(Paper Cmd. 4 of 2003)
Sir, first let me respond to Prof. Chin's point. His point is very specific. He has made a renewed call for Traffic Police to be merged with the Land Transport Authority. Let me inform him that his call has not fallen on deaf ears because discussions are now underway between MHA and the Ministry of Transport and we plan to effect the transfer by the middle of this year. As Members are aware, traffic management and control today come under two agencies, namely, LTA and the Traffic Police. This has resulted in unnecessary coordination issues. Other than the reason that if we take away Traffic Police from MHA agencies, MHA would then be able to concentrate more on law and order problems, the more positive rationale, and one which would benefit Singaporeans, will be that there will be greater synergy if this is done. Let me cite a few examples. First, duplication of technology can be avoided. Today, LTA locates cameras at the traffic junctions and the expressways and tunnels to monitor traffic flows. Traffic Police, on the other hand, separately operates the red light and speed camera systems for surveillance against specific traffic offences. There is much potential therefore in streamlining these systems. For example, a camera system can be developed for both the monitoring of traffic at major junctions and for surveillance against red light offences. Duplication of systems can therefore be avoided, resulting in cost savings. Second, enforcement can be streamlined. Today, Traffic Police enforces traffic violations such as speeding. On the other hand, LTA enforces illegal modifications to vehicles. However, illegal modifications also compromise road safety. So there is some overlap there. For instance, a driver who has installed tinted glass windows may find it hard to see on-coming traffic clearly and thus overtake dangerously. It is counter-productive for Traffic Police or LTA to enforce against one offence, whether it is reckless driving or illegal modification, without also having the authority to enforce the other. Such gaps only compromise safety on our roads. 3.30 pm Thirdly, the setting of rules and the downstream enforcement of these rules. For example, as part of LTA's measures to encourage usage of public transport, it is an offence to drive in a bus lane during peak hours. However, it is Traffic Police's responsibility to process the summonses, impose demerit points and also attend to appeals for such violations. This is clearly undesirable, as the agency responsible for defining the rules should also enforce the rules to ensure consistency from policy formulation to downstream enforcement. Hence, by integrating all traffic issues under a single agency, the enlarged LTA will be able to offer better service to all road-users. LTA will then have a direct hand in influencing road-user behaviour, and strengthen its own mission of creating an excellent land transport system. MHA officials and officials from the Ministry of Transport have made good progress at the working level and we will announce specific details of the transfer when these are ready. Let me now address Mr Chandra Mohan and Mr Steve Chia's points. Both Mr Chandra Mohan and Mr Steve Chia made a call, for example, for more opportunities for Singaporeans to speak in public. Mr Steve Chia's point is that of the number of licences and permits that must be applied for. First, I want to say this. As Mr Chandra Mohan himself has said, yes, we do have fundamental rights and liberties in the Constitution, and he has mentioned some of these. But, at the same time, the same Articles in the Constitution also set parameters - security, public order, morality. I think Mr Chandra Mohan, in his speech, also recognises that Singapore is a unique society, special in a very small country physically, compact, and we are also multi-racial, multi-religious. Therefore, working the Constitution, we have to derive positions which take into consideration and recognise the situation in Singapore. And, indeed, every country has to strike a delicate balance between these fundamental liberties on the one hand, and law and order concerns on the other. Therefore, it is not just a matter of saying why can other countries do it, why can we not do it. Because circumstances are different, eg, our historical experiences are different. Mr Chandra Mohan asked why can we not have peaceful demonstrations. There is, in fact, contradiction in terms there, because large gatherings of people can start peaceful but can turn violent, particularly if it is on matters of race, religion or politics, where different people may have different opinions and different groups may gather, then you will have clashes. And, indeed, even in other countries with regard to this latest spate of gatherings on the possibility of a war in Iraq, some of the demonstrations have turned violent. So, I think we have to be careful there. Hence, our position all these years has been clear. Police will not allow public talks on matters such as race, religion and politics to be given in open spaces as they may cause disaffection or elicit mock response when inflammatory speeches are given. But meetings can be held indoors or in sports stadiums where the conditions are different and there is better control, and the concerns of law and order can be better taken care of. The Police also disallows public assemblies if public order may be compromised. Likewise, the