Hansard, Friday, 30 January 2015

1 Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for National Development why it is not made compulsory for all residential and commercial property owners to take up property fire insurance.

Mdm Speaker, as with many other forms of insurance, fire insurance for properties is not mandated. It is the responsibility of property owners to ensure that they have the financial means to repair and restore their properties should these properties be damaged in a fire.

Nevertheless, HDB home owners who take up HDB loans are required to purchase fire insurance from the HDB-appointed insurer. In addition, under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, Management Corporations are required to obtain insurance for strata-titled developments, so that they are able to undertake restoration work to the developments in the event of accidents such as a fire.

Regardless, I encourage all owners to ensure that their properties are adequately insured against damages caused by unfortunate accidents such as a fire. It would be prudent to do so.

Mdm Speaker, I appreciate that HDB wants to give flexibility for property owners to decide on insurance coverage. In the unfortunate event of a fire, it is not only the owner but, sometimes, third parties are also involved. Relations can be strained because of claims or compensation, especially when the victims are not insured or adequately insured. Can I ask how is HDB encouraging property owners or flat owners to purchase fire insurance, what is the success rate and what is the proportion of flat owners who buy fire insurance even when they are not still servicing their housing loans?

Mdm Speaker, in response to the Member's questions, more than 80% of HDB flats are covered by basic fire insurance that is offered by HDB's appointed

Page: 9

insurer. We do not track the number of HDB flats covered by fire insurance that is offered by other insurers. So, the actual percentage would probably be much more than that.

Of those who have taken up HDB's basic fire insurance, certainly, more than half do so voluntarily and not because they are currently still servicing HDB loans. This is because HDB writes to and encourages them to apply for or renew their HDB basic fire insurance cover. But for those who are still on HDB loans, HDB will remind them when their policy is near expiry and if they for some reason forget or omit to do so, HDB will procure the insurance for them first and then recover the premiums later.

Premiums for HDB's basic fire insurance policy are very affordable. For instance, if you are an owner of a 4-room flat, coverage for five years would cost you $5.40 for five years; for a 5-room flat, $6.60 for five years.

This basic fire insurance cost covers the basic building structure of the flat, the fixtures and the fittings provided by HDB, to keep these premiums low and affordable for all homeowners of HDB flats. If they wish to get additional coverage of costs, they may need to get further insurance for their personal properties as well as their renovations. I hope that adequately answers the Member's questions.

Order. End of Question Time.

Page: 10

[(proc text) Order for Second Reading read. (proc text)]

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

Madam, in September 2012, MHA embarked on a review of our liquor control measures. The review was prompted by several factors. The Ministry had received considerable public feedback on law and order concerns and disamenities arising from liquor consumption and drunkenness in public places. These concerns were echoed in media reports, with businesses and members of the public voicing concerns about youths congregating and getting inebriated in public areas, creating noise and causing other disturbances.

Several Members of this House had also raised similar concerns on behalf of their constituents. Residents in the heartlands were worried about people gathering and consuming liquor along pavements, at HDB void decks, parks, playgrounds and other community places and spaces. These individuals would often disrupt the peace and leave a trail of broken bottles and other litter. Sometimes, the drinking led to fights and disorderly conduct, compounding the sense of insecurity. These problems were exacerbated by the easy availability of takeaway liquor from nearby retail shops.

Separately, the Police have also been monitoring incidents associated with the consumption of liquor. Last year, there were 47 cases of rioting linked to the consumption of liquor. "Rioting" is defined here in the law as groups of five or more persons engaging in fights and inflicting violence on others. In addition, there were about 100 cases of affray – meaning fewer than five but also involved in such public fights and there is a link to alcohol consumption. There were also 115 cases of serious hurt, which were also related to the consumption of liquor. These serious hurt cases include stabbing, cutting using dangerous weapons and inflicting severe bodily pain on victims. In other words, if I can put it a different way, on average, there was one rioting incident and two cases of serious hurt each week that was related to alcohol consumption. And the trend has been on the rise. The incidents occurred across the island, with nine out of 10 occurring after 10.30 pm.

