Hansard, 2009-04-13

Under the provisions of clause 2(d) of Article 46 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore, the following Members have been granted permission to be or to remain absent from sittings of Parliament (or any Committee of Parliament to which they have been appointed) for the periods stated: Name From (2009) To (2009) Mr Sam Tan Chin Siong 27 Mar 29 Mar 04 Apr 11 Apr Mr Tharman Shanmugaratnam 27 Mar 28 Mar 08 Apr 09 Apr Dr Ahmad Mohd Magad 29 Mar 04 Apr 07 Apr 10 Apr Mr Wong Kan Seng 30 Mar 04 Apr 09 Apr 12 Apr 21 Apr 27 Apr RAdm [NS] Lui Tuck Yew 02 Apr 04 Apr 14 Apr 16 Apr Assoc. Prof. Dr Yaacob Ibrahim 03 Apr 10 Apr Dr Fatimah Lateef 04 Apr 12 Apr Ms Indranee Rajah 04 Apr 12 Apr Mr Mah Bow Tan 04 Apr 06 Apr 22 Apr 24 Apr Mr Raymond Lim Siang Keat 04 Apr 06 Apr Dr Vivian Balakrishnan 05 Apr 05 Apr Mr K Shanmugam 06 Apr 10 Apr Mr Chan Soo Sen 07 Apr 15 Apr Mr S Iswaran 07 Apr 11 Apr Dr Lily Neo 08 Apr 15 Apr Mr George Yong-Boon Yeo 09 Apr 12 Apr Dr Lee Boon Yang 09 Apr 12 Apr Column: 3621Mr Baey Yam Keng 10 Apr 12 Apr Mr Lee Hsien Loong 10 Apr 12 Apr Mr Lim Hng Kiang 10 Apr 12 Apr Dr Balaji Sadasivan 11 Apr 14 Apr Miss Penny Low 11 Apr 13 Apr Ms Eunice Elizabeth Olsen 13 Apr 13 Apr Mr Lee Kuan Yew 13 Apr 17 Apr Mr Ong Kian Min 13 Apr 16 Apr Mr Goh Chok Tong 15 Apr 25 Apr Ms Grace Fu Hai Yien 15 Apr 21 Apr Mr Masagos Zulkifli B M M 15 Apr 01 May Mr Inderjit Singh 19 Apr 24 Apr Mr Wee Siew Kim 21 Apr 26 Apr 28 Apr 01 May 21 May 22 May Mr Cedric Foo Chee Keng 22 Apr 29 Apr Mrs Lim Hwee Hua 25 Apr 30 Apr Er Lee Bee Wah 29 Apr 01 May Mrs Yu-Foo Yee Shoon 06 May 16 May

Mr Baey Yam Keng

ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

The following Bills were assented to by the President of the Republic of Singapore on the date stated:

7th April,2009 (1) Building And Construction Authority (Amendment) Bill (2) Films (Amendment) Bill (3) Human Organ Transplant (Amendment) Bill ABDULLAH TARMUGI Speaker Parliament of Singapore

1. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for Manpower (a) what is the progress on the Skills Programme for Upgrading and Resilience (SPUR); and (b) whether the Ministry has plans to increase the subsidy for SPUR.

Minister for Manpower): Sir, the response to SPUR has been very encouraging. As at end of February 2009, over 43,000 workers have been committed for SPUR training. These include about 700 companies who have committed 27,000 workers for training under SPUR. This is an increase from the total number of 20,500 workers just a month ago. Take, for example, Gain City, a well-established consumer electronics and home appliances company with a workforce of about 500 employees. Recently, Gain City sent 21 staff for a sales course at the Singapore Institute of Retail Studies (SIRS). They found the course very useful as it provided them with relevant tools and approaches for conducting sales and serving their customers. Furthermore, the company was able to claim for Absentee Payroll (AP) which helped to defray the costs during the period when the staff underwent training.

Besides employer-sponsored trainees, about 17,000 individuals have enrolled directly for SPUR training at the Career Centres, CET Centres, ITE and the five local polytechnics. An example is Mdm Mualidayanti, aged 36. She was a production worker until she was retrenched last year. She was referred by the South West CDC for Certified Service Professional

training in February 2009, which gave her the skills and confidence needed to switch to a job in the service industry. She has completed the training and found a job as a Retail Assistant at Popular Pte Ltd. I am pleased to note that she is adjusting well and enjoys her current job.

To achieve the right outcomes for employers and trainees, we have been very selective in expanding the number of courses under SPUR. We select and design SPUR courses to ensure quality and relevance of training so that trainees employability are maximised. SPUR courses, including those for PMETs, are also heavily subsidised at 90%. The principle of co-funding is important as it ensures that individuals and employers are committed to the training and take ownership of outcomes. However, to ease cashflow, course fee payment can be made on a per-module basis. CET Centres also provide deferred payment arrangements. Individuals who still face financial difficulties can approach our Career Centres at the Community Development Councils, or e2i, for assistance on a case-by-case basis. They can also seek assistance from the Self Help Groups (SHGs) which may provide training loans and additional training subsidies for job seekers from low-income families.

Sir, I have one supplementary question. How many of these programmes are suitable for PMETs and how many of these programmes are suitable for those who are retrenched from the construction industry?

Sir, the SPUR programmes have been increased from 200 to 800 this year. Out of the 800 courses, there are about 30 courses that are meant for skills-conversion for PMETs. We intend to increase this number to 50 by the end of the year. There are another 220 courses that are suitable for PMETs to upgrade their skills within their existing

industries. So, the industry-coverage is very wide, from manufacturing to healthcare to logistics and even construction. The Member may be interested to know that for the construction industry, we still need professionals and engineers who have special training in Work and Safety so as to become validation and safety engineers on-site.

2. Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong asked the Minister for Defence (a) whether Singapore Armed Forces officers on bonds can apply to leave the service early and under what circumstances will approval be granted; and (b) how many applications have been made and approvals granted over the years.

Mr Speaker, Sir, all officers who join the SAF and take up sponsorship are aware that they have a moral obligation to serve out the full period of their sponsorship bonds, which goes beyond the legal obligation to pay back liquidated damages if an officer does not fulfil the bond. The SAF has a range of important leadership or specialist roles available that serve the organisational needs while catering to officers with different interests and aptitudes.

Officers too are expected to do their best to fulfil their obligations to the organisation, unless there are strong and extenuating circumstances such as medical reasons, that prevent the officers from doing so. An officer who wishes to be released early while under bond can submit a formal application through the proper process. The application will be assessed on a case-by-case basis and the officer will be counselled and interviewed by his superior officers. Since 2000, we

have allowed three officers to be released prematurely from their bonds.

Sir, I would like to ask the Minister whether he can review the way the SAF contracts army personnel to make sure that before a person signs a bond with the SAF, the contract terms are clearly explained to him in language that he understands and confirmed with his parents, if he is below 21 years old. Would the Minister agree that while the bonded officer has the moral obligation to serve his bond, the SAF as an employer also has a moral obligation to create a work environment that makes him want to stay and be passionate about his job? Can I ask the Minister if the SAF's human resource policies ensure that? And, finally, this is related to the case of the late Dr Allan Ooi. Sir, as you know, the parents are still asking for answers –

What is your question, Ms Ng?

Can I ask the Minister, given that MINDEF has convened a board of inquiry and made findings that the matters related to Dr Ooi's service were managed appropriately, would he consider making the findings public or, at least, available to the family?

Sir, as the Member's question is obviously motivated by this particular case, I will make my response with some reference to this particular case, even though, as MINDEF has said, it would have much preferred to have conducted such exchanges in private with the family, out of consideration for the family. Sir, the Member's first question is based on the premise that those who sign up for a MINDEF/SAF sponsorship or scholarship do not fully understand what they are signing. First, if anyone is signing a sponsorship deed

and needs clarification on its terms and conditions, he can and should seek these clarifications, which MINDEF has and will continue to provide. The individual signs a deed voluntarily and is not compelled to do so, until he has fully understood the terms of the sponsorship or scholarship. This is particularly the case when it is an in-service officer who may already be well in his 20s or 30s, and decides to take up a scholarship or a sponsorship to go on a course for further career development.

Second, most of our sponsorships or scholarships require two sureties to also sign the deed. These sureties are usually one of the parents, a close relative or someone whom they know well enough to be comfortable in signing the deed. And MINDEF also provides clarification to these sureties.

The Member has also asked earlier what happens if a person wants to break a bond. As I have said, all officers who take up the sponsorship know that they have a moral obligation to serve out the full period of their bonds beyond their legal obligation to pay the liquidated damages if they do not fulfil the bonds. In the case of sponsorship, MINDEF has already taken the first step, which is to provide sponsorship for the course, sometimes with salaries for the officer while he is on course. So, MINDEF has already fulfilled a fairly major part of the obligations towards the officer by sponsoring him for the programme. These programmes may be six months or as long as six years, in the case of medical scholarships.

The SAF invests substantial public funds and time to train these officers. There is an expectation that such officers will fulfil their moral obligations to serve the organisation in return. The SAF is not an unreasonable organisation. The terms and conditions are quite fair and reasonable and that is why we do have people who are prepared to come forward

to serve the SAF. There are many interesting and challenging jobs in the SAF. In fact, in most cases, because the officers whom we choose to sponsor are our better officers, they do have a pick of the better positions available. So, Sir, on balance, MINDEF does discharge its responsibilities to the officers who choose to take up sponsorship but it is also necessary for the officers to do their best to fulfil their moral obligation to serve the SAF and to serve the country.

3. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development in view of the current economic climate, whether his Ministry will put a freeze on all rentals for JTC and HDB premises.

The commercial and industrial premises under HDB are generally let on three-year term tenancies during which the rents are fixed. During tenancy renewals, the rents are adjusted to the prevailing market rent. Tenants have the option of renewing their tenancies for only one or two years if they expect rents to fall over time.

A freeze on rent increases, as the Member suggested, is not equitable as it will result in different rental subsidies for different tenants who may have renewed their tenancies over different periods of time. It is also not advisable for HDB rents to be disconnected from market realities. A better approach to help businesses during the economic downturn is to provide rental rebates. Such rebates help to lower business costs while allowing for rent adjustments to market conditions.

Hence, as part of the Government's "Resilience Package" announced earlier this year, HDB will be granting a 15% rebate for all commercial and industrial

tenants, as well as industrial-land lessees for a year, from January to December 2009. This 15% rebate includes the savings from property tax rebates which HDB will pass on to tenants.

HDB also conducts regular reviews of market rents. In recognition of the prevailing market conditions, HDB has reduced the market rents by 5% since January 2009. So, instead of freezing, HDB has actually reduced its rentals by 5% in January 2009. For the small number of tenants who face substantial rental increases in spite of these measures, HDB will stagger the rent increases over the tenancy term.

HDB will monitor the market situation closely to see if additional measures are necessary. I understand that JTC adopts a similar approach in providing assistance to its industrial tenants.

Sir, I would like to ask the Senior Minister of State, for those tenants who got their rentals adjusted upwards just before the Government announced the 15% rental rebate, would these tenants get their rentals adjusted back to the old rates?

Mr Speaker, as I have said earlier, the rentals are fixed at different times and they are renewed at different periods of time. So, in order to ensure equity between two tenants, we have to adjust their rental rates to a market rate, such that two tenants who are side by side and have their tenancies renewed at different points in time, will pay the same rent.

Take, for example, if one tenant has renewed his rental rate three years ago – 2007 – his rental may be 7% to 10% below his neighbour's, who had his rental rate renewed a year or two years later. If we do not review the rental rate to adjust it to market rate, there will be inequity between two tenants. So, it is only fair

for HDB to review the tenants' market rentals and at the same time, provide an across-the-board 15% rebate. So tenants who may have renewed their leases at different points in time, will be charged the same rentals. That is a fairer system. To answer the Member's question, specifically, a tenant who is renewing his tenancy now, will probably mean his tenancy was fixed three years ago before the run-up in the property prices and rental rates. If we do not review his rental rate, he would be enjoying a significant cost advantage over his fellow tenants next to him.

Mdm Cynthia Phua, last question.

Sir, I would like to declare my interest. I am working in a retail chain and I am actively negotiating rental as well. For HDB and other Government agencies, I understand they currently do take into account the rental rebate of 15%

but they do not adjust to match market rental, in view of the rebates. They say, "Because of the rental rebates; hence, I will keep the rental as it is." I think this is the practice. After listening to the Senior Minister of State, I would like to appeal to her to look into adjusting the rental in line with the current market condition, instead of just taking into account an across-the-board 15% rebate.

What is the question?

This is the question. I ask the Senior Minister of State to consider adjusting the rental according to the market rate instead of just giving the 15% rebate.

Mr Speaker, if you will allow me just to clarify again. HDB has, in fact, reduced its market

rental rate by 5% in January 2009. We do take into consideration market conditions.

4. Er Lee Bee Wah asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether his Ministry is aware that banks are not willing to extend existing loan periods for property developers to tide them over the current difficult economic times; and (b) whether his Ministry will consider assisting the property developers through any guarantee schemes to help them extend their loan periods.

Sir, under the current economic climate, banks have generally become more cautious in approving loans to businesses and companies, including property developers. These are commercial decisions that the banks themselves have to take, based on their assessment of the risks as well as the relationships they maintain with their customers.

Nonetheless, banks are still extending loans to companies that they have assessed to be commercially viable and credit-worthy. Data from the MAS show that total loans to the building and construction sector, of which loans to developers account for the majority, saw a 22% growth in the 12 months leading up to February 2009. While this growth has tapered off in recent months, the total loans to the sector are still at a high level of $50 billion.

Hence, we do not think the current situation warrants the Government stepping in as guarantor for loans to developers. Banks are still lending to developers, and they are better placed to assess the risks than the Government. Besides bank loans, a number of developers have also managed to raise capital through other means such as rights issue or private placement.

Nevertheless, the Government is aware that developers, like other businesses, may be facing financial difficulties during this economic downturn. As part of Budget 2009, we have introduced several measures to ease the cashflow of developers. These include the deferment of property tax for land approved for development for up to two years, and the 40% property tax rebates for commercial and industrial properties.

We will continue to monitor the credit situation closely. If necessary, we are prepared to introduce further measures to help developers through the current downturn.

Sir, Budget 2009 has allowed for a one-year extension to the project completion period. But feedback from a lot of the developers is that the banks will not extend loans for the one-year period at the same rate. In fact, they will be given less favourable terms. So, I would like to ask, is this in line with the original Government's intention? Second question – how much of the $5.8 billion of the Special Risk-Sharing Initiative (SRI) will flow into the market and, in particular, how much will flow into the real estate market?

The extension of the Project Completion Period (PCP) is to allow developers to stagger or to phase in the development according to the market situation or how they assess the market situation to be.

The decision of the banks on whether to extend their loans and if so, under what terms, is a separate matter. That is to be decided by the banks based on their relationship with their customers and also based on the assessment of the risks involved. As far as the extension of the PCP is concerned, this has helped many developers and allowed them to phase their developments according to demand.

However, what is their relationship with the banks, how they negotiate with the banks and what the banks' decision ultimately is, is for the banks to decide. The situation, as I alluded to in my reply, is that the banks are still lending, although they may not lend at the same rates or under the same terms as before. However, that is a situation that I think we have to leave to the banks.

As to her second question about the SRI – how much of it has flowed down to the construction and the property sector, I do not have the details with me off-hand. If the Member wishes to file a question, we will be happy to provide those answers. But let me just say that there are other financing initiatives that were announced, that developers as well as construction industry players can avail themselves to. For example, the Member may know that SPRING has an initiative which provides short-term financing or working capital for these Singapore companies. I believe some construction companies and some property companies, which can avail themselves to these funds, have already done so.

5. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport in the light of two passenger fatalities at MRT stations this year (a) whether he will give an update on the status of the programme to install Half Height Platform Screen Doors at MRT platforms that do not have screen doors; (b) whether the Government will accelerate the installation programme to prevent more accidents; and (c) what interim measures can be taken to safeguard passenger safety.

Sir, I share Dr Lim’s concern about the safety of our train commuters. As announced by the Minister of Transport early last year,

the Land Transport Authority (LTA) is installing Half-Height Platform Screen Doors (HHPSD) at all elevated MRT stations Lines to further enhance commuter safety.

Work to install platform screen doors at the first group of MRT stations – Jurong East, Pasir Ris and Yishun – has already started. These three stations will have their platform screen doors functioning by the end of this year. Work on the rest of the 33 elevated stations on the North-South and East-West Lines will be carried out progressively after that. All elevated stations will have platform screen doors by 2012.

Installing platform screen doors on an existing operational MRT line is not a simple task. Workers have to access the tracks each night to cut away the edge of the station platform next to the train track, remove the electrical insulation membrane, drill into the platform to mount the foundation for the platform screen door, install the door frames, put up the actual screen door, and carry out rigorous testing to ensure reliability and safety.