Registrar of Societies will refuse registration of groups that are prejudicial to public order or national interest. Having said this, I think we must give credit where it is due, and this is that the Police and the Registrar of Societies exercise their discretion judiciously under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, the Miscellaneous Offences Act and the Societies Act. Police and the Registrar of Societies administer these Acts even-handedly and with a light touch. Let me cite some figures. Over the two-year period, 2001-2002, Police approved 1,403 applications for public talks, and rejected only four such applications. In other words, a high approval rate of 99.7%. Of the four applications, three were rejected because of law and order concerns, while the remaining one was rejected because the application was made on the eve of the intended event. Mr Chandra Mohan must surely appreciate the fact that rules have been relaxed, and I say this also to Mr Steve Chia who made that point because, over time, Police also reassesses changed conditions and where the possibility of relaxation comes in, that can be considered. For example, since September 2000, Singaporeans can speak at the Speakers' Corner without the need for a public entertainment licence. That is a major relaxation. And, indeed, recently, a political association held an installation art exhibition at the Speakers' Corner. Mr Chandra Mohan asked how other countries handle public expressions and what the international community and media think about us. Like I have said, we have to formulate rules to fit Singapore because, basically essential and ultimately, it is the safety and security of Singaporeans that really matter and, of course, for investors and tourists who are here. Here again, I think Singapore has scored very well in terms of public safety for many years at international polls. I think we must maintain this position. In fact, other countries probably look at us and wonder how we do it. So, before we throw the baby out with the bathwater, let us have a care. And for these reasons, Singaporeans enjoy a great sense of safety and security. Of course, in terms of history also, we recall turbulent times in the past. Though those times may be many years away physically in terms of number of years, but given the make-up of our society, it can resurface if we are not careful. Mr Chandra Mohan also asked about the Societies Act. Here again, the Societies Act has been applied with a light touch. In fact, in MHA, I have said earlier on when I answered earlier questions, we review our Acts and measures all the time to see how they can be improved. And, in the same vein, we have also looked at the Societies Act. Rarely has the Registrar had to refuse registration. When he does, it is for very good reasons. The Registrar, in fact, cites the relevant ground of refusal provided under the Act and which clause it comes under, eg, that the society is likely to be used for unlawful purpose or for purposes prejudicial to public peace or order. So the rejected applicant will know on what basis the rejection has taken place. Between 1998 and 2001, the Registrar approved 888 applications and rejected only 7 applications. Last year, 263 applications were approved and only 3 applications, from two religious groups and a third group suspected of being involved in secret society activities, were rejected. So, indeed, the number of registered societies has grown from 5,377 in 1999 to 5,642 as at end of last year. Moving forward and taking a pro-active stance, ROS has been experimenting since January 2002 with a fast-track registration scheme for societies that pose minimal law and order, safety and security concerns. These societies can be registered on the basis of the applicant self-declaring that the society meets certain criteria. For instance, its objects and activities must not relate to politics, religion and ethnicity, and it must not have foreign connections. These are well grounded reasons. Now, we are considering whether and how we can allow eligible societies to be registered automatically. So, we are trying to improve all the time. I think that is something that Mr Chandra Mohan and others like him should appreciate. So, there is really no need to hold a big seminar where we take feedback from everybody, because we are always open to feedback. I myself, I am sure he would know, have also met some groups to discuss the Societies Act. Mr Chandra Mohan suggested that the Registrar of Societies should play a bigger role in enhancing and, indeed, even in financing the activities of NGOs and civil society groups. I think he should think carefully about this call, because it is really not a wise move. Why? Because these NGOs who seek help from the Government may lose their credibility. Civil society groups must make themselves relevant and be able to engage and convince citizens to identify with their causes. It is not true that NGOs find difficulty in getting premises to hold meetings and so forth. Over the past few years, civil society in Singapore has grown, and NGOs espousing various causes have sprung up. So, I think we should leave them be. There is space for them to grow. The ROS is certainly not an instrument to clamp them down. And like I have said, from the figures and from our approach, in fact, we are pro-societies. Of course, the Registrar of Societies must have the discretion to act against