Lest there be any misconception – this is not attributable to any one nationality. And, indeed, I would say that the statistics speak for themselves. Generally, foreigners are not disproportionately represented in these statistics. Singaporeans and locals are also

Page: 11

implicated in many of these incidents.

Also, over the last three years, there was an average of 530 cases of persons found to be drunk and incapable in public places. And these numbers do not take into account the many cases of noise and other disturbances arising from liquor consumption, which are often unreported. Neither do they capture fully the inconveniences and sense of insecurity that affected residents had had to live with.

Hence, there were widespread calls and compelling needs on the ground for MHA to consider proactive measures to restrict the supply and consumption of liquor in public places, in order to avert these significant disamenities caused to residents, and mitigate the risks to law and order.

As part of the review, MHA conducted extensive public consultations – specifically between October 2013 and August 2014 – and received about 400 pieces of written feedback from individuals and various organisations. The Ministry also engaged about 180 stakeholder groups, including members of public, grassroots representatives and industry groups. In general, they were unequivocal in their support for the introduction of measures to curb retail sale of liquor and its consumption in public places to keep their neighbourhoods safe and minimise the occurrence of fights, rowdiness and other disamenities.

The Little India riot occurred in December 2013, in the midst of this process. The Committee of Inquiry into the riot later concluded that liquor was "a major contributory factor to the nature and escalation of the riot." Shortly after the incident, MHA implemented measures approved by this House, under the Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Act, to restrict the supply of take-away liquor and its consumption in public places within the designated special zone in Little India. Notwithstanding some of the initial concerns that were expressed, the implementation has been without incident. Residents and stakeholders in Little India have generally welcomed the positive impact of these measures including a heightened sense of safety and orderliness and a significant reduction in disamenities.

MHA has also studied the practices in major cities in the United States, Australia and Europe. It is noteworthy that we have a rather liberal regime compared to major prominent cities around the world. Their liquor regulatory regimes vary, from those that impose a complete ban on the consumption of liquor in public areas, such as New York, Washington D.C, Gold Coast and Perth, to those that have strict controls in certain areas such as in Sydney, Austin and Paris. Our purpose in these studies was to understand how such curbs were implemented in such cities without diminishing their vibrancy or imposing undue constraints on their citizens.

Page: 12

Madam, this Bill is the culmination of a deliberate two-year process that has been informed by the Police's operational assessment of the ground; widespread feedback and consultation; the experience of other jurisdictions, and, indeed, our own experience implementing similar measures in Little India. Its provisions address the demand and supply aspects in order to foster greater responsibility in the sale and consumption of alcohol. We sought a set of measures that is clear and consistent, easy to understand and comply with and causes minimal disruption to the usual legitimate activities of residents. Any curbs on the retail sales of liquor also had to take into account the impact on businesses.

The Bill also provides for a range of enforcement powers that enables the Police to take more calibrated action in circumstances that might pose a risk to public order. This measured and holistic approach is necessary and entails important trade-offs, because what this Bill proposes, in effect, is a transition from the current regime which has very few restrictions, to one which has carefully calibrated restrictions that allow most alcohol-related activities to carry on as usual, but places restrictions at those times when they are most likely to cause disamenities to others and in areas where there are law and order concerns. This proposed regime will set new norms of individual behaviour with respect to the purchase of takeaway liquor and consumption of liquor in public places, in order to reduce the disamenities and risks to public order inflicted on the wider community.

Madam, the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Bill will provide the legislative framework to regulate the supply and consumption of liquor in public places. It will also provide for enforcement powers to mitigate the risks of public disorder and disamenities arising from public drunkenness. It consolidates and enhances existing provisions in various pieces of legislation, and introduces new provisions.

Madam, let me now highlight key clauses in the Bill.

One component of the Bill relates to provisions on the public consumption of liquor and public drunkenness. Under Clause 12, the Minister can prescribe "no-public drinking periods" during which the consumption of liquor in public places is not permitted. As announced earlier, MHA intends to disallow the consumption of liquor in public places from 10.30 pm to 7.00 am daily, with stricter hours in specified zones, specifically in Geylang and Little India. Exemptions from this restriction will be provided under clauses 12 and 13.