LTA will try to accelerate this timeline as much as possible. However, a key constraint is that work can only be done for only two-and-a-half hours every night and it is between 1.30 am and 4.00 am. This is because all the elevated stations are operational stations, and we cannot start cutting up the station platform while commuters are still using the station during the day. In addition, the work is carried out at the edge of the platform, which means that workers often have to work from the train tracks. For their safety, the work can only proceed when the electricity on that section of track has been completely cut off. This is only possible outside the MRT’s normal operating hours after all the passenger trains have been brought back to the

depots and the track maintenance vehicles have been deployed from the depots every night. It is therefore not possible to extend the working hours without compromising safety or affecting the normal operations of the MRT. Nonetheless, LTA will do what it can without affecting safety to try to complete the programme as soon as possible.

In the meantime, the Public Transport Operators (PTOs) will continue to proactively ensure safety through the regular broadcasting of recorded voice and video messages on station platforms, to remind commuters not to stand beyond the yellow line or rush to catch a departing train. The operators’ staff will also patrol the station platforms to help commuters who may feel faint or unwell, and advise them to keep away from the platform edge while waiting for the train. In addition, train operators will continue to keep a lookout for dangerous situations as their trains approach the station, and sound the horn or apply the emergency brakes if necessary.

I would like to urge commuters to take care of their own personal safety. Commuters should observe safety instructions, stand behind the yellow line, and seek assistance from the MRT station officers if they feel unwell. Ultimately, this is a shared responsibility for safety and is best ensured when everyone and every stakeholder does his part.

Sir, to wait for end of the year for three stations to be completed and the rest until 2012 seems to be too long. As it is now, there have been two fatalities already, and I am not sure how many are needed before we can speed up the project. I do hope that despite all the technical difficulties that the Senior Parliamentary Secretary has just described, there should be other ways to make it safer.

I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary what is the minimum distance between the edge of the MRT platform and the yellow line, and whether MOT has reviewed the CCTVs or the footages of the accidents to see what ways we could have prevented these. By increasing the distance between the yellow line and the edge of the MRT track platform, will that actually help to improve safety?

Second question – I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary is: what is the liability of the PTO in such accidents. Whether passengers are insured for injury incurred while they are using the facilities? Last of all, I would like to ask the Senior Parliamentary Secretary whether the CCTV was working for these incidents.

I think we will take all suggestions and review them when necessary to see if it is implementable on the ground. We will try to accelerate the construction and implementation of the platform screen doors. The important thing to note is that whilst doing that, it is important to ensure not just the safety of the workers, but also to make sure that we carry out a comprehensive and complete job because if the screen doors are built in a rush, I think you will endanger more lives. We want to, after completing the first three stations, gather the feedback and review the operational issues before we implement the doors at the other 33 stations. But as much as we can, we will try to accelerate the whole programme because I understand that safety concerns are of paramount importance.

As for the CCTV, yes, it was working at that point in time. The issue is that the CCTV can only record but it may not be manned 24/7. Whilst recording can help you trace back what happened, more importantly, we need our station officers on the ground to be more vigilant and look

at what else can be done, for example, making the commuters aware that they should keep a safe distance behind the yellow line.

As for increasing the distance between the yellow line and the platform edge, this suggestion will have to be reviewed – whether moving the yellow line backwards will be a feasible plan or not, and whether it will affect the whole volume or traffic flow of commuters when they are queuing for the train. I think more importantly is to make sure the PTOs stay vigilant and be careful. And I think this requires commitment from the PTOs.

6. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Transport with the opening of the Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway (a) what is the latest update on the traffic flow along other expressways like the Central Expressway; and (b) whether the Government will accelerate the construction programme for the new North-South Expressway.

With the opening of the Kallang-Paya Lebar Expressway (KPE), traffic conditions have improved along the Central Expressway (CTE). This is reflected in the Quarterly ERP Rate Review carried out in February 2009, where a $0.50 rate reduction was made for the ERP gantry along south-bound CTE before Braddell Road, during the period between 8.30 am and 9.00 am. Currently, traffic along the CTE is smooth flowing, with traffic speeds within the range for optimal flow.

LTA has also embarked on a project to widen the CTE to cater to the increasing traffic demand. When completed by the end of 2011, the CTE stretch between

Bukit Timah Road and Yio Chu Kang Road will have four continuous lanes throughout, which will help to further improve traffic flow on the CTE.

Based on the infrastructure improvements and LTA's forecast of traffic demand, the North-South Expressway (NSE), which will provide additional capacity to cater to the increase in travel demand from the North and North-East, will only be needed by 2020. Hence, there is no need to accelerate the construction of the North-South Expressway.

Sir, I like to ask the Minister, since the completion of KPE and the traffic flow is satisfactory, will the Minister consider abolishing evening ERP along the CTE?

Sir, if there are significant improvements in the traffic speeds, these would be captured through the quarterly reviews and adjustments will be made accordingly.

7. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports (a) whether the economic downturn has affected the budget and construction schedule of the *scape building; (b) how much is the viability of this development dependent on the revenue from retail space; and (c) what is the status of the development to-date.

The current economic downturn has not affected the budget or the construction schedule of the *scape building in Orchard Road. The financial standing of the main contractor remains sound and the project is on schedule.

The construction of this project began in March 2008. At present, the contractors are working on the structural works for the fourth storey of the five-storey building. We are still on schedule to officially launch this in the second quarter of 2010.

We have projected that in the steady state, the commercial revenue would account for approximately 70% of the annual revenue. Revenue from programming and institutional spaces would account for approximately 20%, while sponsorship would account for the remaining 10%. The Government would provide transitional funding totalling $8.5 million for the next four years as the company that is managing this builds up its capability and revenue stream.

8. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports in light of the delay in the completion of the Sports Hub and the reopening of the National Stadium for use, whether he can outline the plans for the nearby Oasis building which has been hoarded up since it was acquired by the Government.

The Oasis building was acquired by the Government so that a public Water Sports Centre could be incorporated into the Sports Hub project. Prior to the acquisition, it was leased out to commercial food and beverage operators. Reopening the building at this point would require much work and significant cost. As the preparatory ground work may start quickly once an agreement has been reached with the Singapore Sports Hub Consortium, the Singapore Sports Council (SSC) does not have any immediate plans to lease out the Oasis building or use it for any alternative purposes in the interim.

I just want to ask the Minister notwithstanding that the Sports Hub could be activated soon, whether it is possible to make better use of the current premises by letting it out on a temporary basis, and to let the market decide whether tenants are prepared to take up the site based on market rates.

The challenge is that businesses would require some predictability and some certainty that the space would be available in order for them to put in the investment to restart their business plans at that point in time. So from now while the negotiations are ongoing – and frankly, once those are settled, we will begin immediately – it is better not to raise false hopes or to reopen up a place, only to shut it down again at very short notice.

Last question, Mr Seah.

I thank the Minister for the answer. Could the Minister just update us in the case of the Sports Hub, what is the current status with respect to its opening?

I think Members would recall that I previously updated the House that the Consortium which was selected to build the Sports Hub had prepared its business plans at a time when the liquidity was much more abundant. Right now in the midst of the downturn and, in particular, the financial crisis, their plans which were predicated on the availability of significant sums of capital, obviously need to be reworked. We are still waiting for them to return to us with either new conditions or vary certain parameters of the bid in order for us to decide whether we can proceed. These are technical and complicated negotiations that are still ongoing and, hence, I do not want to make any specific commitments now to settle these negotiations by a particular date. I think

Members will appreciate that putting artificial deadlines will weaken our negotiating position. Nevertheless, it is in all our interest to settle this matter as soon as possible and to commence construction of the Sports Hub.

9. Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Health with the adoption of means testing in all public hospitals (a) how successful is this initiative in meeting its objectives; and (b) what is the average hospital bill for a patient.

Sir, the purpose of means-testing in public hospitals is to enable lower-income patients to enjoy more subsidies than higher-income patients. It is a fair scheme and its implementation has been uneventful. With computerisation, the process is hassle-free and no patients have been inconvenienced.

More than 90% of the patients are unaffected by means-testing and they continue to get the full Government subsidy. The average hospital bill sizes for Class B2 and Class C have remained relatively stable at below $1,500 and well within the Medisave withdrawal limits.

Sir, I thank the Minister for the answer. I would like to check with the Minister whether the socio-economic groups that chooses each class between C, B2 and B1 have shifted because of the implementation of means-testing. Are more people from the middle-income and the upper middle-income groups choosing C class and B2 class wards because they are getting less subsidy?

If there is, it is not noticeable. When I was working on the proposal, we also looked at the demographic profile of the patients in existing Class B2 to Class C wards. We

projected that more than 90% will not be affected. The actual results show the same thing. I think, by and large, Singaporeans choose their ward class carefully. We have financial counselling to advise patients to choose the right ward class. If you belong to lower income group, you go for the heavily subsidised wards. The outcome shows it. As I have explained before, the idea of means-testing is to pre-empt a future problem. I want to continue to upgrade Class C and Class B2 wards, and if you do not introduce means-testing, you will draw in many patients who can actually afford Class A and Class B1. Without means-testing, I will lose that leverage in ensuring that Class C and Class B2 remain reserved largely for lower income patients.

Dr Ong, last question.

I would like to ask the Minister, step-down care currently has a very different means-testing regime. This has caused confusion for the public, and sometimes prevented a smooth transfer of patients from the acute hospital into the step-down care facility. Does the Minister foresee that in future, there will be one unified means-testing regime that is applied across the whole healthcare system, and that would minimise all administrative problems as well as confusion to the families?

I see less need for a unified scheme for the reason that the extent of subsidy varies with bill sizes. The key point for the patient is "Can I afford the bill?" Is it a thousand dollars or is it ten dollars or is it one hundred dollars? Affordability will depend on the quantum of the bill size. In the step-down care, particularly at the outpatient level, outside of hospitals and nursing homes, the bill sizes are much

smaller. On the other hand, in acute hospitals, the bill sizes can be very big. That is why we have very heavy subsidy for the expensive end and we reduce the subsidy level at the lower-cost end. That is why I think a unified approach will not work because it will end up either over subsidising those who may not need that subsidy or being too stringent on those who actually require a much bigger subsidy.

10. Ms Ellen Lee asked the Minister for Health with the rampant administration of ear piercing across Singapore such as that in jewellery shops (a) whether there are reported cases/trend of medical complications related to ear piercing and what recourse is available to aggrieved customers; (b) whether there are laws or regulations in place to regulate the conduct of ear piercing and, if not, whether there is a need to enact such laws; and (c) what are the health and safety standards required of shops in Singapore which offer ear piercing services.

Sir, serious medical complications due to ear piercing, such as infection of the ear cartilage (perichondritis), are uncommon. Over the past three years, for example, each restructured hospital encountered about three cases per year. The Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) received two complaints of swollen ears due to ear piercing in 2006 and none in 2007 and 2008.

While there is no specific legislation regulating the practice of ear piercing, there are provisions in our law that may apply depending on the facts of the case. For instance, provisions in the Infectious

Diseases Act and the Penal Code could be used against those who negligently carry out ear piercing procedures.

Consumers should alert the Ministry if they suspect that certain ear piercing services are being carried out in an unsafe or unhygienic manner. The Ministry will monitor the situation and review the need for additional regulatory controls if necessary.

One supplementary question for the Senior Parliamentary Secretary. Would the Ministry of Health consider implementing a minimum age requirement for all commercial ear piercing activities, that children, perhaps, under 16, must be accompanied by at least one parent when these activities are taking place?

Sir, in different communities, ear piercing is considered differently. In fact, in some communities, ear piercing is considered as customs or a tradition. There is no plan to do such a thing. However, as I said earlier, the Ministry will monitor the situation. If necessary, we will take additional regulatory measures to ensure that public interests are protected.

11. Mr Seah Kian Peng asked the Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports given that there are four public swimming complexes which have been closed by the Singapore Sports Council for more than five years and there have been no alternative plans for them thus far (a) whether there is a specific date for these premises to be returned to the Singapore Land Authority for redevelopment purposes; and (b) whether the Government has also considered the opportunity costs for such long closures.

Sir, the four public swimming pools were closed because they were severely under-utilised. The Singapore Sports Council (SSC) usually tries to find alternative uses for closed pools. SSC has successfully leased two previously closed swimming complexes to private sector operators. One is being used as a swim school, while the other for hockey.

Despite multiple efforts, SSC has not received any viable proposals for the four closed swimming pools.

SSC will now be initiating a final Request for Proposal (RFP) for the four swimming complexes. Should this exercise fail to generate feasible options for alternative sports uses, SSC will return the premises to the Singapore Land Authority (SLA).

Sir, I believe the Senior Parliamentary Secretary did not answer my last question in my original oral question. In addition to that particular query, given that they have been under-utilised for several years and if SSC has no better plans, I would suggest that they be returned to SLA for better utilisation.

Sir, we have worked on a few different approaches. First, we actually tested out the market in the private sector to see if anybody would be interested to assume the lease for the public swimming pools, to either use it for swimming purposes or other alternative sports uses. Secondly, SSC has also engaged the community leaders or the grassroots leaders on the ground to look for other alternative uses. We have gotten feedback from them and they have also agreed that with all the different proposals, maybe we should just make

another effort quickly to send out the RFP to the market and see if any other private operators might be interested to assume ownership. And if such exercise actually fails, we will return them to SLA immediately.

Sorry, the Senior Parliamentary Secretary did not answer my question (b).

Whether the Government has also considered the opportunity costs for the long closure? We have certainly considered the opportunity costs, that is why we are quickly trying to look at other alternative uses as well as engage the community and also the private sector, in order to see what can be done. If it cannot be done, we will quickly return it back to SLA. I think the lapse of the five years is a process where we had to review initially why it was severely under-utilised and to look at alternative uses. So we went through the process and now we are looking at making a last effort to do it. We will subsequently return them to SLA if the exercise fails.

Order for Second Reading read.

2.16 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

In Singapore, 55 buildings have been gazetted as national monuments. The number is not large, and that is why they are all the more precious to us. These monuments are some of the finest buildings we have that reflect our rich

architectural and cultural heritage. Amongst them are the City Hall and former Supreme Court buildings, which continue to stand loftily amidst the modernity today as enduring testaments of Singapore's history and identity. There are other buildings that tell the story of our nationhood. For example, religious monuments such as the Sri Mariamman Temple at South Bridge Road, Thian Hock Kheng at Telok Ayer Street, Sultan Mosque in Kampong Glam and St Andrew's Cathedral at St Andrew's Road, tell the world of our multi-ethnic and multi-religious harmony that we enjoy; a cornerstone in our endeavour to build a modern Singapore. There are also national monuments such as the Raffles Hotel, Chijmes and the Telok Ayer Market, which have been successfully adapted for modern use and have become popular with both locals and tourists alike.

Without these familiar landmarks, Singapore would be a less distinctive and identifiable place that we are proud to call home. It is important that these social markers of history continue to withstand the passages of time and urban progress. To do so, there must be sufficient safeguards in the Preservation of Monuments Act to make sure that they will continue to stand proudly for many more years to come.

Objectives of review

Mr Speaker, Sir, the current Preservation of Monuments Act (PMA), whose core provisions have largely remained the same since it was enacted in 1971, is no longer adequate for the purpose of monuments protection. Our enforcement mechanisms need to be more robust to protect these monuments against wilful destruction and illegal renovation works. In amending the Act, MICA is taking a two-pronged approach – to enhance the enforcement powers of the authority and to revise the penalty framework.

Changes to the enforcement and penalty frameworks

Sir, the new Act will provide for greater control over the repairs, renovation or construction works carried out on national monuments by their owners, principals or agents. This will be through requiring monument owners to provide information on works done to the monuments and giving the Board the authority to enter a monument to inspect and assess works being carried out, and to take actions to halt the works including requiring the owner to restore the monument. With more authority, the Board can better monitor and prevent indiscriminate alteration or destruction of monuments, which, once done, may be irreversible.

This enhancement of the Board's enforcement powers will be incomplete if the legislation does not provide for owners and occupiers to have a duty to maintain their monuments. This is currently absent in the PMA. A new clause will be introduced, vesting the owners and occupiers with a general duty to ensure that the national monument is properly maintained. With this clause, the Board will be given the legal authority to issue preservation notices to owners to carry out the restoration work deemed necessary by the Board.

Sir, the second prong is to update the penalty framework which has become outdated in today's context. The penalty framework of the PMA has been unchanged since the Act was first passed 38 years ago in 1971. It carries a maximum fine of $5,000 for penalties. Let me illustrate the inadequacy of this fine quantum with a case in which an owner of a national monument got away with a mere $500 fine for undertaking illegal works some years ago.

