO(P)A, 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 Parade. I agree with the Members that in investing
such powers in our officers, we must ensure that they exercise them with sensitivity,
with prudence and with care. That is the training
and the culture in the Police force and our other
enforcement agencies and 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 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, are we jumping the gun; where is the evidence or causality that directly
links alcohol consumption to this incident. Well, Madam, our Police officers on ground do
not have the luxury of contemplating a variety of
options when there is a clear 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, a positive attribution for this incident.
Indeed the operational assessment of the Police is not unique.
You have heard other Members of this House speak on the matter and 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.
So I want to assure several Members like, Ms Foo and Mr Dhinakaran, that our
enforcement agencies, like Police and the 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 order, where necessary.
So while 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, and 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
is 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 -- 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 apply
equally to all persons, and business operators within the special zone without exception,
whatever their ethnicity, whatever their 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, acting on reasonable suspicion. And 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.
And 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 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.