Madam, some have suggested that rather than a general restriction, we should impose restrictions on specific problem areas. We did consider this approach but it poses several problems. First, liquor-related law and order issues and disamenities are not confined only to certain "hot spots"; in fact, they occur in different parts of the island. Second, dividing up a typical area which has residential units, some common areas such as void decks, playgrounds and neighbourhood parks and some F&B and commercial outlets, into multiple

Page: 13

finely delineated liquor control zones would lead to confusion and make compliance and enforcement more difficult. Third, the designation of special zones is likely to displace activity to neighbouring areas. Indeed, the Police have observed some evidence of this in areas adjacent to Little India. Potential trouble-makers could also play cat-and-mouse with enforcement officers by simply taking a step across the boundary.

Also, the proposed restriction period of 10.30 pm to 7.00 am is intended to minimise the disruption to the usual activities of most residents. Individuals can continue to consume liquor in public places before 10.30 pm, except in the two specified zones. 10.30 pm is the closing time of most businesses in residential areas, and indeed, many close earlier. And it is also when most social and community activities, such as local celebrations, "getai" and grassroots events end.

Individuals can continue to consume liquor at licensed premises, such as coffee shops, beer gardens, restaurants and bars, during their licensed hours, even if this is beyond 10.30 pm. So, there is no change.

Members of the public attending an event in public places can also continue to consume liquor beyond 10.30 pm, if the organiser has obtained the requisite permit from Police as provided for under clauses 12 and 13. Where possible, the Police intend to streamline this process to obtain such permits.

Let me now turn to clause 14 that deals with public drunkenness. Today, there are provisions under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act and the Penal Code to curb offensive behaviour, including being drunk and incapable of taking care of oneself and being drunk and creating public annoyance or disorder. These provisions will be transferred to the new legislation and they will attract similar penalties.

A person who is drunk and incapable is liable to a fine of $1,000, or an imprisonment term of one month, or both. The offence of drunk and creating public annoyance will result in a fine of up to $1,000, or imprisonment of six months, or both. And repeat offenders will face higher penalties. These are similar to the penalties under the current laws.

A definition of being "drunk" is also introduced under clause 14 to provide clarity on what Police take into consideration in assessing drunkenness. This, however, does not change the threshold that has to be met for an offence to be meted out.

Under current laws, the Police only have the power of arrest to deal with these offences. And understandably, the Police exercise this power of arrest only in the most egregious cases. Consequently, residents, as well as Members of this House have often raised the point that

Page: 14

Police do not seem to be able to act when Police turn up in response to residents' complaints and that the public drinking nuisance recurs when Police leave the scene. With the proposed Bill, the Police will be able to take a more calibrated set of enforcement measures based on the circumstances on the assessment of the situation. In particular, clauses 14, 21, 22 and 33 allow the Police to require information, require persons to dispose the liquor, issue orders to move on and leave the place and issue composition fines in lieu of prosecution.

Under clauses 22 and 23, the Police can also inspect personal belongings and search places for liquor containers. These powers can only be exercised upon reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed.

With this range of powers, the Police will be able to intervene early and more effectively with calibrated enforcement to deal with nuisance related to public consumption of alcohol and before drunken behaviour escalates into public disorder.

Madam, another component of the Bill pertains to liquor licensing. The existing provisions on liquor licensing will be transferred from the Customs Act to the new law, and some changes made to the licensing framework.

Clauses 4 to 7 provide for the regulation of the supply of liquor. Licensees are permitted to supply liquor only at premises and during trading hours specified in the licence. The Minister for Home Affairs will be empowered under the new law to prescribe trading hours that can override those specified in the licence. This effectively allows the Minister to prescribe shorter trading hours in areas that might pose a more significant risk of public disorder associated with the consumption of liquor. In line with the general restriction on the consumption of liquor in public places, the retail sale hours for take-away liquor will also be required to end at 10.30 pm. Requests for extension of sale hours beyond 10.30 pm will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The regulatory functions that are currently vested with the Liquor Licensing Board will be vested in a Licensing Officer appointed by the Minister. Under clauses 8 and 9, the Licensing Officer is empowered to grant, renew, suspend or cancel liquor licences in accordance with the object of the law. The Licensing Officer may also impose or vary licensing conditions in his or her discretion, after giving the licensee an opportunity to be heard. The Liquor Licensing Board will be renamed the Liquor Appeal Board as it will continue to hear appeals. This delineation of roles and responsibilities will ensure clear accountability.