The management of this monument had carried out alteration works between

1999 and 2001 without the approval of the Preservation of Monuments Board (PMB). The management committee refused to rectify the illegal works despite notices issued by the PMB. After a year of impasse, the PMB brought the case to court and in 2003, the secretary of the management committee was found guilty of undertaking illegal works and was fined a total of $500. Not only was extensive damage inflicted on the monument, but the authority could take no further action under the current Act to compel the management to restore the damaged monument.

We therefore need to update our penalties comprehensively to achieve greater deterrence and punitive effect, to prevent similar incidents from occurring. As a general principle, the new clauses in the Act draw reference from and, where applicable, are pegged above that of the Planning Act which governs conserved buildings. National monuments are deemed buildings with greater heritage and architectural value, and hence illegal works on them or destruction should not be treated any less seriously than conserved buildings.

There are two key thrusts to the revised penalty framework. One, higher penalties will be imposed for unauthorised renovation or alteration works that are carried out by the building's owners, principals or agents. The current penalty stands at a maximum fine of $5,000. Under the new Act, individuals will be fined a maximum of $100,000 and/or a maximum jail term of 12 months, with a further maximum fine of $5,000 daily in the event of a continued offence. Corporations and companies will be fined a maximum of $200,000 and a further maximum fine of $10,000 daily in the event of a continued offence. In addition, the Court may order the offender to restore the monument in accordance to the Board's specifications, at the owners' expense.

Secondly, higher penalties will be imposed to deter acts of wilful destruction to our national monuments. Currently, the penalty for such acts of wilful destruction is a maximum fine of $5,000, and/or a maximum jail term of six months. Under the new Act, an offender charged with defacing, say, the City Hall building, shall be liable on conviction to a fine of up to $30,000 and/or a jail term of up to six months. The Court will also be empowered to make an order requiring the offender to restore the national monument at his own expense, in accordance with the Board's specifications.

Let me assure the House that these legislative enhancements are intended as a safeguard to deter potentially errant parties who wilfully destroy or damage the monuments or are negligent in their duty to maintain the monuments. It is not intended to penalise the majority of the monument owners nor occupiers who have been dutifully maintaining their buildings. In administering the Act, the Board will exercise due diligence to identify the specific party responsible for the actions, or the person who is in actual possession or control of the monument. For example, should the owner or the occupier of the monument be found to be fully responsible for a misdeed, third party persons, such as the caretaker or volunteers involved in the care of the building, would not be liable for the charges.

The new PMA – an exercise of joint responsibility

Mr Speaker, Sir, the rich built heritage that we have preserved brings intangible pride and prestige to their owners and benefits society as a whole. While the main responsibility of preservation lies with the monument owners as they should be responsible for maintaining their own buildings, the Government will co-

share some of this responsibility. I would like to assure the monument owners that the State will continue to do its part as partners, particularly given the current economic climate, which may make the task all the more challenging for monument owners.

The State will continue to lend assistance through support schemes like the Tax Exemption Scheme (TES) which was launched in 1994, and the National Monument Fund (NMF) which was introduced in 2008. The TES assists non-profit and religious organisations to raise funds for the restoration of the buildings, namely through double-tax benefits to donors. The National Monument Fund, on the other hand, was introduced in response to feedback from stakeholders on the need for the Government to share in the cost of sustaining our historic buildings. We have set aside $5 million to be disbursed over a period of five years, to assist owners of religious and non-profit national monuments to undertake urgent and necessary repairs. In its inaugural year, the Government supported the applications of the Sri Mariamman Temple, Hong San See Temple and Church of our Lady of Lourdes to co-share the funding of urgent repairs. A total of about $620,000 was awarded for the rectification of faults. Going forward, more applications will be assessed and supported in the coming years.

Merger between the PMB and NHB

Lastly, Mr Speaker, Sir, the new Act will legislatively effect the merger of the Preservation of Monuments Board and the National Heritage Board (NHB) to enhance the quality of policy, strategies and services. The PMB has done a good job in championing built heritage over the last 12 years under MICA's direct purview. It is now timely to integrate their efforts with the larger heritage promotion efforts undertaken by the National Heritage Board. The required related amendments

to the NHB Act and consequential amendments to other written laws for alignment with the new PMB will be made.

MICA recognises that the protection of our national monuments is a critical heritage function. This merger will therefore enhance the impact of our overall heritage promotion efforts, and enable us to reap natural synergies and economies of scale.

In conclusion, Sir, with the amendments to the enforcement and penalty frameworks to strengthen the PMA and the merger of the Preservation of Monuments Board and the National Heritage Board, we will be better prepared to safeguard our national monuments and enhance the role that heritage plays in giving Singaporeans a shared sense of identity and anchoring us to Singapore.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

2.26 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

I notice that I am the only speaker for this Bill, compared to the 16 for the Bills on Public Order and Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore. I know that these two other Bills touch on important subjects, but I thought there could be a better balance. Maybe the young should also pay some attention to that.

Mr Zainul Abidin. Carry on.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I trust it is not because of lack of interest on the subject of preservation of monuments but more because of the confidence our Members have in MICA

and PMB on a job well done. I think one need only be with Dr Lee Boon Yang on some overseas trips, which I went on once to the Middle East, to observe his eye for details and his heart for such matters. In fact, the same spirit was also shown by our new Acting Minister when he officiated at the MOU signing for the heritage institutions.

Sir, this Bill was first enacted in 1971, some 38 years ago. But it also brings me back down memory lane, because 28 years ago when I was the Editor of Sunday Times, we were very actively involved in debating this issue of whether the Singapore Government was doing enough for the preservation of monuments. I think this is an important subject because it is not just about our past but about our contemporary thinking on our past and values for the future. If I may, Sir, I would like to quote this editorial written in 1981 in the Sunday Times, and it reads:

"It is always a cheerful sight to see the government responding to the needs of the nation. That is as true of preserving our links with the past as it is with tearing down dilapidated structures and putting up spanking new buildings in their place or in creating jobs and providing public housing. As our society matures and grows older, new demands and priorities will set in. Conserving what we have of our history and our roots is just one of these new factors in the task of a successful administering of a country."

Sir, I would like to congratulate the Monuments Board. Although it had a very slow start, from eight monuments in 1973, it has grown to 55 in 2006. But yet, I suppose, more could be done. If one were to look at the number of buildings that have been gazetted as monuments, you will see historical, ethnic, religious, education, tourism, and even industry to remind us of the war. But maybe it is about time, Sir, that we should also look at buildings which have

actually contributed to the moulding of our modern and new nation.

Here, I would like to suggest that the PMB and NHB look at the former Trades Union House and the Singapore Conference Hall. This was built in 1965. In fact, this was a venue for the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference in 1971. It was a popular convention centre in the late 60's and 70's, before the arrival of the World Trade Centre, Raffles City Convention Centre, Suntec City and the Singapore Expo. To Singaporeans, it was also an important nomination and counting centre at elections where election results were announced and post-election press conferences held. And the Prime Minister's National Day Rally was also held there in the early 80's before it moved to Kallang Theatre in 1986.

It was also a popular venue for pre-university seminars in the 70's. Many National University of Singapore graduates will also remember the place as their convocations were held there during the 70's and the 80's. Enough of the past.

Let me now move on to the future, Sir. I would like to raise two specific points here. One, I know that the Acting Minister has mentioned that the penalty is raised from $500 to $10,000. But I wonder actually in present day dollar terms whether even $10,000 is sufficient to make sure that those who are culpable and responsible for lack of action are taken to task. So I would like to suggest that the Ministry reviews that amount and see whether it is necessary to raise it in the future.

Having said that, I believe that the Government should also provide more financial support for those generally in need of help for maintenance of our national monuments. Sir, Singaporeans are concerned about retaining their

cultural built-up heritage. There have been recent letters in the press where some Singaporeans from the older generations mourn the loss of historical markers. Monument owners, on the other hand, fight a losing battle since the building maintenance costs are high. Now PMB and NHB's role is crucial to offer them support. I think it is more than just money. I think they should also continue to advise them on matters of restoration and intra-agency assistance from other Ministries, where possible. The National Monument's grant of $5 million, which I was told, would be spread over five years, while welcomed is still rather small. I think the Government is only providing that as a token assistance, not really for maintenance but for at-risk restoration works. So I would like to urge the Ministry to increase the support to make our preservation efforts be more fruitful.

3.05 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, let me first thank the Member who has spoken so passionately in support of the Bill. Let me assure him that while he may be the lone speaker, his support is neither measured nor treasured based on quantity, but rather the quality of his input and certainly he has done great credit.

The Member has raised several points, and let me try and take them in turn. One is the possibility of gazetting the Singapore Conference Hall as a national monument. Let me run through the process. We have an ongoing process to look at buildings which we consider to be historically or architecturally meritorious to be considered as buildings to be preserved as national monuments. There is a process, and it is ongoing. Every few years, we nominate a number of such institutions, whether religious, commercial or otherwise, to be considered as national monuments. I believe that in time to come, we will also be adding to the 55 buildings that we have as national

monuments. Buildings which are historically rich and structures that have added significantly to our past to grow the collection of national monuments that we have today.

On whether the penalties are sufficient, we have revised the penalties for the first time since 38 years ago. From $5,000, individuals can be fined now up to a maximum of $100,000. And for corporations, that fine is doubled to $200,000 with additional daily fines of between $5,000 and $10,000 in the event that it becomes a continued offence. This is drawn in line with other Acts, for example, the Planning Act, and we believe it should be a sufficient deterrent at this point in time. But we will certainly take the Member's input into consideration and monitor if such penalties are sufficient. There are, indeed, actually very few cases where monuments have been wilfully defaced or where the owners have been recalcitrant, in terms of restoring such monuments, as suggested by the Board. But we believe that the enforcement framework and penalties' framework that we have introduced today will suffice for the time being.

On the recommendation to increase the level of support and advice from agencies, this is indeed something that we can take into consideration, particularly in issuing more detailed renovation and maintenance guidelines. The new NHB, PMB will indeed be doing so in the coming year.

On the level of support, I think the principle is that it is the responsibility of the owners or the occupiers of the national monuments who have the primary responsibility of undertaking the proper maintenance and repair of these monuments. The Government steps in where necessary, particularly for urgent, major repairs which, unless they are effected, would put the monuments in

danger altogether. We have put $5 million over the next five years, as a start. We hope that this will be sufficient. If not, we will have to go back and see whether we can raise more funds. We believe that the primary responsibility is indeed on the owners. The Government can step in from time to time to co-share in the responsibility financially but largely in terms of providing the right level of advice and support.

On that note, Mr Speaker, I want to thank the Member once again for his input to the Bill that is before us today. I think monuments certainly are something that we continue to treasure. Without them, Singapore would be a less distinctive and familiar place and therefore, given the importance of these monuments, there need to be reasonable laws that will empower the Board to carry out its duties and to deter potentially errant parties who may cause damage to these social markers of our history.

So, in conclusion, Sir, I put the Bill before the House and ask for their support in effecting it to law.

Question put, and agreed to.

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

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [RAdm Lui Tuck Yew].

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

Order for Second Reading read.

2.37 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg

to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Zainul commented that there is a much larger number of speakers on this Bill compared with the earlier Bill. I would tell him that I would be quite happy to share some speakers with my colleague, RAdm Lui.

Sir, this Bill covers, broadly, three main and two supplementary areas. The main areas are as follows:

Part II contains provisions which rationalise the current rules for public assemblies and processions; (b) Part III sets out the rules applying to special events which require high security; and

Part IV sets out powers for the Police to give "move-on" orders.

The two further supplementary features are: the power to prohibit filming in specific situations, and the requirement that property owners exercise greater responsibility in respect of certain activities on their premises.

This Bill is part of the continuum of purposive and measured changes to our framework for political space, evolving in tandem with development in our economic and social landscape. It is being brought to this House, in the context of major international events which are going to be held in Singapore, including the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings later this year. The backdrop of current events in Thailand with international leaders leaving the conference by helicopters hurriedly show very tellingly the need for this legislation. Singapore cannot afford the luxury of having these meetings disrupted.

The key philosophy underlying the Bill is that there must be (a) adequate space for the individual’s rights of political expression; (b) without compromising society’s needs for order and stability.

As a statement of principle, that would be unexceptionable to most people. The key practical issue is: how do you get that balance right?

Many of us recognise that it is possible to make a nod to the principle, and at the same time either cut out completely most forms of political expression as a way of controlling political space; or alternatively at the other extreme, have complete chaos and little respect for law and order, in the name of political freedom. We have seen both happen in other countries.

Neither outcome would be good for the development of a prosperous, stable democracy.

We also recognise that there can and will be legitimate debate on how the right balance should be struck.

In determining the right balance, in this Bill, the following factors were key:

First, population density/population mix of Singapore. We have one of the highest population densities in the world – over 6,800 persons per square kilometre. We also have a diverse racial and religious mix. Several other countries also have a diverse mix, but few have them in as compressed a space as ours. Every action by one group of people, however small, can have an impact – physically or emotionally – on another group. Race, language and religion remain potentially explosive issues. Those who think otherwise can look at recent history, including the history of countries in South-East Asia.

The second factor we took into account is stability. We believe that stability for us is an existential issue – both economically and as a society. If key facilities were to be shut down as a result of instability, the impact on us would be far greater and far more corrosive than it would be in larger countries.

As a result of our intense focus on stability, we rank highly on international surveys which assess countries’ political risk. The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy and World Bank Institute have constantly featured safety and security as key competitive advantages of Singapore. This matters to the companies which put billions of dollars into Singapore.

When Las Vegas Sands, Genting, Exxon-Mobil and Shell amongst others, invest billions, they assess the country’s stability over the several decades it will take to recoup their investments.

This is a really no-brainer. A chaotic socio-political situation will preclude sustained economic growth for us. Recent events, including events in our region, show that we cannot take stability for granted, and the incalculable damage that can arise from instability.

This is not to say that references to "stability" alone can justify any and every restriction on political freedoms. As I have stated earlier, the correct approach would be to find the optimal balance: to ensure proper space for the exercise of political rights without compromising stability, in a diversely and densely populated little island. But given our limitations in size, structure of our society, and the geo-strategic situation, stability has to be given greater weight in deciding what is the optimal balance.

The third factor we took into account is the need for greater political space. Our society is continually evolving. We

now have a highly literate, largely well-educated population. Civil society is growing; and there is now a more active citizenry.

This evolution and the concomitant need for greater space for political expression must also be factored in. In this context, I will come back later to the way political space has evolved over the last few years.

The fourth factor we took into account is

we have now become an increasingly popular venue for major international events. In 2006, we hosted the International Olympic Committee (IOC) meeting as well as International Monetary Fund World Bank Annual Meetings. This involved over 20,000 participants, including Government and business leaders from all around the world. In 2007, Singapore hosted the ASEAN Summit.

In 2008, we hosted the first ever Formula One Grand Prix night race. Singapore was beamed "live" to about 400 million people worldwide.

This year, we will be hosting the 2009 APEC meetings which will set a new record for the number of international participants for an event held in Singapore. This is one of the most important international events of the year and we will do everything to make it succeed. As I have stated earlier, this meeting is a key reason for introducing the Bill at this stage.

Next year, Singapore will host the Youth Olympics.

According to STB, Business Travel and MICE visitors constituted approximately 29% or close to three million of our total visitor arrivals in 2007. This amounted to over $5 billion or 39% of our total tourism receipts. This industry will only grow in importance and its value by 2015 is expected to be $10.5 billion.

For Singapore, being a host to such events has a number of very substantial benefits:

It increases our international profile and diplomatic space which is important to protect our sovereignty; and

There are considerable economic benefits, both direct and indirect.

But being a host of such events brings with it a set of challenges:

Each event needs to be successfully held; and

We have a duty to ensure the safety and security of the event, as well as that of the delegates.

Before I deal with the Bill, I will touch on how our political space has evolved in recent years, so that the Bill can be seen in context.

The increasing liberalisation of political space

Since 2000, there have been a series of changes which have liberalised our political space, as part of a continuing process.

In 2000, we launched the Speakers' Corner which allows citizens to speak freely without the need to seek Police approval, except when the subject concerns race and religion.

That same year, we announced in Parliament changes to policy for the Police to grant public entertainment licences, for MPs to make speeches in their own constituencies if their speech is part of a constituency event organised for the benefit of the constituents and where the intended participants are from that constituency.

In 2001, constituency activities organised by or on behalf of MPs and held in the constituency represented by that MP in Parliament were exempted if they wholly comprised performance of music, singing or dancing, or any other similar shows, transmission of recorded music or organised competition.

In 2004, the Speakers' Corner exemptions were extended to performances and exhibitions. Indoor political activities by citizens were also exempted. That year, the Societies Act was also amended to allow automatic registration of non-specified societies. Previously, such societies seeking registration had to seek the Registrar's prior approval before becoming a registered society.

In 2008, we exempted outdoor political demonstrations in the Speakers' Corner. Citizens who organise indoor demonstrations similarly do not now need a permit.

In March 2009, the Films Act was amended to allow for certain types of films which were previously considered party political films. They can now be produced and screened, including political party manifestos and factual documentaries.