societies; hence, even constitutionally, law and order and other parameters are set out. Mr Steve Chia has talked about permits. Like I have explained just now, there is a need for us to control gatherings of large people in Singapore. Therefore, there is a need for a permit if you want to hold a large meeting in public. As shown by the figures given just now, it is not difficult to apply for a permit and, particularly, in the context of meeting rooms and sports stadiums, they have been granted before. He asked about licences. Here again, MHA administers this matter with a light touch. For example, Police, currently, administers licences and permits under nine pieces of legislation. We have considered whether or not such pieces of legislation are necessary and we have found them to be so. Let me give you an example of the Arms and Explosives Act. There is a need to control the importation and possession of arms and explosives. I think Mr Chia will agree that we need to continue with this regime. Likewise, the Private Investigation and Security Agencies Act, so that anyone who wants to be a private investigator or security guard will have to be screened. So, there is every reason why a permit is required. How about public activities, which Mr Chia has focused on? Let me say there are 15 types of public entertainment licences catering to entertainment businesses and to those who wish to organise ad hoc public entertainment. These licences are, for example, for performance of public talks and for operating billiard saloons and games machines. If Mr Chia sits back and thinks about it, there is every reason why we should require these licences, not that they are not granted. When the conditions are met, they are granted. For example, control over computer games arcades and pubs are required, so that on application, Police can look at it and see whether, eg, they are in residential areas, too near to HDB areas, thus posing social concerns and possibly too accessible to the young people. Or, for example, whether or not large outdoor entertainment events could be held at a certain place, it is necessary to consider whether or not there will be disamenity caused to the residents, traffic problems or law and order problems. I am sure he will appreciate that, over the years, he would have seen MHA assess the relevancy of licences and, where possible, we have done away with some of these licences. I am not sure whether he was in the House in the year 2000, when I moved a Bill to amend the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act. Part of the scheme of the Bill was to introduce an exemption scheme where certain activities were exempted under class exemption. Hence, under this amendment to the Act, we exempted 10 categories of activities. And, indeed, the Speakers' Corner also arose from this exemption. People who speak at the Speakers' Corner will not need to apply for a licence. 3.45 pm In July last year, Police implemented a one-stop public entertainment licensing centre (or OSPEC). I think Mr Chia is also aware of that, particularly in helping people who want to start entertainment activities, pubs, for example. So OSPEC, in fact, as a one-step centre, has helped to bring down processing time to two weeks. That was about a year-and-a-half ago. Of course, like I have said, in MHA, we always see whether we can improve our processes. So, here, Police is currently looking at computerising its licensing operations. When the system "PLUS" is ready later this year, we can expect the processing time to be further reduced to seven working days for establishment licence applications. Let me assure both Mr Chandra and Mr Steve Chia that when licences or permits are imposed, they are for good reasons. If they are no longer necessary, we will modify them or, in some cases, even remove them, and this is an on-going process. Ms Braema Mathi has made several points which are not quite in line with her topic, because she made quite diverse points, for example, whether or not we can act against brothel owners in Bintan and Batam. I am sure she appreciates that Bintan and Batam are out of Singapore's criminal jurisdiction. Certainly, in terms of what our Police can do, we cannot do anything. What, of course, we can do is we can discourage our men from going to visit these places. I think, here, families can play a part. The other point is whether or not those who come to Singapore are being trafficked. Yes, indeed, many illegals come to Singapore; others overstay. But those illegals who come to Singapore, they come on their own or some of them are smuggled in. But that is not the same as trafficking, because trafficking means that you are brought in against your will. In the case of foreigners who enter Singapore illegally, they all come voluntarily looking for a better life. Some are smuggled in. As far as Singapore is concerned, I think she knows that we take a very tough position against all illegals who come, as well as smugglers or conveyors, as they are called. For example, last year, about 50 of such conveyors were arrested by us. We have, in fact, tough laws, particularly against such smugglers. As for conventions, I think, again, this is a very specific point. Really, different conventions come under different Ministries. I think the conventions she has mentioned relating to the children are under the purview of MCDS. If she wants to ask a specific question, she should file a Question.