Clause 10 provides the basic powers of entry and search to allow enforcement officers to conduct checks on premises to ensure that the law is being complied with. In addition, in the event that there is a significant threat to public safety, order or peace, or if an offence

Page: 15

involving violence is suspected to have been committed on the premises, the Commissioner of Police can, under clause 11, order the closure of the premises for up to 72 hours. He can order the licensee to take certain measures to mitigate the risks, and to vary the licence or suspend the licence until the significant threat or risk no longer exists or the remedial measures have been taken. This allows the Police to take swift action to mitigate many serious threats to public order.

The penalties for offences related to liquor licensing under clauses 5 to 7 will be enhanced from a maximum fine of $5,000 to $10,000. Clause 4 increases the penalty for the more egregious offence of unlicensed supply of liquor to a maximum fine of $20,000, with an imprisonment term of up to six months for repeat offenders.

Madam, let me now elaborate on the Liquor Control Zones. In areas where there is a heightened risk of public disorder associated with liquor consumption, more stringent measures will be imposed to mitigate the risks. Clause 15 empowers the Minister to designate such areas as Liquor Control Zones.

As I explained earlier, based on Police's current operational assessment, there is, in general, a material number of cases or incidents of serious crimes or incidents involved with liquor consumption. And there is a disproportionate number of law and order incidents in Little India and Geylang that are associated with liquor consumption. The regular and large congregations of people, both local and foreign, in these areas exacerbate the risk.

To illustrate, about one-fifth of all rioting cases island-wide occur in Geylang and Little India. About 10% of serious hurt cases were in Geylang and Little India. Also, 40% to 50% of serious incidents in Geylang and Little India are linked to liquor consumption; and that is about twice the national average.

Hence, under the proposed Bill, specified areas in Little India and Geylang will be designated as Liquor Control Zones. Stricter restrictions on the hours for the supply and consumption of liquor, similar to those applied in Little India under the Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Act, will be implemented in these zones.

Clauses 16 to 20 provide for enhanced measures and penalties for offences committed within the Liquor Control Zones, commensurate with the higher risk. Liquor-related offences committed within the zones will result in a penalty of one and a half times that in non-designated areas. The Commissioner of Police will also be empowered to require a person to cease business activities in a Liquor Control Zone if he is found to have repeatedly supplied liquor without a valid licence from his premises. This prevents businesses from continuing to

Page: 16

circumvent regulation and supplying liquor freely within the zones.

The Commissioner of Police or authorised officers will also be empowered under clauses 18 and 19 to issue a banning notice to an individual if he has committed a liquor-related offence in the zone and is assessed to likely to commit it again and cause public disorder. The banning notice will prohibit him from returning to the Liquor Control Zone for a period not exceeding 30 days. This measure is intended to be used in egregious cases. The Police will also be empowered under clause 20 to refuse entry or remove a subject from a Liquor Control Zone for up to 24 hours if he does not comply with Police's orders or has committed offences related to liquor consumption or intoxication.

Madam, I will now touch briefly on other provisions in the Bill.

Clauses 25 to 27 provide for appeals related to liquor licensing to be heard by an independent Liquor Appeal Board, while those against decisions made by the Commissioner of Police will be heard by the Minister for Home Affairs.

A related amendment will be made to section 20 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act to enhance the penalty for the offence of disorderly conduct and to align it with other offences related to public drunkenness.

Madam, to conclude, Singapore is a compact and densely populated city with mixed land use and development as well as residential and commercial areas that flow into each other and are in close proximity. Residents in many areas want a more peaceful and orderly living environment, especially at night, even on weekends, when they and their families want to rest. In particular, the adverse effects of public drunkenness and the associated disorder and disamenities, are keenly felt by residents in many quarters.