I come back to the central theme I mentioned earlier: the approach is to seek the optimal balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety and security and not affecting stability.

Have we gotten the balance right? Well, ask yourself two questions: in our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 50s and 60s, which country would you rather be in? The answer to these two questions will answer the main question I asked.

With that background, let me now turn to the Bill. I will first deal with Part I.

Part I – Definitions

Part I contains the definitions of the terms used in the Bill.

Under the Bill, assemblies and processions are defined in clause 2 as a gathering or meeting of persons the purpose or purposes of which may be to:

demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government;

publicise a cause or campaign; or

mark or commemorate any event.

These three limbs are adopted from the existing framework under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (MOA).

Under the MOA, all activities falling within any one of the above criteria require permits, unless exempted.

In addition, any activity by one or more persons will require a licence under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA), if the activity amounts to public entertainment.

The activities which are now exempted from the MOA and PEMA will continue to be exempted in the Bill. In addition, the Public Order Act (POA) will allow for Subsidiary Legislation which will create additional exceptions. There will be a further relaxation from the current position, to exempt commercial and sporting and recreational activities carried out by Statutory Boards and charities with IPC status. To qualify for the exemption, the primary purpose of the activity must be a commercial or sporting/recreational one.

The exempted organisations will need to adhere to basic and minimal conditions

relating to the safety and security in respect of the activities they organise. For instance, they cannot hold their activities anywhere within 500 metres of schools or places of worship. The exempted activity must also not pose any serious disruption or nuisance to the surrounding community.

The approach we have taken in respect of assemblies and processions can be summarised as follows:

We have rationalised the approaches under PEMA and MOA and have set them out in the POA;

The activities covered by the POA are similar to those covered under the MOA – really cause-based activities are regulated;

Such activities can be carried out indoors without restrictions, in the Speakers' Corner, or in any other proposed exempted area without permits. But if they relate to race and religion then permits are needed; and

In other outdoor areas, such activities will need permits. This approach seeks to balance the desire of any individual or group to carry out a cause-based activity in a public area, with the interests of other users of that space, as well as public security. The individual or group can apply for a permit and the Police will have to decide on the application in accordance with the principles set out in the Bill. This moves away from a proscription based on the number of participants in the activity. Instead, the focus is on the activity itself and whether, regardless of the number of participants, it may have a disruptive effect on the public.

The net effect of these changes will, as I have stated earlier, be a substantial relaxation from the current position: our

proposed approach to exempt sporting and recreational activities organised by certain organisations, will, in real practical terms, mean that about 50% of the activities that now require permits will no longer require permits.

Part II – Assemblies and processions

Part II sets out the framework for regulating public assemblies and processions. Compared to the PEMA and MOA, the Bill makes clearer the application requirements, the public order grounds for approving, rejecting or cancelling an application, and the procedures for appeal to the Minister.

Under the Public Order Act, an assembly and procession may take place if a permit has been applied for and granted by the police.

Clause 7 states that the Commissioner of Police may refuse to grant a permit on public order grounds. The reasons include causing damage to property, hostility, obstructing roads, glorifying or instigating terrorism or the commission of an offence, or if held in a prohibited area. Clause 8 allows for permit conditions to be imposed on persons organising and on persons taking part in that assembly or procession.

The Commissioner of Police can cancel permits if the events or facts as set out in clause 10 exist.

A person has a right of appeal to the Minister under clause 11 against the Commissioner's decisions.

Clause 12 provides for the establishment of prohibited areas, in which there can be no holding of any public assembly or public procession or both. Such areas have to be designated by the Minister by way of an order published in the Gazette.

The Public Order Bill also empowers the Minister and Commissioner of Police

to prohibit public assemblies and processions in direct response to specific public order and security developments – clause 13. That clause also provides that the Commissioner of Police may prohibit all public assemblies or public processions or both for up to 28 days in a particular public place, if it is necessary in the public interest to do so. The factors that may be taken into account are set out in that clause.

Both the Minister's order and the Commissioner's notification will have the effect of cancelling any previous permit granted. It will be an offence to organise or participate in an assembly or a procession in contravention of such an order or notification.

Clause 14 provides for unrestricted areas, whereby no advance notice and no permit, subject to basic and minimal conditions, will be required for the holding of assemblies or processions or both in such areas, for example, the Speakers' Corner. Any contravention of any condition will be an offence.

By reference to the MOA, we have updated the penalties for organising and participating in unlawful assemblies and processions. Under the new regime, we have two sets of penalties; one for first-time offenders and the other for repeat offenders. We have lowered the penalties for first-time offenders by removing the jail term for organisers. Conversely, we have provided stiffer penalties for repeat offenders. This is a recalibration of the penalty system in accordance with the individual's regard for the rule of law.

A person organising or taking part in an assembly or a procession, who knowingly fails to comply with any direction of a senior police officer at the scene, may also be guilty of an offence under clause 16.

Obstructing the free passage of any ambulance, fire engine vehicle, police

vehicle, or inciting others to do so, will be an offence under clause 18. Such an obstruction could mean the difference between life and death.

Part III – Special events security

I will now deal with Part III of the Bill, which relates to special events security.

In the current security climate, all major international events are trophy targets for terrorists. We cannot afford to take our eye off security. Several of our provisions in this Part have been drawn from Australia's APEC law passed in 2007 as well as the Australian Capital Territory's Major Events Security Act 2000.

Members should note that Australia's APEC law allowed Australian law enforcement agencies to serve notices on persons at their homes to prohibit them from going near APEC meeting venues. The UK's Anti-Social Behaviour Act allows the Police to remove people back to their residences. We have decided against adopting these additional powers.

Under Part III of the POA, the Minister may make an order declaring an event to be a special event after considering certain criteria. Only events that are of national importance will be so declared. The Minister must be satisfied that it is necessary for preserving public order and the safety of people and for the avoidance of disruptions to the event. Additionally, the Minister must be satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood that the event may be disrupted if the powers in this Part are not exercised, there is a need to protect persons involved in or at the event, there is a reasonable likelihood that the event, because of its nature, might be at risk of an act of terrorism, or that the exercise of the powers is required as a condition for holding the event in Singapore. The Minister may take into account certain features of the event before declaring it to be a Special Event.

Under clauses 24 to 29, powers of inspection are given to police officers, whether or not in uniform, and approved persons. Police will be allowed to search persons and personal property, prohibit certain items from being brought into the special event area, request reasons for entry from suspicious persons and refuse entry to specific persons to the special event area. Failure to comply with any request or direction will be an offence.

To ensure the safety and security of the event participants, the Commissioner of Police has the power to issue directions to event organisers of special events and owners or occupiers of premises within a special event area to take or not take certain actions. The directions may be issued only during the period the declaration relating to that special event is in force.

An event organiser who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with any such written direction shall be guilty of an offence under clause 30.

However, an event organiser may avoid liability for failing to comply with a direction if he is not the owner of, and within seven days after he is given notice alleging that he has been guilty of the offence, he furnishes by declaration to the Commissioner, the name and address of the person who is the owner of the infrastructure or property, as the case may be.

The Commissioner of Police then may, with the approval of the Minister and during the period the declaration relating to that special event is in force, give another written direction to the person named in the declaration as the owner of the property or infrastructure. If the owner fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with this other direction to him within seven days from the date of the written direction, the owner will be guilty of an offence.

The Act also prescribes the offence of interfering with a special event under clause 32. This involves a person engaging in violent behaviour, or disrupting, interfering with, delaying or obstructing the conduct of a special event.

As an added security measure during special events, all public assemblies and processions within a special event area will require a permit. A public assembly or procession that is exempted from advance notice and permit requirements, or one taking place in an unrestricted area, or one that is excluded from any prohibition in a prohibited area, would still require a permit if the place of the public assembly or procession is within any special event area during such period as the declaration relating to the special event area is in force.

I will now deal with Part IV of the Bill dealing with move-on powers.

Part IV – Move-on powers

Under existing laws, where a person is committing an offence which is not seizable, Police can observe and warn that person that he has committed an offence and follow up with post-event investigations. Alternatively, the police may arrest the person on the spot if his actions amount to a seizable offence.

Both options have their shortcomings. The first option is unsatisfactory as it essentially allows an illegal situation to continue and presents very limited scope for our enforcement officers to stop an incident from escalating further and causing further damage. The second option, however, gives no flexibility to the Police in cases where the person or group does not pose a substantial threat and they are amenable to counsel.

We have studied other jurisdictions and found the Australian model of move-

on powers to be useful. Such powers would allow pre-emptive action to defuse a situation or disrupt the continuance of an illegal act. The British recently made all offences seizable to give their police extra powers. We do not want to go in that direction.

Part IV confers powers on police officers (whether or not in uniform) which are necessary for effective modern policing and law enforcement.

A police officer may exercise move-on powers under clause 36 in relation to any person at or near a regulated place if a police officer reasonably suspects the person’s behaviour is of such a nature as described in that clause.

A police officer in those instances may give a person or group of persons any reasonable direction. There are restrictions under clause 36 on giving a move-on direction, as it interferes with a person’s right of peaceful assembly. No such direction may be given unless it is in the interests of public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons.

A direction may remain in force for a maximum of 24 hours, and it can include a distance and direction a person must move, or a distance from a place which the person must not enter for a maximum period of 24 hours. An offence will occur only when a person, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with any direction of a police officer.

If a person complies with the order and leaves the designated area, no offence will be made out against him. The order is not treated as a Police warning and there is no record of adverse antecedent against the person. By giving the person in the first instance, an opportunity to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities, the move-on

powers bridge the current gap of 'doing nothing' and 'outright arrest'. This achieves our aim of taking a more calibrated approach.

Although our provisions are similar to those of Queensland, our provisions are more narrowly scoped as we decided not to have move-on powers in relation to the very presence of a person. Our provisions will only apply to a person’s actual behaviour, and not his mere presence. We have also decided not to allow move-on powers to be applied when a person’s behaviour causes anxiety to another person. That may be too broad.

Unlike the Australians, we also do not intend to use move-on powers to address social disamenities such as the creation of noise or loitering in housing estates. Such actions, in our view, should be addressed through existing laws and community solutions that involve Town Councils, grassroots bodies and mediation councils.

The Move-On Order will be in the form of a written notice that will state the area and time period, up to 24 hours, within which the subject is prohibited from re-entering. Having the order in a written form promotes clarity and certainty and will ensure a certain level of formality in the issuing of an order and accountability on the part of the person issuing it.

If a person thinks he has been wrongfully issued with an order, he must nevertheless comply with it first but is later free to make a case to the officers’ Commanding Officer or the Commissioner of Police. As an added measure of accountability, the power can only be used by a police officer of or above the rank of sergeant.

Filming of security operations

There are also specific situations where recording an on-going incident can potentially jeopardise the success of

security operations or the safety of officers. The recent Mumbai terrorist incident is a case in point, where journalists and private individuals were able to film the operations of security forces as the events unfolded. Potentially, indiscriminate filming could give information to the terrorists about what security forces were doing or planning to do, jeopardise rescue operations, and harm the lives of the victims and the officers conducting the rescue.

Likewise, a covert officer’s cover can be blown by a video recording disseminated on the Internet. Not only will the officer be unable to continue working covertly, he may even become a target for retaliation.

Clause 38 allows a law enforcement officer to direct any person to stop filming, or take photographs or exhibit or communicate any film or picture which may prejudice the effective conduct of an ongoing law enforcement operation or investigation or any intelligence operation, or may endanger or will endanger the safety of any law enforcement officer in such an ongoing operation or investigation, or any intelligence operation.

The officers who can give these directions are any police officer of or above the rank of sergeant, CPIB officers, narcotics officers, intelligence officer and immigration officers. Any person who fails to comply with such a direction will be guilty of an offence.

An enforcement officer may also, under clause 38, without warrant, search any person or place as set out in that clause for the relevant film and related items.

The officer can also take into custody any person reasonably believed to be in possession of such a film or picture.

These powers are not intended to be used to prohibit the filming of routine Police work or events. These powers are only intended to provide protection to officers and preserve the integrity of sensitive operations. If a police officer is misconducting himself, our approach is that the public can film such acts of misconduct. The film will be relied upon for investigation and disciplinary action if warranted.

We have decided at this stage not to have a general offence for filming. Our provision is therefore scoped more narrowly than the recent UK amendments to the Terrorism Act 2000, which criminalise upfront the eliciting or communication of information likely to be useful in preparing or committing a terrorist act which has raised concerns that the filming or photographing of any police officer will be regarded as an offence.

This limited approach is taken in favour of starting immediately with a more sweeping general offence for filming like the UK model. We prefer to see how our provisions work for the law enforcement officers and review if need be, in time.

There has been some confusion on the intent and scope of the filming provision among the public. The Straits Times published an article by Ms Clarissa Oon on 27th March 2009, commenting on recent amendments to the Films Act. The writer in that article suggested in relation to the filming provision in the POA, that "it is not unreasonable to infer, as many netizens have, that those who film civil disobedience acts and share the videos are liable to prosecution – even if they do not know if what they are filming is illegal, or how it might interfere with police operations."

This is not accurate on a number of counts. First, the provision relating to filming is not targeted at acts of civil disobedience at all. The powers are tightly scoped to where a security operation can be prejudiced or the life of the officer is endangered. The power cannot be used to prevent filming of police abuse or civil activist events.

Further, a person who films a relevant activity commits an offence only when he is directed to stop filming and refuses to do so, or if he is directed to surrender a film and fails to do so. There is no question of a person filming an activity or circulating it, without knowing that he is not supposed to do so, and being prosecuted for it. The Act does not provide for that.

Property owners

Under clause 42, if an owner or occupier of a property is given notice by any police officer that the assembly or procession is unlawful before the assembly or procession takes place, and such assembly or procession does take place on his premises, the owner or occupier of those premises could be guilty of an offence if he does not take reasonable steps to prevent it from taking place.

Other miscellaneous provisions

Due to the nature of their work, police officers face more danger in their line of work compared to other civil servants. To protect them, we are making it an offence under clause 39 for a person to obstruct a police officer when he is attempting to arrest and detain an unauthorised person from re-entering a special event area, and when he is issuing a filming prohibition order or exercising powers of search, seizure and arrest in relation to a filming prohibition order.

At the same time the Public Order Act is enacted, MHA intends to repeal section 5 of the MOA which regulates public assemblies and public processions. The subsisting subsidiary legislation under the repealed provisions will be re-enacted under this Bill. A minor change will be made to section 18 of the Police Force Act (Cap. 235) as a consequence of the repeal of section 5 of the MOA. Finally, the definition of "public entertainment" in the PEMA will be amended by removing the reference to lectures, talks, addresses, debates or discussions in public places. Such lectures, talks, addresses, debates or discussions in public places will no longer require a separate permit under the PEMA.

This Bill represents a major step in the continuous review of our public order management framework which seeks to balance the interests of national security, public safety, community rights to law and order and the legitimate interests of individuals seeking to pursue political activities to express their views through lawful and legitimate means. The Act will provide a framework that can then be evolved over time as our society evolves, even as we preserve the key principles that have brought us safety, security and communal peace so far.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.13 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Sir, very often, seemingly peaceful assemblies or processions in public places can turn violent, resulting in damage to property, human injuries and, sometimes, deaths. The recent peaceful protest in Thailand which ended with attacks on the motorcade of the Thai Prime Minister is a clear example of how peaceful protest

could result in violence, thus raising public order and safety concerns.

Sir, in a democratic society, there would always be calls for exercising of human rights and freedom of speech, especially in public places. As such, it is important to provide a clear and transparent legal framework to balance between exercising rights and protection of public safety.

Sir, I wish to highlight four areas of the Bill for the Minister's clarifications.

First, public assemblies and processions. Sir, we need to clearly distinguish between political and cause-related activities from recreational and social activities. In multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, there are many outdoor assemblies and processions organised by many organisations. For example, Chingay Parade, Thaipusam procession, family and community days, and countdown parties. Sir, these social and recreational activities generally do not pose high public order risks, and thus should be placed on a "Green Lane" permit regime or given full exemption to encourage self-regulation. I would urge the Minister to consider providing a "Green Lane" permit regime or permit exemption for regular and responsible organisers of such festivals, social or recreational activities.

Sir, based on the experience in other countries, political or cause-related assemblies and processions tend to be more emotionally charged, and thus should be subjected to a "Red Lane" regime which requires a more detailed public order risk assessment before permit is granted. In this aspect, I hope the Ministry could develop a risk assessment framework to measure the public order risks as stated in clause 7 of the Bill. This would provide a more systematic, quantifiable and transparent legal framework when approving or rejecting a permit

application instead of relying on the apprehension by the Police Commissioner, as stated in the Bill.

Sir, I support clause 35 which empowers the Police to exercise move-on powers to de-escalate situations which may cause significant law and order threats. Although the Bill has restricted the criteria in which Move-On Orders can be exercised, there is still subjective judgement to be made by the officer assessing the situation on the ground. Therefore, it is necessary for an experienced officer to assess the ground situation before issuing such order. I support the empowerment of the written Move-On Order to an officer above the rank of Sergeant.

But, Sir, I am puzzled to note that clause 35 also states that Move-On Order can be exercised if the person’s behaviour shows that he has just committed an offence or is committing an offence. I would presume that the officer would have taken enforcement action against the offender under such circumstances instead of issuing Move-On Order. Can the Minister clarify as to why Move-On Order is issued instead of enforcement action against such offender?

Sir, the penalty of $20,000 or imprisonment of 12 months or both, as stated in clause 37, for persons who fail to comply with the Move-On Order is rather harsh, especially for first-time offender. Sir, many public assemblies or processions attract many people. Some could be curious bystanders who are not related to the cause-related activities. Under such circumstances, it would be challenging for the Police to effectively communicate the written Move-On Order to every single person present at the assembly or procession. If such order is not personally addressed, it would be

unfair for the authority to penalise the offenders with such harsh punishment.

I support clause 38 which confers special powers on our law enforcement officers to direct any person to stop filming, making picture, exhibiting or communicating any film or picture which would jeopardise security operations or the safety of our officers. But I doubt the effectiveness of this clause in stopping individuals from filming security operations especially in our built-up environment.

Sir, the recent Mumbai terrorist attack had witnessed the filming of videos by various parties. This had affected the security operations and safety of both the law enforcement officers and the hostages. In such situations, it could be difficult to stop persons from filming and communicating their films or pictures. I would thus propose that the Minister be empowered to issue a written Order to stop all filming within the security operation area and its operations. This Order could be conveyed through the media to inform the general public of such security operations in progress so that no one will take films or pictures to compromise security operations.

Sir, clause 42 makes it an offence for an owner or occupier of any premises upon which any unlawful assembly or procession takes place. Although an owner and occupier of premises have a part to play in ensuring public order, it would be unfair to impose such heavy burden on them to prevent unlawful assemblies or processions. For example, unlawful assemblies or processions can happen in any part of a public housing town. Does it mean that Town Councils will be held liable for such activities? It is difficult for the Town Councils to implement all reasonable measures or exercise all due diligence to prevent such activities as the common areas of the public housing estates or towns are easily accessible to anyone.

Sir, the Bill is also not clear as to what will be considered as "all reasonable measures and exercise all due diligence" to prevent the assembly or procession from taking place. I would urge the Minister to list out all the reasonable measures and all the due diligence which an owner or occupier must comply when served with a notice to disallow unlawful assembly or procession.

Sir, as the security landscape becomes more complex, it is necessary to review our Public Order legal framework in order to safeguard the interests of our people, and yet protect people's right to gather and voice their opinions. The proposed Bill is a step in the right direction in enhancing public order in Singapore.

Sir, I support the Bill.

3.22 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the current regime for dealing with assemblies or gatherings and processions or marches in public places, leaves something to be desired. First, there is an arbitrary distinction drawn between assemblies and processions involving five or more persons, and less than that number. Secondly, activities held to promote a particular cause or campaign are not differentiated from recreational, social and commercial activities, where the considerations of public order are clearly different.

This Bill seeks to address those anomalies. It provides a separate framework for regulating assemblies and processions which are organised for the purpose of promoting a cause or campaign, regardless of the number of persons involved. In that regard, it affords a more rational and transparent platform to manage public order and security concerns that arise from such activities.

At the same time, by segregating the regulation of such cause-related activities, it in effect liberalises the regime governing recreational and social activities, which carry a lower level of security and public order risks in general. In that regard, I am heartened to note the Minister informing the House that 50% of the activities currently requiring a permit, primarily recreational and social, will no longer require a permit under the new regime.

Nor does this Bill seek to regulate cause-related activities with a blanket, heavy hand. There are a number of measures to calibrate the approach. Although the general requirement for assemblies and processions is for advance notice to be given and a permit to be obtained, there is now provision for "unrestricted areas" where such activities can be organised without a permit, and without even having to give advance notice. Again, although the Minister has the power to issue prohibitions of cause-related activities, that power must be exercised by reference to particular areas, particular periods of time or even to a particular assembly or procession, which the power can then be tailored to the specific risks that are envisaged.

Further, where previously a police officer had only the option on occasion of arresting someone who was threatening to commit an offence, he will now have the additional power to direct that person to move along. This has the advantage of defusing a potential confrontation which can arise when the person being arrested, or his supporters, feel that some grave injustice is being perpetrated. Or that they have nothing to lose by escalating the situation.

This is not to say that there is no room for refinement in this Bill. Allow me to cite just two key areas. The first relates to the crucial definition of the purpose behind the activity, which makes it cause-related and hence subject to regulation

under the Bill. There are three limbs to this definition:

to demonstrate support or opposition to the views of any person, group or government,

to publicise a cause or campaign; or

to mark or commemorate any event.

This is more or less taken from the Miscellaneous Offences Act, which is one of the two current governing legislations.

While one can see the basis for including the first two limbs of the definition, I question if the third – to commemorate any event – really adds anything to the rationale behind the Bill. The event to be commemorated may have nothing to do with any cause or campaign, or with a group championing such a cause. Indeed, it is wide enough to be construed as covering a whole range of activities that would not be considered by most people to be cause-related. This undermines the transparency and logic behind this Bill, and thus will detract from its acceptance by the public. Nor, in my view, is it required to achieve the objectives of maintaining public order and security. If the commemoration of an event is really intended to support a particular cause, the first or second limb of the definition will capture it sufficiently. So I do invite the Minister to review the definition section and see if the third limb is really necessary.

The second area I highlight relates to the right of appeal to the Minister, against the refusal, or revocation, of a permit. This is the only and final right of appeal. However, the Bill is silent on whether reasons must be given by the Police for the decision being appealed against. Yet

the person appealing must specify the grounds on which the appeal is being made.

How can he do that effectively, if he does not know the reasons for the refusal or revocation? It should be borne in mind that the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act requires such reasons to be provided where a permit is refused. Under the Miscellaneous Offences Act, reasons have to be given where a permit is revoked. So having to provide reasons under the Bill will not be ground-breaking, and it will allow for more effective appeal process. In this way, it will assuage the concerns of those who see the Bill as a clamping down on assemblies and processions.

Which brings me to my final point, as regards the perceived impact of this Bill on freedom of expression or, more correctly, the freedom to gather or march with others to express support for a particular cause.

It is sometimes fashionable, but over-simplistic, to treat such a freedom as an unmitigated right, which exists in some abstract state lording over such menial concerns like public order and national security. But even our very own Singapore Constitution provides in Article 14 that the freedom of speech and the right to assemble peaceably is subject to such restrictions as Parliament may consider necessary in the interests of national security and to maintain public order.

One need only look at recent events nearby to see what can happen when the right to demonstrate goes awry. The recent procession, or invasion, of the "red-shirts" in Pattaya has caused an important regional summit to be postponed and untold damage to Thailand’s reputation. It comes after earlier invasions of the Parliament building and the airport in Bangkok by the "yellow-shirts", which

caused death and damage and brought about the overthrow of a government.

Demonstrators and protest marchers often seek to do more than just express their views. They strive to create such disruption and disturbance in order to gain more currency for their views then they could rightfully achieve at the ballot box, or on the sheer merits of their arguments. The right to express one’s views is an important one,

nay a vital one. But it must still be balanced by other people’s rights not to have their lives disrupted or their safety threatened or to have the political process perverted. This Bill strives to achieve that balance, and that is why I support the Bill.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.31 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm

Debate resumed.

Sir, I am not really making a speech but I want a clarification from the Minister. This problem concerns my party directly.

At every election, at the end of an opposition election rally, some supporters would rush up to the stage, and chair one or two speakers and walk around the field where the rally was held. When they move, a crowd will follow them and soon a recognisable procession will be formed, and the police can take action against them if there are any offences committed. There are no organisers for such processions, these are spontaneous processions and neither are they planned. Usually, the

party that organised the election rally will have to take responsibility of the so-called illegal procession.

Since 1984, I have experienced such incidents. The ones I experienced, though noisy, were orderly and well-behaved. Their behaviour was nowhere near the rowdy crowd of "red-shirts" that went on a rampage in Pattaya, which stopped the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on 10th April 2009. In my view, such behaviour will never happen in Singapore because Singaporeans are educated and well aware that holding of international conferences in our country is a source of revenue and will not do anything to impede such an event from taking place. Singaporeans, in fact, will go all the way to welcome visitors to such prestigious meetings.

Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify that such processions arose on its own. There are no organisers, they are not planned and they are spontaneous. I would like the Minister to clarify what is his position on such spontaneous processions during the election rally. Are they illegal and do they need a permit, or can they be exempted from permits, because this affects me personally? Often, it does happen where people just carry you and off they go. I notice that an offence, under this Act, can be a $10,000 fine or a six-month imprisonment, which I understand, can disqualify a candidate from taking part in future elections.

Sir, I hope that the Minister could give a clear clarification on this type of spontaneous processions.

3.59 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workers' Party opposes this Bill. The policing of public order has been the subject of contentious debate in democratic countries. How far should State power be

used to restrict citizens from free movement and expressing their beliefs or grievances to the point of using force, even lethal force?

In Singapore, an individual's right to freedom of expression and assembly is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, under Part IV, entitled "Fundamental Liberties". However, that Article also allows Parliament to place some restrictions on these for the sake of security and public order. Nevertheless, the primary assumption is that such freedoms are fundamental rights of citizens. Has this Bill crossed the line asking Singaporeans to give up too much vis-a-vis the State?

First, special events security.

The Public Order Bill is tabled ahead of the APEC Meeting to be held here in November. Singapore is obliged to ensure that such events proceed according to schedule and without untoward incident to world leaders. To ask Singaporeans to subject themselves to stringent checks to enter the Special Events area, for only the duration of the event, is a compromise on individual rights that people can understand.

However, there are several disturbing aspects of the Bill. The three aspects most glaring are the changes relating to:

Public assemblies and processions;

Move-on powers; and

Prohibition of filming of law enforcement operations.

First, public assemblies and processions. The Bill repeals section 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act and takes over the police permit regime under

section 5. Activists and political parties such as we in the Workers' Party are very familiar with having our applications for police permits for outdoor activities rejected under that regime, due to so-called potential law and order problems. Such rejections were Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) up to as recently as 2007, when the Party's application to hold a cycling event at East Coast Park to commemorate our 50th Anniversary was dismissed out of hand.

The Bill now suggests that outdoor assemblies and processions may be allowed, even if cause-based, ie, with political content. Does this mean that political parties in Singapore will now get approval to organise outdoor activities at venues besides Hong Lim Park and stadiums? Or is this designed to please the international audience and to save the Government from further embarrassment? We all remember in 2006 when Singapore hosted the IMF and World Bank meetings here. Twenty-seven foreign activists were blacklisted and 22 of them later de-listed, and a badminton court was designated as protest space, leading NGOs to go to Batam to protest, making us a laughing stock internationally.

The change in definition of "assembly" and "procession" is more disturbing. As the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says, these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of five persons or more. This means even one person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen's freedoms.

First, to say that one person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word. Secondly, is the Government making the change because there had been incidents involving less than five persons which had disrupted public life? Unless there is compelling evidence to prove to us that expanding the definition of assembly and procession

is needed, this expansion does not deserve our support.

Regarding indoor political activities, MHA has said that these will continue to be exempted so long as organised by and for Singaporeans. Why is this exemption not written into the Bill, but left to regulations? Regulations can be amended as and when the Government likes. In the Explanatory Statement, it mentioned that the "current exemptions under the MOA may retain their status" under the POA. Does this mean that the Government is not prepared to commit to opening up to allow Singaporeans to discuss current issues even indoors, since it does not write this exemption into the Bill but continues to leave Singaporeans at the mercy of the Government?

Next, move-on powers. Clauses 34 to 37 give the Police a new power to order people to leave a place for up to 24 hours. The rationale for this is supposed to be public safety, public order or to protect the rights and freedoms of others. This is a convenient option for law enforcement to diffuse potential law and order problems, if not for the fact that such a move-on direction conflicts with the right of peaceful assembly enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Indeed, the Government is well aware of this infringement of the rights under the Constitution, as clause 36(2) expressly recognises this.

Looking at clause 36, the persons who are directed to move-on need not have been committing any offence, so long as the police officer believes it is reasonably necessary for them to move-on in the interests of good order. Disobeying such a direction itself becomes a criminal offence.

To illustrate, the police can order a group of persons outside a business or shop to disperse because the owner has complained that they are interfering with trade by, for example, standing at the

entrance of the shop. Could this become a pro-business Act of the Government at the expense of consumers' rights? There could be situations where these persons could have a legitimate claim against a business, eg, deaths or food poisoning from consuming contaminated food, or even bank customers who have lost their savings due to mis-selling of products. So long as the public are not committing or intending to commit any offences, why should they be told to disperse? The Explanatory Statement gives other examples such as people preventing others from leaving a place or people disrupting an event. But in such cases, we already have existing laws under which they can be charged, eg, with wrongful restraint under the Penal Code or disorderly behaviour under the Miscellaneous Offences Act.

MHA claims that our Bill is narrower than the Australian law, specifically the Queensland legislation, because our Bill targets behaviour rather than the mere presence of persons at a particular place. To me, this is a minor difference, as a person's mere presence could easily be classified as behaviour, for example, loitering by mere presence can be considered a kind of behaviour. There are also some Australian legislation which are much narrower. For example, in the Australian Capital Territory, move-on powers are only to be exercised when violence is imminent.

Further, one important feature of the Queensland legislation totally absent in the Bill is how police directions to move-on will be monitored and reviewed outside the SPF. The Minister earlier mentioned internal checks such as the requirement for the rank of Sergeant but this is really an entry level rank for fresh recruits holding A-Levels and Diplomas. By contrast, in the Queensland Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, section 49 provides for a Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) which reports to the

Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The CMC must conduct a review of police orders to move-on and prepare a report, which must be submitted to the Speaker to be tabled at the Legislative Assembly. Where is the provision for review under this Bill? Indeed, in MHA's overview, there is mention of internal accountability, but nothing on public accountability.

MHA has argued that move-on powers would give police an intermediate option and allow people to avoid being arrested. However, Australian research has shown that this was not true there – issuing move-on directions did not result in fewer arrests in public spaces. In fact, issuing move-on directions resulted in more charges for public space offences as reported in an article in the New South Wales Law Journal, 2007.

Sir, the Penal Code already allows us to charge people with criminal conspiracy for merely agreeing to commit an offence, and for attempting to commit offences, even if the act is not complete. The Criminal Procedure Code gives the police powers to prevent offences before they occur. The Miscellaneous Offences Act already criminalises many forms of anti-social behaviour, such as abusive language and disorderly behaviour. Such an approach forces the police to take a strict and disciplined approach to proceed only when they have evidence of offences.

The Minister earlier mentioned the international ratings of Singapore being high for stability and that we should enact this Bill in order to ensure that happens. But my argument is this: if we have maintained those ratings, does that not suggest that the current regime is adequate for that purpose?

Overall, I am not convinced that our existing arsenal of laws has hampered the

police in law enforcement and the policing of public order. Move-on powers have been very problematic in other countries due to the wide discretion given to police, to even order law abiding citizens to move-on. Our regime does not even provide for any independent oversight of such actions. Move-on powers are dangerous in leaving citizens in limbo over how they can move and seek legitimate redress.

Next, Sir, filming of law enforcement activities. Clause 38 allows police officers to stop a person from filming law enforcement activities. The Minister earlier said that this provision was targeted at security operations and not ordinary law enforcement activities. But is that what the clause says? Clause 38(5) defines "law enforcement" activities as "activities carried on by law enforcement officers in the exercise of any function, power or duty of such an officer in accordance with law". Therefore, clause 38(1) will allow a police officer to stop someone filming any law enforcement activity if he thinks it will prejudice the conduct of an ongoing law enforcement operation or investigation. The Minister's interpretation that it applies to security operations only does not seem to be borne out by the wording of the section. Law enforcement operation or investigation could well include crowd control, crime investigation or other routine matters.

With such wide wording, what is the potential cost of this to accountability for the exercise of State powers and protecting fundamental rights of citizens?

A good illustration is the recent incident in London involving Mr Ian Tomlinson which took place on 1st April, the eve of the G-20 meeting. Tomlinson was apparently on his way home after work when he had to pass through an area where there were some protestors. Police were on duty, obviously, on some sort of

law enforcement operations. Tomlinson collapsed and died of a heart attack on the way home. As questions were being asked about why Tomlinson died, the police initially said that there was no indication that he had had any altercation with the police prior to his death. However, this position became untenable when a video taken by a New Yorker in London on business showed the police violently pushing Tomlinson to the ground when he was doing nothing but walking away from the area peaceably. The revelation of this footage, together with other eye witness accounts, has now triggered an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the circumstances of Tomlinson's death.