The proposed Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Bill will help mitigate the risks to public order and reduce disamenities associated with public drunkenness. It will bring much needed respite to many residents and create a safer neighbourhood for all. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

[(proc text) Question proposed. (proc text)]

Mdm Speaker, the introduction of this Bill has met with strong responses – both for and against. All the arguments made will likely be rehashed in this House today. But once we drill down to the details, the conclusion is clear:

Page: 17

everyone wants the same thing. We all want peace and quiet at night where we live. We all do not want the problems associated with irresponsible drinking, including the noise, the littering and the risk of bad or criminal behaviour. At the same time, we also want the freedom to relax and drink responsibly, whether in private or public.

The real question for this House, therefore, is this: can we draft a law or pass a law which meets all these interests? Is there a sweet spot in the middle? And if we cannot – and this is the real test – which side should the law lean in favour of and are there any ways to mitigate the effects on the other side? In this case, where both sides have reasonable and legitimate concerns, it is not enough to say you agree or disagree with the law. You need to say how you propose to address the real concerns of the other side.

To deal with whether the Bill strikes that right balance, there are a number of questions we need to tackle.

First, if the concern is about alcohol-fuelled misconduct, are our current laws not already sufficient? And the answer is no. Our laws criminalise some types of behaviour. For example, it is an offence for someone to be drunk and incapable of taking care of himself in a public place – section 18 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. It is also an offence for an intoxicated person to appear in a public place and cause annoyance to any person and that is section 510 of the Penal Code.

On paper, these appear adequate. But in reality, these do not go far enough. Take, for instance, the complaint of – and I am sure, many of us in this House often hear – people gathering, drinking and making noise late at night at void decks or nearby sitting areas. The resident is disturbed from his rest. He bears the burden of calling the Police. The Police take time to respond as this is not an emergency situation. And when the Police arrive, they have very little power to do anything if the people are not intoxicated, because there is a difference between being high and loud on alcohol and being so drunk as to be incapable of taking care of oneself, or at least I am told.

The Police have no power to tell them to leave and even if they could, the drinkers will just end up in another part of the neighbourhood. So, the Police advise them to tone it down, they agree and then they start up once again when the patrol car turns a corner, or they return again another night. The game plays itself out time and again. So, who suffers? The residents. Why should they have to put up with this? And do we really want vital Police resources to be taken up to deal with such issues?

The second question: is this such a big problem? Some commentators have asked the Ministry to provide statistics. And if they are available, they should be shared. But realistically,

Page: 18

I would be surprised if the data is meaningful precisely because many of these incidents, like the example I gave, do not involve criminal behaviour. And not everyone who is affected will call the Police. But I have received enough such complaints on my walkabouts and block visits about the ruckus caused by drinkers who gather at void decks or nearby benches to know that this is a real issue. Apart from the noise, residents are worried for the safety of their family members when coming home late. They are also angry about the trash that is left behind. Besides, the problem is particularly acute for families who live near popular gathering spots. So, the numbers are not going to tell the whole story or convey the real suffering these families put up with. In short, we cannot dismiss this as a fictitious problem or one that affects only a handful. Our residents have legitimate concerns that we should address.

Third, can we not just give the Police more enforcement powers? The answer is we can, but that will not solve the problem. Residents will still have to call the Police when disturbed. And unless we expect the Police to arrest everyone who makes noise, it is simply not practical. Besides, who gets to define what is a disturbance, and if it is vague, how are the Police going to do their job? The Bill improves the current position as it makes enforcement simpler and clearer.

To put it another way, an offence framed in terms of consumption is better because it is difficult to draft an effective law in terms of conduct. But more importantly, with this law, I expect that there will be fewer incidents of people drinking past 10.30 pm in public places and, therefore, far fewer incidents of residents being disturbed.