The question the Government must answer is this: does it not agree that a wide, discretionary power to ban films of law enforcement activities will make the police less accountable to the public for its actions? If the video taken by the New Yorker in London never came to light, the circumstances of Tomlinson's death may have been covered up.

If the above case were to happen here, how does the Government expect truth and justice to prevail without the presence of footage recorded by public-spirited citizens? The Government may say it does not tolerate abuses by law enforcement officers but it cannot possibly believe that such abuses will not happen here. Even if we were to talk about covert officers' identities, if I happen to film intelligence officers beating up someone excessively, am I to be silenced simply to protect their identities? What about the victim of excessive violence – where is his justice?

As I have said before, citizen journalists have important roles to play to counterbalance the edited reports of the mainstream media. At long last, ordinary citizens can harness new technology to

secure evidence against the all-powerful State, something impossible before. In Singapore, this is particularly valuable as we still do not have any Freedom of Information Act, and there are wide provisions under the Official Secrets Act and Evidence Act to prevent disclosure of information relating to Government actions. We do not even have any independent watchdog body to monitor law enforcement agency actions.

Sir, the Government has already banned political films which are not totally factual under the Films Act. Must it also ban non-political films which faithfully record actual events? If the concern is not to prejudice ongoing operations, why is there no provision to return the films after the operation is over, instead of providing for the films to be destroyed altogether as in clause 38(3)?

Instead of having such a blanket provision, can our law enforcement agencies not find other ways to ensure operational effectiveness? During any operation, it already has discretion to physically cordon off areas if this is needed for operational reasons or public safety. This will limit the proximity of the public to such areas.

If we are to claim that our law enforcement agencies are world-class, we should not tarnish the image of the agencies by disregarding the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. We believe world-class status should be achieved not by way of curtailing legitimate rights of individual citizens; public accountability must be in the equation as well.

Earlier, the Minister, as well as some Members, mentioned the current situation in Thailand.

The problem in Thailand involves constitutional issues. The legitimacy of the each subsequent government after the

2006 military coup has always been in question since. Each camp believes it has a legal claim to power. The messages from both camps are similar. They want to force the existing government to call for fresh elections to ensure legitimacy.

If there is a lesson to be learnt from Thailand, it is about upholding democracy.

It is not about consequences of having weak public order laws. It is because the Thai people feel cheated. The Thai police and army are not weak either. They are more battle-hardened than our equivalent as they have been fighting Muslim separatists for many years. Many of these security people are just sympathetic to the red-shirt cause. Does the Government think that slapping a Move-On Order on 100,000 Thais will work? The Singapore Government should not take advantage of this situation in Thailand to justify the implementation of draconian laws to inhibit the basic rights of Singaporeans further. The Thais may be exercising their basic human rights to the extreme. On the other hand, Singaporeans have done nothing remotely close to what the Thais are doing and are being penalised for doing nothing. As long as this Government respects and upholds democracy, the problem we are seeing now in Thailand will not happen here. But if the Government wants to tinker with individual freedom and democracy to an oppressive level, it will actually become the source of public order problems.

Sir, on balance, the Bill as a whole will give the State carte blanche to control citizen activity and further erode whatever little powers Singaporeans have to pursue legitimate causes. This is contrary to the Workers' Party's belief in "power to the people". And for all these reasons, we oppose the Bill.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support

the Bill not only because it provides a framework to facilitate continued public order in Singapore but also because its introduction is timely and relevant. The Pattaya experience over the past weekend underscores the continuing importance of possessing sophisticated legislation to handle potentially dangerous public demonstrating.

I wish to concentrate on Part IV of the Bill, ie, the new powers to preserve and maintain public order.

First, the move-on power. Here, the broad collective effect of sections 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the Bill is to give Police Officers above the rank of Sergeant a new type of power: the power to (a) direct a person to vacate or move on from his location and (b) mandate that he not return to that location for 24 hours provided (c) the police officer reasonably suspects the person’s behaviour to fall under any of the four types of behaviour in section 35 and provided also (d) the move-on direction is reasonably necessary in the interests of public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons, these being limited to the enjoyment of the place in question and the carrying on of the lawful business at that place. No court order is required.

Given this new situation, I seek the Minister’s clarification on two points. The first is that move-on powers should not translate into an increase in 999 calls for non-urgent cases. Mr Speaker, Sir, Police manpower is limited. There has been public awareness generated on the opportunity cost of calling 999 for non-urgent cases. My concern is that the new move-on powers given to Police Officers will generate an even higher number of 999 calls – for example, people will think it appropriate to call the Police to have noisy groups move-on from the vicinity of their homes. Move-on directions should be used sparingly and not for non-urgent

cases involving, for example, neighbourhood noise. I wish to seek clarification from the Minister on one aspect. Could the Minister clarify the types of behaviour that will attract move-on directions? The explanatory statement to the Bill explains part of section 35 of the Bill in the following way:

"A group of persons may be deliberately stepping in front of someone who is attempting to enter or leave a late-night store."

It seems a move-on direction can be issued against that group if "the complaint about the behaviour is made by the occupier of the place."

It surely cannot be the case that all late-night store holders can seek a Police Officer’s intervention in the hope that a move-on direction will be issued. If this were the case, the Police Force will be stretched even more, inundated with an even higher number of 999 calls. Therefore, the Minister’s clarification on the type of behaviour he actually envisions move-on directions will be used for will assist Singaporeans to better decide whether to call 999 for a move-on direction. This would in turn assist in deterring a spike in 999 calls.

The second aspect of the legislation I wish to concentrate on, Mr Speaker, is in relation to deterring prejudicial filming of law enforcement activities. Sections 38 and 39 in Part IV of the Bill, which seek to introduce provisions to deter and punish the filming of law enforcement activities where it prejudices the effective conduct of the activities or endangers the safety of law enforcement officers, are worth scrutinising. A case in point is the "live" television footage of the Mumbai terrorist incident. This likely adversely affected attempts by Indian special forces to free the hostages, since the terrorists themselves were likely able to watch the footage. While this is a type of situation which new sections 38 and 39 obviously

seek to deter, there are other types of situations which should attract the same penalties. These include law enforcement activities which do not have any anti-terrorist element, for example, an undercover anti-drug operation, or a Police intelligence gathering exercise. Would the Minister confirm that if a person was to film such activities, and that such filming exposed the identities of undercover law enforcement agents, the person will be liable to destroy the film if directed to do so by the officer under section 38(2)(a), and failure to comply with such a direction will constitute an offence under the new law? Additionally, would the Minister confirm that the Police Officer will be empowered to seize the film without warrant under section 38(2)(d)? I believe from the reading of the Bill that section 38 does apply to undercover police activities, and I believe that such a position is consistent with the wording of section 38 which seeks to protect, in particular, narcotics and intelligence officers. Would the Minister clarify this point?

In conclusion, Sir, I rise to support the Bill not only because it provides a framework to facilitate the continued public order we enjoy in Singapore but also because its introduction is timely and relevant.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as the name suggests, this Bill deals with public order. In particular, it seeks to regulate public assemblies and public processions; to deal with the control and protection of special events in Singapore; to introduce the move-on powers that I spoke about in the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year; and to criminalise the filming of law enforcement activities in certain circumstances.

I will first touch on the proper framework for considering laws such as this Bill, that curtail Singaporeans' civil

liberties in the name of ensuring security and public order, before considering the provisions of this Bill in greater detail.

Sir, this Bill will have the effect of introducing new limitations on the constitutional rights of Singaporeans. So the starting point in considering the Bill must be the Constitution.

I start with Article 13(2), which provides that Singaporean citizens have the right to move freely throughout Singapore, subject to any law relating to security, public order, public health or the punishment of offenders. This Bill clearly purports to be such a law.

Article 14(1)(b) provides for another right, the right of Singaporeans to assemble peaceably. This right is subject to such restrictions as Parliament considers to be necessary or expedient, in the interest of security or public order.

So even as the Constitution provides for Singaporeans' rights to freedom of movement and freedom of peaceful assembly, it nevertheless recognises that those rights are not absolute and that there can be a legitimate need to limit those rights in the interest of security or public order. A balancing exercise is therefore necessary and I am glad to note that the Minister acknowledges the need for a calibrated, balancing approach.

When we debate legislation that purports to limit Singaporeans' constitutional rights in the name of security and public order, we have to consider whether the law in question strikes the correct balance between these competing interests. To my mind, due and proper respect for our fundamental liberties in the Constitution requires Parliament to ensure that the law curtails Singaporeans' rights to the minimal extent necessary to ensure security and public order, and no more.

Anything further, any overly broad wording that could permit actions not required by legitimate security or public order concerns, is not justifiable and goes too far.

With these principles in mind, I will now touch on the provisions pertaining to the objectives of the Bill.

Sir, Part II of the Bill seeks to regulate public assemblies, which include public talks and lectures, and public processions. In principle, I do not agree with the premise that all public assemblies and processions should require prior approval from the authorities. This emasculates our constitutional right of peaceful assembly – how can it be a right when it is subject to the approval by a bureaucrat? A right to do something necessarily means that the person entitled to the right can do the thing, without having to ask for prior approval. Otherwise, it is not a right. A system based on prior approvals and permits does not strike the correct balance in terms of respecting Singaporeans' constitutional rights to peaceful assembly.

Furthermore, this system of permits and prior approvals opens the door to perceptions and allegations of abuse for political purposes. Singaporeans have strong reservations about how this system has operated in the past, and I must confess that I share at least some of these reservations.

Ms Sylvia Lim has already mentioned an example that was debated in this House last September. Let me just elaborate a little. I had filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the rules governing the organisation of outdoor events by political parties and organisations affiliated with political parties. Ms Sylvia Lim filed a related PQ. The Senior Minister of State, responding to my and Ms Lim's PQs, reiterated that the police will not grant permits for outdoor political events, on

the basis of the risk of public disorder inherent in such events. The Senior Minister of State then explained that an outdoor event organised by the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) was not viewed by the Police as an outdoor political event, and hence was permissible, even though the PCF is an arm of the PAP and the guest-of-honour was the Prime Minister, and other PAP politicians were also present. With all due respect to the Senior Minister of State, I – and I believe many, if not most Singaporeans – do not find that distinction convincing in the least. It may comply with the technical letter of the law but certainly is difficult to accept as being true to the spirit of freedom of movement and assembly.

If we want to have a proper balance where Singaporeans' right of peaceful assembly is respected and preserved, while remaining mindful of the need for public order and security, then the starting point should be that all assemblies and processions are by default permissible, unless they fall into some prohibited categories, unlike the current system which is the opposite. So the organisers of an assembly or procession should provide advance notice to the Police with appropriate details, not for approval, but to allow the Police to assess the public order and safety implications of the march and its proposed route of the assembly, and to require the organisers to find an alternative venue, or to take an alternative route where reasonably necessary to preserve public order. The only permissible exceptions should be with respect to special events – and we will come to that shortly – or where an assembly or procession promotes an unlawful cause or is unjustifiably provocative, or is reasonably likely to lead to violence. Anything further would simply render Article 14(1)(b) of the Constitution an empty shell.

The Minister has referred to events in other countries, such as the unfortunate

events in Pattaya and Bangkok this past weekend to justify this Bill, which has resulted in a country where such events simply do not take place. I do understand the attraction in such an argument. But there is a danger of the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction, and I do believe that by requiring all public assemblies and public processions to be subject to prior police approvals, we have gone too far in the past and we continue to go too far in undermining our constitutional rights.

Be that as it may, the Bill before us today preserves this system of prior approvals, for better or for worse. That being the case, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify why the exemption for indoor meetings and talks, in other words, indoor public assemblies, that have only speakers who are Singaporeans, is not explicitly set out in the Bill itself.

Sir, Part III of the Bill relates to the security of special events, which are events that the Minister declares to be such having regard to their nature, the number and kind of expected attendees, Singapore's obligations for holding the event, and other relevant matters. The upcoming APEC summit in November this year would be an example of such a special event.

Members would have seen the shocking footage from Pattaya and Bangkok this past weekend. No doubt, the political divisions in Thailand contributed the problems there. In particular, the reluctance of Thai security forces to enforce the law had aggravated the severity of the situation. But it does provide a timely reminder that if special events go wrong, they could irreparably damage a country's image and reputation. So I would support the principle that special events could justify extraordinary measures and temporary restrictions on Singaporeans' rights of free movement

and peaceful assembly provided they are limited to the minimum extent, period and area necessary to prevent disruption of the event and to protect individuals involved in the event.

And in this regard, we have done well in the past. It is a testament to this country's, and, yes, this Government's organisational and security capabilities that we have in recent years held major international events here with minimal or no disruption. So I would like to ask the Minister to clarify why it is necessary to introduce this new Part III of the Bill when the existing system based on the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act has worked. Just looking at last year, the ASEAN Regional Forum at the Shangri-la Hotel, the National Day Parade, the National Day Rally and the Formula One race were all declared as protected areas under that Act, and all of them were events that went off without any security problems.

Furthermore, I would like to ask the Minister whether the scope of the powers to declare an event to be a special event is too broad. I am concerned with the new section 21(3)(b)(iv) in particular, which allows the Minister to declare an event to be a special event where "there is a reasonable likelihood that the event because of its nature might be at risk of an act of terrorism". That is a very broad definition, and any large gathering of persons in Singapore could potentially be seen as being at risk of an act of terrorism. The Explanatory Statement on section 21 does expand on the relevant factors for determining whether an event should be declared as a special event. But I hope that the Minister could specifically clarify whether the intent is to allow a large gathering of persons to be declared as a special event, simply because there are many people present.

My last point on Part III, Sir, relates to the new sections 21(5) and 21(6). The declaration of a special event must be gazetted, and sub-section (5) requires the Minister to publish a notice of the making of the declaration "in such manner as will secure adequate publicity for the declaration". The Minister has to do this, within seven days of the making of the declaration and before the date the declaration comes into force. The Explanatory Statement helpfully explains that this includes the publication of the notice in newspapers.

But sub-section (6) then goes on to state that failure to comply with sub-section (5) does not invalidate the declaration itself. It is easy to fathom the rationale for sub-section (5), but difficult to understand the reason for sub-section (6). Where an event is declared to be a special event, various restrictions on Singaporeans' fundamental liberties come into force. So Singaporeans naturally have a strong interest in knowing that such a declaration has been made. This makes absolute sense. But why then have sub-section (6), which renders sub-section (5) nugatory? Because, then, the Minister could simply ignore sub-section (5), without having to justify his actions and without any consequences. The Minister is given plenty of time, seven days, in fact, to publish the notice in the newspapers. So I hope that the Minister can explain the reasoning behind section 21(6).

I now turn to the new move-on powers, which I had spoken about in the Committee of Supply this year. Given that such powers limit citizens' right to freedom of movement, they have to be limited to the bare minimum extent necessary to preserve public order. We also have to bear in mind that an abuse or a wrongful use of these powers will result in irreparable loss and damage to citizens. For instance, if a person is unlawfully ordered by a police officer to move on,

then that person has lost the opportunity to be present at a certain place at a certain time, and it is impossible to remedy that loss.

In the first place, it does not seem to me that there is a convincing justification for the introduction of these new powers. In an interview published in the Straits Times in January this year, the Deputy Prime Minister had sought to justify these move-on powers on the basis that the police needed new powers to deal with political activists engaged in civil disobedience. But let us look closely at the acts of civil disobedience that we have seen in Singapore to date. They have taken a form of either an assembly or a procession which would be regulated under Part II of this Bill. In this regard, I note that the offences under Part II of this Bill are seizable offences. So there is no lacuna in the police's powers. These move-on powers will be necessary only if there are some loopholes or gaps in the provisions on public assemblies and processions that need to be plugged. But I see no such loopholes.

The Minister in his Second Reading speech said that there was a gap in police powers between post and incident investigations and arrest while the incident is on-going. But, practically speaking, it is always open to Police Officers to give a verbal warning to cease and desist before arresting a person. And I presume that that is what they will usually do in practice. The only thing that these powers do with respect to civil disobedience activists is to add a further offence to the list of offences committed, but ensuring a multiplicity of offences and hence penalties is not a legitimate reason for introducing yet another offence.

In any case, the move-on powers extend far beyond what is needed to deal with civil disobedience. Section 36, as currently worded, with its reference to disorderly behaviour, could extend to

situations like teenagers loitering around a void deck, or even the skateboarders and inline-skaters who hang out at the underground plaza at the Esplanade on weekends. They generally cause no harm to anyone. But an overzealous Police Officer may seek to clamp down on what is, in truth, simply boisterous teenage behaviour. Given the ease and expediency with which move-on orders may be given, this is an undesirable outcome that is sadly almost inevitable.