The fourth question: does this law curb personal liberties? Of course, it does. People will no longer have the freedom to drink in public places or to buy takeaway alcohol past 10.30 pm. But let us put things in perspective. The right to drink wherever you want and whenever you want is not a fundamental liberty. We have prohibitions against other types of behaviour where the public interest is affected. Smoking in public, for example, is heavily restricted and many people are glad for it. In the case of drinking, there is indisputably a public interest in ensuring that residents are not disturbed in their own homes.

The Bill does not make us unique. Many jurisdictions have adopted partial restrictions comparable to these. London has Controlled Drinking Zones where police can request people to stop drinking alcohol and ask them to surrender their drink. In Adelaide, areas such as the CBD and parklands have been designated alcohol-free zones. Even in Rome, the Eternal City, public consumption of alcohol from glass bottles is banned from 10.00 pm to 7.00 am. And for all other alcohol, the ban begins at midnight. Some jurisdictions have even gone further: in New York City, Ontario, Oslo and Perth, public alcohol consumption is banned at all times.

Page: 19

I cite these examples not to say that we should copy others, but simply to suggest that the argument that the Bill makes Singapore different or gives Singaporeans less rights is inaccurate.

More importantly, drinkers have options that residents do not. The Bill does not stop people from drinking in coffee shops, restaurants, bars, clubs, private homes and at licensed events even after 10.30 pm. While those who wish to drink have alternatives, residents who are disturbed do not. What about their right and liberty to peaceful and safe surroundings?

Fifth, if the concern is about residential areas, can we not confine the new restrictions to those areas alone? In fact, that was my first reaction when I heard about the Bill.

The problem then, I think, becomes one of legal definition. It is easy to say "non-residential areas", but that is very difficult to define, to rationalise and to enforce. This is important because there is no point having a law if people do not know where the prohibited areas are or how it will be enforced. It is easy to take out a map and circle areas which appear far enough from residential areas. But how do you reflect this on the ground? And you will have the absurd situation where the length of one foot step or the length of one stride is the difference between lawful and unlawful behaviour. And to paraphrase Charles Dickens – the law should not be an ass.

So, it is clear that it is difficult to find the sweet spot and that the balance has to lean to one side. I am in favour of leaning it on the side of folks who are affected by bad behaviour. But that should not be the end of the matter. We should also make sure that we do not make things difficult for people who drink responsibly. That should be in the way the law is implemented.

First, in the application for a permit. For example, take a person who is now required to get a liquor consumption permit to drink past 10.30 pm at, say, a BBQ event at East Coast. He should be allowed to ask for that permit as part of the application for the BBQ pit itself. In other words, make it as simple and as painless as possible, without involving multiple steps – perhaps an additional box to tick in the online application with no extra charge.

The same spirit should underlie enforcement measures. The Police should exercise leniency where the drinking occurs in areas far away from residential areas and where there is no unruly behaviour.

The Ministry has, in fact, sought to reassure the public that the Police will exercise their discretion in a tempered manner. That being the case, I would like to ask the Minister: will the application process for a permit be made simple and how will it be made simple and

Page: 20

what guidance will officers be given in respect of the enforcement of the law?

Next, a point on resources. Police Officers, but not Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs), have powers of arrest under section 30 of the Bill. Given this difference in powers, I would like to ask the Minister: will more Police Officers be deployed in the liquor control zones given that these have been designated areas with higher risks? Further, now that we have two zones, do we have sufficient resources to meet our needs?

Finally, if I have one criticism of this Bill, it is that, it unnecessarily, I think, singles out foreign workers. While the rest of us will not be allowed to drink in public places past 10.30 pm, we are free to drink in our homes. But that same consideration does not apply to foreign workers. Section 38(5) designates foreign worker dormitories as a public place for the purposes of section 14(1).

The concern I believe is that since foreign workers can no longer drink in public, they will go back to their dormitories to drink. That may be so, but unless there is good evidence that this will cause problems – and I hope that the Minister will tell us what that evidence is – there is no reason to single them out.

I think it sends the wrong message and it may feed certain perceptions and I hope the Minister will reconsider this provision. The concern could perhaps have been addressed in enacting appropriate rules and regulations governing the use and residence in foreign worker dormitories.