Be that as it may, these move-on powers will become law. In the Committee of Supply debate, I made some suggestions which have unfortunately not been taken up. At the time, the Minister had said that it was premature to deal with those issues, as the Bill was not before the House. That being the case, I hope that the Minister will now explain why these suggestions have not been accepted. I will briefly recap those suggestions.

Firstly, I had stated that the legislation in question should target the objectionable conduct of a person, and not the mere fact that he was in a certain location. And I note from the Minister's speech that he has stated the same position. But if that is the case, if a person behaved offensively in a certain location, and a police officer directs him to move on, and the citizen then ceases the offensive conduct, then the Move-On order should cease to have effect. While the new section 35 makes it clear that the subject of a Move-On Order has to be behaving objectionably before the order can be issued, there is no corresponding provision to state that the Move-On Order ceases to have effect if the objectionable behaviour ends. Instead, the subject of an order has to leave the vicinity; otherwise he commits an offence. This is regardless of how he continues to behave.

Secondly, I note that the new section 36(1) requires Move-On Orders to be in

writing, which is what I had suggested in the Committee of Supply debate. That is positive. But I did make another suggestion, for all Move-On Orders to be recorded in a public register, as is the case in Australian territories, like in Queensland, which the Minister has stated was used as a model. This suggestion has not been taken in. But a register is useful to ensure transparency and accountability in how Police Officers use their move-on powers. We have said that we are following the Australian example in introducing such powers, yet studies in Australia have shown a history of abuse of these powers by Police Officers. An official register recording the use of such powers, that is open to the public, could provide a powerful tool for ensuring accountability and for allowing Singaporeans to satisfy themselves that these powers are not being abused, by subjecting the exercise of these powers to public scrutiny.

Thirdly, I had proposed an appeal mechanism, where any person aggrieved by a Move-On Order can challenge it. But the Bill does not provide for any such mechanism. The Minister has mentioned the possibility of a complaint to the Commanding Officer. But that would presumably trigger an internal investigation at most, which is not transparent and may not be perceived as being fair and independent. In the Straits Times' interview that I referred to earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged the need to ensure that aggrieved persons are able to seek redress from the Minister or the Attorney-General's Chambers. Unfortunately, that need has not been met in the present Bill, in respect of the move-on powers.

I come to the final part of my speech, on the new section 38, which deals with the filming of law enforcement activities. This provision has been justified on the

basis of the media coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks last November, where the terrorists themselves were able to watch law enforcement operations unfold on Indian TV stations. That is obviously an undesirable state of affairs, and I would support a law to prevent that situation from taking place in Singapore.

Preventing what happened in Mumbai means preventing footage, or indeed any news, about ongoing security operations from being disseminated, where such footage or news could jeopardise the success of the operation or otherwise compromise the safety of law enforcement officers. This objective cannot be objectionable to anyone.

But even as we try to protect law enforcement, we have to ensure that citizens are not prevented from legitimate filming, and especially filming of law enforcement officers engaging in abusive or unlawful behaviour. Ms Sylvia Lim has referred to the recent incident in London involving Mr Ian Tomlinson. So I will not speak further on that.

If there are abuses by law enforcement officers, then surely citizens have the right to know, and to film and record these acts as evidence. The case from London involving Mr Ian Tomlinson shows the importance of this, to prevent cover-ups from taking place. If the other passer-by had been prevented from filming the pushing incident, who knows whether or when the truth would have come to light? I am comforted by the Minister's assurance that the filming of law enforcement abuses is not prohibited by this provision. Yet, there are no explicit controls or checks on how law enforcement officers may exercise that power under section 38, and as with the move-on powers, no formal avenue of recourse for citizens aggrieved by an order made against him.

Imagine a situation such as that of Mr Tomlinson in London. In the midst of a

riot, an abuse takes place against an innocent bystander. The duty officer demands that a bystander who films the incident surrender his camera, claiming that the film shows his identity and therefore threatens his safety. What, then, is this innocent bystander to do? The offence in section 38(4) does not contain a defence of reasonable excuse for not complying with an order, unlike in section 37 in relation to non-compliance with move-on orders. In such a situation, the person who made the film of the abuse by law enforcement would have no choice but to surrender the film, otherwise he runs a very likely risk of being charged and prosecuted.

Indeed, section 38(2)(a) empowers law enforcement to require a person to delete the film that is made – but if that is the case, then how is that person, or the police itself, able to subsequently evaluate or verify whether the deletion had been lawfully ordered, without knowing for sure what the content was? It should be adequate that the film be seized, to prevent it from being disseminated.

Furthermore, the new section 38(3) very clearly goes beyond what is legitimately necessary for the objective of protecting law enforcement activities. Section 38(3) permits law enforcement to forfeit any film equipment that has been seized, and to destroy it or dispose of it in such manner as the Commissioner of Police may decide. While seizure of equipment may further the objective of avoiding a compromise of ongoing security operations, the forfeiture and destruction of equipment after the fact do not. Instead, it is simply punitive and, hence, is not reasonable at all. It, therefore, seems to me that section 38, as currently worded, overreaches and goes far beyond what is needed to prevent media coverage from compromising ongoing law enforcement activities and the safety of officers.

Sir, I have taken great pains to point out the flaws in this Bill as I see them. I do think that they are major flaws, with the potential to greatly affect Singaporeans' lives and their constitutional rights for the worse. That being the case, I would propose that this Bill be sent to a Select Committee for further consideration.

When this House amended the Penal Code in late 2007, there had been extensive public consultations, even though Members would remember that I had strong objections to certain aspects of the Bill and eventually voted against it. Similarly, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code had recently undergone a public consultation. In contrast, there was no public consultation at all on this Bill, even though it directly affects Singaporeans' fundamental liberties under the Constitution and also has the potential to greatly impact our day-to-day lives, especially in relation to the new move-on powers. The fact that 12 Members of this House have decided to speak on the Bill shows that it is of immense public interest. Yet, it has only been three weeks or so, since the Bill was first made available to the public after its First Reading in Parliament. Because of all this, it would make great sense for this Bill to be sent to a Select Committee, so that the public can be given an opportunity to comment on the Bill.

Sir, for all the reasons that I have mentioned in my speech, I have no choice but to oppose the Public Order Bill in its present form.

4.44 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill as it will give the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) more effective powers to maintain public order and safety during major events such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

summit which Singapore will host in November this year and others to follow. The IMF meeting experience a few years back has shown that protests and terrorist actions could threaten mega events that Singapore is increasingly hosting. I support this Bill as it is imperative to ensure peace and order during Singapore’s hosting of major international conferences of high global signature. This is to ensure that our reputation as one of the safest cities in the world is maintained. Having seen the protests taking place in Thailand in the past few days during the ASEAN Summit, I am sure most Singaporeans and foreigners alike would not want a repeat of such violence here. I welcome this continuous review of public order laws to keep them up to date with a progressively more complex security environment, especially when this Bill focuses on outdoor activities.

Consolidating relevant portions of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act and the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act into this Bill is timely. However, this new Bill has stark similarities with the Public Order (Preservation) Act, Cap. 258, especially with its key provisions. I therefore hope that MHA will consider clarifying and rationalising them.

Several commonly used words and definitions have been given new meanings.

For the purpose of this Bill, "assembly" can now refer to one person alone marching or carrying out a procession solely. This is a stark departure from the definition of an "unlawful assembly" in the Penal Code which is five or more. This also further blurs the line on when and under what circumstances a person is legitimately demonstrating or carrying out an illegal march, a demonstration or procession in any given case. How would the police avoid

mistaking a curious bystander as a protester?

The definition of "public place" is ambiguous. This Bill defines it to mean any place, open air or otherwise, to which members of public have access as of right or by virtue of permission, including when a payment of a fee is made. Apparently, this expression is extended to include private premises that the occupier of the place allows members of the public to enter, but only while the place is ordinarily open to the public. In more ways than one, the dichotomy between a public and private place is further obscured. What may be a "private place", eg, a private club or hotel ballroom, by normal definition now becomes a "public place" in the eyes of this piece of legislation.

This Bill can rope in property owners to help maintain public order. Property owners would undertake the onerous burden of taking "reasonable action" to prevent illegal assemblies and processions on their premises when they are notified by the police. Then, again, who is the actual "property owner" becomes questionable especially when the assemblies/processions cut across numerous properties and localities.

Another proposed clause includes giving police enhanced powers during events declared as special events, as well as letting law enforcement officers stop people from filming, distributing or exhibiting films of law enforcement activities. What is defined as a "law enforcement activity" requires greater clarity. Will filming Police Officers on patrol amount to a breach of this provision resulting in indictment? A good example would be the Picture Story in today's edition of the New Paper taken by a resident in Bishan showing a group of policemen trying to arrest a man below his block.

The introduction of Move-On Orders for better crowd control appears to be a

calibrated approach. However, the Police should exercise restraint when using this Bill's penal provisions in incidents happening within Singapore that are not major international events, such as campaigning during the General Elections. I see this Bill as continuing the process of opening up that has begun a few years ago. Since as a country we want a more open and free society and are moving towards more openness, we should not allow any legislation to hinder our growth and development towards active citizenry and civil rights participation.

4.48 pm

Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Order Bill is a major piece of public law legislation. It shapes the contours of the fundamental liberties of free expression and peaceful assembly enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

While the law protects many interests, only the most vital interests enjoy the status of constitutional rights. To be more than "zi lao hu" or paper tigers, constitutional rights must be given due respect and not treated as disposable interests.

However, rights are not absolute. Article 14(2) expressly allows Parliament to impose restrictions on assembly rights which it considers "necessary or expedient" in the interests of the "security of Singapore" and "public order". However, there should be a freedom-friendly standard of necessity.

It is trite that rights cannot exist without order, in the face of anarchy and lawlessness. However, we do not just want "order", we want a just order, one befitting the aspirations of a democratic, not autocratic society. Excessive order is tyrannical; an excessive focus on rights breeds an unhealthy narcissistic indi

vidualism which disregards the rights of others and the common good. Our goal is not to be lop-sided rights fundamentalists or authoritarian apologists but to seek the via media of ordered liberty, a balance between freedom and necessary restraints.

Are the regulations and restrictions in this Bill reasonable or repressive?

I think none of us would have a problem with banning outdoor activities which glorify terrorism or precipitate collective violence which robs us of a secure environment where we can live peaceful lives. So, too, innocuous activities like cultural processions should be facilitated.

The difficulty relates to political or cause-related assemblies, processions, demonstrations. How do we strike an appropriate balance between liberty and security?

Peaceful assemblies are a potentially effective method of communication and integral to extra-parliamentary politics. They are an important, if blunt, way for civil society to participate in public life by expressing ideals or highlighting grievances, perhaps through slogans rather than reasoned debate. A responsive government may value this as a barometer of public sentiment.

I remember as an undergraduate in England, demonstrations were a regular occurrence, whether against the Poll Tax, Apartheid or cries to "Free Mandela” which kind of dates me. Other righteous causes such as toppling dictators such as Ceaucescu in Romania or Marcos in the Philippines were also a product of large-scale people power demonstrations.

In this light, it is good that the Public Order Bill squarely addresses the issue of political demonstrations and assemblies – in the past under the Public Enter

tainments and Meeting Act, "any lecture, talk, address, debate or discussion", including those of a political bent, were defined as "public entertainment" and grouped together with funfairs and peep shows, which I always thought was ludicrous, trivialising political communication.

Conversely, demonstrations can trigger violence where the right to peaceful protest is abused by militant activists wanting to forcefully impose their views on other people. Demonstrations may champion noxious causes, like the march of Neo-Nazis through a village where many Holocaust survivors resided, which is a famous example of how assembly rights can disrupt the even tempo of community life. Demonstrations may cause great offence and give rise to counter-demonstrations, escalating social tensions. Closer to home, the events of the past few days where demonstrations scuttled an ASEAN summit in Pattaya are sobering. Indeed, Part III of this Bill creates a 'Special Events' regime which will help the hosting of major international events.

We are not hermits but citizens who share a common space. Rights carry responsibilities. Article 29(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that rights such as peaceful assembly are subject to legal limitations designed to secure "recognition of the rights of others" and to meet "the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

Has the Public Order Bill managed to strike a happy equilibrium where rights are meaningfully enjoyed rather than illusory? The Bill may be assessed against three main criteria, aside from the objectives of ensuring effective policing powers.

First, based on the virtues of the rule of law. The Bill confers broad discretion

ary powers on the Minister, Commissioner and Police which curtail rights of expression, assembly and personal liberty, through arrest and move-on powers.

Does the Bill provide clear guidance on how to exercise discretion so as to avoid arbitrariness and to realise the Act's purposes? The law must be clear enough to guide and enable citizens to plan their actions within its stable framework.

Is the decision-making process sufficiently transparent? Must decisions be rendered within specified time limits?

Are there mechanisms for holding decision-makers accountable, such as appeal processes or judicial review? All power has legal limits and should not be unfettered. Who will guard the guardians who guard our public order? What if public powers are abused? Does the law provide for this contingency?

Second, is the principle of individual dignity – how is the individual respected in the way he is treated?

Are there limits on how far rights can be limited? Is mere convenience a good enough reason to restrict rights or must restrictions satisfy a localised standard of reasonableness or proportionality, to ensure against the exception gobbling up the norm?

Is a decision-maker obliged to give reasons to a citizen when making an adverse decision, or is the citizen curtly dismissed?

Third, does the Bill hinder or facilitate participatory democracy, which is sustained by freedoms of speech and assembly? Any regulatory regime must appreciate the need for reasonably hearing differing views in a peaceful environment.

Politics is not only for politicians but for all citizens, within and without formal

processes. This encompasses peaceful protests and citizen journalism, which clause 38 might hinder by authorising the seizure of films of law enforcement activities, such as shots of security officers attending opposition political rallies which some have uploaded on the Internet as a sort of 'show and shame' strategy. Of course, there are valid and sensitive policing activities relating to terrorism or civil unrest. If these are filmed, I am sympathetic towards having powers to order someone to cease and desist filming, to facilitate on-the-spot checks and to require footage to be surrendered. However, broad powers can be abused for non-security reasons, particularly when powers go beyond seizing films to banging down doors "by night or by day" without a warrant, in search of suspected footage. This is perhaps over-extensive.

Let me turn to the Bill proper and my concerns with certain clause 2 definitions.

First, is there any precedent for defining as an "assembly" or "procession" a demonstration or march by one person in aid of any one of three stipulated purposes, such as to publicise a cause or oppose the Government? Why is the number of participants treated as irrelevant given that in notifying the Commissioner under clause 6(c)(iii), information about the number of persons likely to participate in a assembly or procession is required?

A common law assembly consists of three persons; an unlawful assembly under the Penal Code relates to five or more persons. When the 1986 English Public Order Bill was debated, the original number of three persons was raised to 10 and eventually 20. In densely populated Hong Kong, a public procession needs more than 30 persons, whereas only two are needed in Singapore. Is not an assembly of one or procession of two

much too wide and extreme a definition, too restrictive of civil liberties?

Further, what does "to mark or commemorate any event" encompass? Will a birthday celebration in a public restaurant require a permit? This overly wide provision should be more restrictively formulated.

The Bill contains powers to exempt places or persons from its operation. Sir, could the Minister indicate what types of persons, assemblies or processions clause 46 may apply to? What criteria will be used to identify exceptional cases?

Also, in relation to unrestricted areas under clause 14, geographical spaces are exempt from the notice and permit requirement, which is a good move. Aside from Hong Lim Park, are there plans to introduce more 'Speakers' Corners'? Location is key to whether a demonstration will be occasion for effective communication. While we do not expect a Speakers' Corner to be carved out of Orchard Road, will future corners only be allowed inulu or more remote areas? Who will police observance of conditions?

Under clause 12, the Minister may delineate prohibited areas where all assemblies and processions are banned. These may include vital public institutions like the Istana or Parliament House, which activists might consider the most effective site for demonstrations. Those who conduct demonstrations within such areas may be fined up to $5,000 and $10,000 for participants and organisers respectively.

How were these benchmarks arrived at? Does the Minister consider this a moderate or steep criminal sanction?

Also, are there plans to include foreign missions under clause 12, for example?

An organiser must give the Commissioner advance notice of intention

to organise a public assembly or procession under clause 6(1) within the prescribed period which I presume will be provided for in regulations to be adopted under clause 47.

Prior notice enables the authorities to take the necessary measures to facilitate demonstrations by settling routes, regulating traffic, to reduce the risk of disorder. Could the Minister give an indication of what the prescribed period for notice will be – whether six hours as in Finland or seven days as in Hong Kong?

This is important where time is of the essence, such as where organisers hope to commemorate the birthday of some important personage. Will regulations also provide for a specified time period within which the Commissioner must decide on whether to grant a permit and formally communicate that decision to the applicant?

Sometimes, the effectiveness of a demonstration springs from its spontaneity such as gatherings springing from an outpouring of grief for a public figure's death or national tragedy. Will allowances be made for this? Under clause 6(5), the Commissioner has discretion to accept shorter notice where "reasonably satisfied" earlier notice could not have been given. Could the Minister indicate what might be an acceptable timeframe for shorter notices? Guidelines help regulate discretion.