To conclude, I support the Bill as it is an attempt to find a fair and reasonable compromise between several legitimate but conflicting interests. Those who oppose it should say how they will look after the interests of the other side. But from a practical point of view, these laws are logical and effective, provided they are implemented in a sensible manner. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Liquor Control Bill. It is high time that Singapore institute laws that govern the supply and consumption of liquor. These proposed measures are a response to complaints from the public about disamenities and concerns about law and order resulting from excessive alcohol consumption and drunkenness in public places.

Apart from this, there are other reasons to be worried about from excessive alcohol consumption: alcohol is a psychoactive substance and an addictive drug, and its misuse is

Page: 21

associated with a wide range of adverse health effects that may cause harm to the individual, his family and society.

Madam, liquor laws exist in many countries across the world; some for a very long time. Many of the most vibrant global cities, including New York, London and Sydney, have laws in place to restrict alcohol consumption – these range from a total ban on open containers of alcohol in public places to controlled liquor zones. Alcohol restrictions have not adversely impacted the vibrancy of these cities in any way – rather, they have helped to keep these cities safer and cleaner.

In Singapore, MHA began reviewing alcohol laws in September 2012. In both phases of the public consultation exercise, more than 80% of the respondents were supportive of the proposal to restrict the consumption of liquor in public places. A survey conducted in my own constituency involving 120 residents resulted in similar findings. A recent survey commissioned by the Government feedback unit REACH found that 81% of the respondents polled were in favour of the Bill.

Some complained that the Bill may unfairly affect those who cannot afford to drink at licensed outlets and do not have access to their own private spaces after 10.30 pm. For these individuals, perhaps the Government could consider designating specific "public places" to be "coolspots", where people can gather to drink beyond 10.30 pm, as long as they do not cause disamenities to others and measures are in place to address the safety and security concerns.

For example, Foreign Workers' Recreation Centres may be designated as "coolspots" for foreign workers to drink and unwind; as may other "suitable" public spaces where people can gather to drink beyond 10.30 pm.

Madam, I am all for restrictions in alcohol consumption in public places. However, there are different approaches to implementing these restrictions and we should choose one that is targeted, calibrated and best serves our needs. This Bill before us proposes an island-wide ban on consuming alcohol in public places after 10.30 pm – this might be excessive in unaffected areas in Singapore, but might be inadequate for hotspots known for drinking-related problems, but not zoned as Liquor Control Zones.

As the Minister explained, by imposing an island-wide ban, the authorities avoid shifting the problem from one area to another, as drinkers can simply move away from a Liquor Control Zone to an area without restrictions, drink excessively and cause problems there.

Page: 22

However, as most people in Singapore enjoy alcohol in a moderate and responsible manner, we should consider targeting restrictions only at problematic hotspots, where large groups of people congregate to drink alcohol and where they have earned a reputation for public disamenities, resident complaints or risks to law and order. We could start rolling out restrictions in these vulnerable areas and widen coverage as and when other areas are red-flagged. Clause 12(2) in the Bill has made a provision for the Minister to prescribe different no-public drinking periods for different public places.

Madam, this approach would help manage our law enforcement resources, as officers focus their efforts on hotspots and do a thorough job there. Such a consideration is especially important, given our limited pool of law enforcement officers, who also have to cope with other Home Team initiatives, such as Community Policing and the Safer Roads Singapore programme. An island-wide ban would spread our law enforcement resources thinly across Singapore to guard against all areas, instead of concentrating them effectively where they are needed most.

At this point, I would like to ask the Minister the basis on which Little India and Geylang were marked as Liquor Control Zones. What specific criteria and threshold are used to identify them? How can vulnerable areas like Teban Gardens in my division receive a higher degree of protection from problems associated with drinking in public places, particularly if the problems persist in spite of the new laws? At some places at Teban Gardens, foreign workers gather to drink at around 8.00 pm, especially during weekends and public holidays, with the full impact of disamenities, such as littering, noise, vomiting and drunkenness, can be felt well before 10.30 pm.