There is no Ministerial appeal where the Commissioner decides not to accept shorter notice. Why is this?

Sir, the use of the term "reasonable satisfaction" in clause 6(4) is significant in indicating that decisions must rest on an objective factual basis. Does judicial review lie?

There is a difference between a fundamental right and a mere state grant which the state may take away where expediency rears its pragmatic head. To better reflect the constitutional status of the right to peaceful assembly, I suggest clause 6(4) be redrafted to replace the word "may" with "must" so that the Commissioner "must" accept shorter notice where evidence indicates "it is not reasonably practicable to give advance notice." Unless the Commissioner is reasonably satisfied that shorter notice be rejected, the presumption should incline towards facilitating the better enjoyment of a fundamental liberty.

Should the Commissioner reject shorter notice, he must inform the affected person in writing "as soon as practicable", certainly before the intended activity takes place. Clause 6 should be amended to require the Commissioner to furnish adequate reasons rather than merely give a bare notification of decision.

Clause 6(c)(viii) refers to "other particulars and information" relating to a particular assembly which the Commissioner may require. These cannot be known by a person before giving prior notification to the Commissioner so it must be something required after notice is given. This clause is so broad it is wide enough to include a request for extraneous political matters,such as whether assembly participants are members of any political party, for example, or to stipulate their religious affiliation. Are these relevant public order considerations? The Commissioner may refuse to grant a permit under clause 7 if he has reasonable grounds for apprehending that the proposed assembly or procession may bring about any of the seven consequences listed in clause 7(2)(a) to (g). These objective factors and the word reasonable indicates that this decision is subject to judicial review.

These seven consequences are important as the need to avoid them may shape the conditions accompanying a permit under clause 8(2) as well as provide a possible ground for cancelling permits under clause 10(2)(d). The Commissioner should be obliged to give adequate reasons for not granting a permit, and not merely identify a bald conclusion; or, at least to cite the specified ground for rejection. Otherwise, a disappointed party will be disadvantaged should he invoke the ministerial appeal procedure under clause 11(2). This should similarly apply to clause 10 powers in relation to cancelling permits. While courts may imply a duty to give reasons as a facet of natural justice where the justice of the common law supplies legislative deficiencies, it is better that Parliament lead the way by framing clear statutory duties to promote good administration. The consequences listed in clause 7(2) require some clarifications as to what they entail or mean. First, clause 7(2)(a) refers to when proposed assemblies might cause Public Disorder or property damage. Is public order the flip side of public disorder? Public order is a narrower concept than law and order, which is breached whenever law is breached. Public order does not affect specific individuals in localised incidents but rather, the community or public at large; it is threatened where public tranquility is disturbed and human life and safety endangered. In some conceptions, Public order relates to the fundamental principles which organise society, including respect for rights. Extremely broad conceptions of public order have emerged in our case law, as where public order is said to be threatened by inaccurate information alleging the financial impropriety of public

institutions. In what sense is public order being understood here? Clause 7(2)(b) refers to Public Nuisance, which a judge has described as the Proteus of Public Order founded in contempt for the rights of others. How is public nuisance to be defined? Will it drawn from statutes like section 13A of Miscellaneous Offences Act in relation to using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour which cause harassment or distress? Clause 7(2)(c) relates to obstructions in any public road as does the degree of obstruction matter. Whether it is something we can walk around or is not susceptible to circumvention? A procession may slow down traffic, is this sufficient reason for denying a permit? Clause 7(2)(d) refers to placing the safety of any person in jeopardy. Does this mean just one person or a group of person? Does this refer to the demonstrators or observers? Or all? Clause 7(2)(e) refers to feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different groups in Singapore. Other statutes have typically referred to hostile feelings between different religious groups or between different races.

This appears to recognise a new source of social instability stemming from inter-group hostility, spurred by militant activists defined along secular or non-racial lines. Ideological conflict, particularly over morally controversial issues, can precipitate social disharmony. Is this the drafter's intent? If so, can the Minister elaborate on what kinds of scenarios or groups clause 7(2)(e) might cover? Clause 8 provides that conditions may be imposed on the organisers or participants taking part in a static or mobile demonstration which in the

Commissioner's opinion is necessary to prevent the situations enumerated in clause 7(2)(a) to (g). What if the conditions imposed are unreasonable or make it impossible to effectively carry out the assembly? I note that the Commissioner's decisions to impose conditions is subject to ministerial appeal under clause 11(1)(c) and, presumably, to judicial review as well. Is this reading correct? A uniform condition is the organiser of the assembly or his nominee must be present throughout its duration, the intent being to ensure good order and public safety as clause 8(1)(b) states. Thus, imposed conditions must advance this purpose and conditions unrelated to good order and public safety would be ultra vires or invalid. Why should the police regulate the number and size of banners, placards under clause 8(3)(b)? How does that affect public order? Furthermore the requirement under 8(3)(c) to engage sufficient marshals to keep order is onerous in terms of responsibility and cost on venue operators. Is this fair? The Minister, under clause 11, may hear appeals against certain decisions of the Commissioner. The Minister's decision is final but High Court supervision is not precluded as there is no provision that this shall not be called into question in any court of law. Is this correct? The Minister can allow or reject the appeal or substitute it with his decision. Under clause 11(3)(d), the Minister can direct the Commissioner to reconsider his decision. I find this a bit odd, given that the Minister's decision is final. Such a power approximates that of judicial review where courts will not touch on the merits of a case. If the Commissioner reconsiders the case and maintains his original decision, is there any other mode of recourse for the person affected by this later decision?

Sir, by dint of clause 13, the Minister has powers to ban ad hoc a proposed public assembly or procession. If the Commissioner had granted a permit, the Minister can effectively veto this if of the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest. Public interest also triggers the clause 12 ministerial powers to identify prohibited areas. Presumably, exercises of ministerial powers in the public interest are reviewable, while public interest is a wide term, it cannot be so wide as to encompass anything under the sun. What then falls under the ambit of public interest in relation to clauses 12 and 13? Public interest is a broader category than public order. In a persuasive Malaysian case (Re Tan Boon Liat [1976] 2 MLJ 83 ), public interest was identified as having many facets such as public order, public health, public security or safety or public morals. Restraints on assembly for us must be within the Article 14(2) constitutional framework. Could the Minister clarify the types of situations where, regarding any public place, the Commissioner under clause 13(2) may if necessary in the public interest prohibit the holding of all public assemblies or processions, or those of a certain description, for up to 28 days? The exercise of this power must relate not to the threat of public disorder, but to serious public disorder or serious public nuisance. What differentiates public disorder from serious public disorder? Could the Minister give some illustrations? Further, why is this power needed when there are already ministerial powers to prohibit processions and assemblies on an ad hoc basis?

Sir, I am concerned with the wording of each person who takes part in a public assembly or procession under clause 16(2) for instance. This is vague and warrants more careful definition. Does mere presence at the assembly suffice, or

must the person act positively to show he took part in the assembly? What if the person is a passer-by who was at the wrong place at the wrong time? Sir, under Part IV, clause 36 enlarges police powers by giving the police move-on powers in relation to any person at or near a regulated place if a police officer reasonably suspects the person's behaviour has certain undesirable effects. Four sorts of undesirable behaviour are identified in clause 35(1)(a) to (d), such as disrupting a gathering or displaying behaviour which is disorderly, indecent, offensive or threatening to someone entering or leaving a regulated place under clause 35(1)(b). Move-on powers may be aptly used to promote safe streets and public spaces, such as where menacing youths threatening people at MRT stations are instructed to move on. Freedom from fear is a primary social good. However, one ground that triggers move-on powers is when someone is just about to or has committed an offence under clause 35(1)(d). Why would the police want to exercise a move-on power rather than to arrest the criminal? There are some important safeguards which condition the exercise of police move-on powers to prevent their arbitrary or over-exuberant misusage. First, the police officer must have a reasonable rather than a bare suspicion that the undesirable behaviour listed in clause 35 has been or is taking place. The word reasonable indicates objective review, which promotes accountability. Second, the police officer must be at least a sergeant and must issue a written direction that is reasonable in the circumstances. This could include directing a person to leave the regulated place for a stated reasonable time of 24 hours

maximum or to remove to a stated reasonable distance under clause 36(4). Clause 36(2) is to be commended as it strikingly acknowledges that a citizen's right to peaceful assembly is involved and cannot be brushed aside for reasons of efficiency. Indeed, the police are enjoined not to give a clause 36 direction unless it is reasonably necessary to serve three identified interests, which indicates a holistic approach towards balancing goods and rights. These include public safety and public order. Usually, public safety relates to the security of the public or their freedom from danger, which includes dangers to public health. Public order is not necessarily antithetical to disorder and is wide enough to include considerations of public safety within its ambit. If public safety is a part of the wider concept of public order, is there a specific need to differentiate these grounds here? Or is public order being used here to indicate prevention of a disorder of a grave nature, beyond maintaining ordinary law and order? In addition, the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons must be considered. These may include the right to carry on lawful business and, perhaps, other rights like the right to be free from harassment. A pretty hefty fine of up to $20,000 is imposed on any person contravening any clause 36 order without reasonable excuse under clause 37 but, presumably, if the direction is oral rather than in writing, it is invalid. So an unreasonable direction is also invalid and presumably open to challenge before the courts on grounds of Wednesbury unreasonableness. Could the Minister confirm this? Finally, a drafting point in relation to clause 40 which gives powers of arrest without warrant to any police officer who "in his view" offends any provisions of

this Act. This is similar to section 40 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Although "in his view" is subjectively couched, the courts have construed such clauses not to preclude objective judicial review. It would be preferable to substitute the phrase "has reason to believe" for "in his view" to underscore the commitment to a government of laws, not of man. Despite the efficient quality of this Parliament, I would urge the Minister not to let the Second Reading debates be a formality but to consider incorporating these amendments to the Bill or even calling or putting it before a Select Committee before submitting it for Third Reading.

First, I would like to thank the Minister for a thoughtful speech. I welcome the Minister's calibrated approach in managing public order. We live in an age where mass protests are a common sight in many cities around the world. Indeed, for some, it has become a way of life. We need not look far. In Thailand, political protests have choked Bangkok since the military coup in 2006. We witnessed a spectacular display of public disorder just over the weekend when the 'red shirts' flooded Pattaya and derailed the ASEAN Summit. The people who suffer most from these political protests are the Thais themselves, with the country's economy and credibility at stake. I cite this example not as a rationale or a justification for this Bill, but as a description of the reality of the effect of public protest gone out of control.

Before the Pattaya incident, we also saw violent demonstrations in London as it hosted the G20 meeting. The Metropolitan Police, said to be among the best public order officers in the world, were pushed back in some areas by the sheer force of the demonstrators. I saw

snippets of the demonstrations on videos on the website of The Guardian newspaper. What started off as a peaceful protest – and it is almost like a street party in some areas – ended up in angry violence.

I also saw the video of a bystander, Mr Ian Tomlinson – as mentioned by some Members in this House – who was not part of the demonstration, being pushed to the ground by the police. He died shortly after from a heart attack.

The videos are instructive. Even these highly-experienced police, used to dealing with protests and riots, have trouble ensuring that mass protests stay peaceful. And innocent bystanders, who want nothing to do with the demonstrations, can become the victims of a tense situation with a highly keyed-up police force. While we may not be comfortable with such scenes in Singapore, we have to recognise that, for better or worse, mass protests have become a part of the landscape at big international conferences involving world leaders. Radical anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation groups, environmentalists, and anarchists fly in from different parts of the world to take part in demonstrations in the city hosting these meetings. These include APEC meetings.

5.12 pm

For example, at the APEC meeting in Santiago in 2004, thousands of protestors took to the streets. While most demonstrators were peaceful, there were several hundred who stormed police positions, throwing rocks and petrol bombs. Similar scenes disrupted Korea, which hosted the APEC meeting in 2005. Singapore will be hosting the APEC meeting in November. How are we geared up for it? The spotlight will be on

Singapore, on how it manages mass protests and demonstrations.

While we do not want our city to be crippled by uncontrollable mass protests, we should not swing to the other extreme and make it overly onerous for groups to carry out peaceful demonstrations outdoors. Singapore already has a reputation for being tough. This toughness was on display when Singapore hosted the IMF/World Bank meeting in 2006. While delegates might be impressed with the efficiency of the country, its international image was marred somewhat by the negative publicity over Singapore's strictness on outdoor demonstrations. While I welcome the Minister's point that the net effect of the Bill will, in fact, be a substantial relaxation from the current situation – about 50% of the current permits will no longer be needed – some international press reports and some Members of this House have portrayed the proposed amendments as making our laws on public protests even tougher.

Can I ask the Minister to clarify for the record, whether this is a tightening up or a relaxation when it comes to the right to freedom of assembly, which includes the right to protest peacefully?

Sir, we have to be consistent in how we deal with public protests, regardless of who is demonstrating. We have to adapt to the changing circumstances and allow the different groups the space to protest and shout slogans and, at the same time, ensure that things do not get out of hand and become violent.

We have been fairly successful with the experiment at the Speakers' Corner. The protests there have been peaceful thus far. It is presently an unrestricted area, which requires no permit for holding assemblies or processions.

We should take the experiment further and allow certain streets, which lead up to the Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park, to be designated safe for processions – not

completely unrestricted as in the Speakers’ Corner, but less restricted in that approvals are granted more easily. The procession route so designated should pose minimum disruption to the public and have permanent security cameras mounted along the streets.

If we do not facilitate the people’s right to hold a peaceful procession, sooner or later, some groups would only proceed without permits, and make a show of breaking the law. They want to be locked up, so that they get to look like political martyrs, fighting for their freedom of assembly. Why should we give them that satisfaction?

While we want to preserve our reputation for peace and security and the right of the people to enjoy the benefits of law and order, I do not think Singapore will fall apart or become a nation of rioters by allowing a group of people to hold processions peacefully in a safe environment outdoors.

There is a fine line, of course, between peaceful public protests and violent ones. A peaceful protest can turn violent with just one demonstrator throwing a brick or a punch. I know this will be a challenge to our law enforcement officers, particularly if the group is intent on staging a confrontation with the Police for maximum political mileage with the international media present. Such individuals or groups, proven to have such an anarchic bent or with a record for violence, can be justifiably blacklisted. For this, having good intelligence is important. It is equally important for our police officers to be well-trained in handling mobs and agitators in a tense situation and to react appropriately.

Policing mass protests are, by its nature, noisy and messy affairs. Police officers often risk their lives to keep order when violence erupts. It is human for them to be on edge and sometimes over-

react to situations. They need to develop a good feel of what counts as a peaceful if lively protest, and what is a violent one.

This brings me to another amendment in the Bill: The redefinition of "assembly" to include a demonstration by a person alone. It seems over-the-top. While I understand the concern with ensuring public order with large groups, I am puzzled why even a lone person is now also to be considered a threat to public order and has to apply for a permit to protest?

The Minister says it is to rationalise the current provisions in other Acts and to focus on the activities and not on the number of people involved. On the face of it, this is sensible. But in practical terms, does it mean that one person will be accused of illegal assembly if he shouts into his mobile phone to protest about some political issue?

I have another objection to this: it commits violence against the English language. In every respectable English dictionary I refer to, "assembly" means a number of people gathered together. You cannot have a one-man assembly. It is a contradiction in terms. It is unlike the language in the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) which says that any activity by one or more persons will require a licence, if the activity amounts to public entertainment. This is because you can have a one-man performance, or a one-man lecture, it makes sense to say "one man". But you cannot take the PEMA provision for one person for public entertainment into the POA for public assembly and say you can have a one-man assembly. This is just odd.

My final reservation relates to the special powers conferred on law enforcement officers to direct any person to stop filming, taking photos, and to, without a

warrant, search any person believed to possess such films and photos and to seize these materials and their equipment.

I am glad to hear the Minister’s assurance that these powers are not intended to be used to prohibit the filming of routine police work or events and are tightly scoped for anti-terrorist activities. But can the Minister clarify if routine police work includes controlling mass demonstrations? It is important to make explicit, and as explicit as possible, if not in the Bill, then in the explanatory statement, to assure the public that these powers are very well defined and can be only used in certain situations, and cannot be abused by the Police.

In conclusion, like many Singaporeans, I would like Singapore to remain safe and peaceful. We do not want mass protests to be a way of life in Singapore or to disrupt our everyday life.

In general, Singaporeans get agitated if their bus or MRT train gets held up by even 10 minutes, whatever the reason. They have a low tolerance for road closures. But at the same time, given the changing times, we have to make more space for people to exercise their right to peaceful assembly.

While I may have reservations on some details, I support the principle that necessary measures must be taken to ensure that public order can be maintained during public protests, and that the security of country is not put at risk.

With that, I support the Bill.