Madam, there is clear evidence linking the availability of alcohol and problems relating to drinking. We, therefore, need robust measures that control accessibility to alcohol. I support fully the proposed measures in this Bill to stop retail shops from selling alcohol from 10.30 pm. We should also oblige licensees to stop selling liquor to individuals who are clearly intoxicated at any time.

Clause 8(2) states that the Licensing Officer must not grant or renew a liquor licence if the applicant is not a fit and proper person or if the premises at which the applicant proposes to supply alcohol is in an unsuitable location. I hope the authorities will also restrict the total number of alcohol licences in any one community in order to prevent the unrestrained proliferation of liquor stores.

The Licensing Officer should consider the concentration of alcohol licences in that area, the propensity towards alcohol abuse and actively seek inputs from grassroots leaders and the local community. And if problems from drinking can be traced back to a licensee, his licence should be up for suspension. Alcohol licences should be hard to get hold of and easy

Page: 23

to lose. This will help to focus the licensees on compliance and encourage them to play an active role in promoting responsible drinking.

Madam, this Bill does not deal with the issue of alcohol advertising and promotion. I am not proposing that we ban particular modes of marketing, but rather that all marketing of alcohol be undertaken in a responsible manner and encourage responsible drinking amongst its customers. Messages contained in alcohol advertisements play an important role in influencing social attitudes about alcohol consumption. It is, therefore, important for the alcohol industry, alcohol retailers and producers to apply a clear set of principles in the promotion, marketing and selling of their products, to encourage responsible drinking.

Alcohol abuse and its attendant problems have been well-researched and documented. According to figures from the Health Promotion Board, binge-drinking in Singapore is more common amongst 18- to 29-year-olds and more so in men than in women. Studies also show that underage drinkers are five times more likely to become addicted to alcohol and abuse alcohol later in life.

We should, therefore, make every effort to keep our youths alcohol-free and aware of the consequences of drinking at an early age. Whilst limiting their access to alcohol, we should encourage our youths to enjoy healthier social activities and get their "highs" from more wholesome pursuits than drinking.

Madam, this Bill has made provisions on alcohol consumption from a public order perspective. Our considerations about alcohol consumption should also include its wider impact on public health as there are clearly health and social issues linked to heavy drinking, such as increased risk of heart diseases, alcohol-related domestic violence and negative impact on school performance.

Madam, the proposed Bill has been a long time coming. It may not have met everyone's expectations, with some quarters feeling that the Bill imposes disproportionate curbs on their personal liberty. Nevertheless, this Bill is a significant step forward for Singapore and brings us in line with practices of other major cities. It has put the necessary markers and framework in place to help the country move towards a culture of responsible alcohol consumption. I hope my residents can look forward to cleaner, safer and quieter nights when the legislation comes into force. With this, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, the Workers' Party supports the principle of the Bill to empower the Government to regulate the supply and consumption of liquor in

Page: 24

public places. Nonetheless, there has been considerable public anxiety about the extent of the restrictions mooted by this Bill. The Workers' Party believes there is greater scope to better calibrate the operational application of the Bill so as to secure greater public buy-in for the liquor control measures proposed by the Ministry.

Generally, it will be important for the Minister to share more information and statistical evidence of the nexus between public acts of disorder and the alcohol-fuelled law and order problems, including the scale of the problems nation-wide so that the public can appreciate the Ministry's perspective and policy making considerations in tabling this Bill.

I understand that the Minister has shared some information, in this regard identifying 47 cases of rioting, 100 cases of affray and 115 cases of serious hurt last year and that one-fifth of this occurred in Little India and Geylang. Can the Minister provide more resolution of the other areas in Singapore, for example, where such liquor-related disamenities take place?

In addition, the Minister stated that nine out of 10 of these incidents occurred after 10.30 pm. This statistic could do with more resolution as well. Does the cut-off time of 10.30 pm dovetail naturally with the law-and-order problems that the Minister stated in the earlier set of data? Or do some areas come alive, so to speak, in terms of public disamenities well after 10.30 pm like midnight, for example? Additional clarity on all these data would be appreciated.

Mdm Speaker, the public feedback to this Bill has been inconsistent and somewhat contradictory. For example, the Ministry's feedback and public consultation exercise on the Bill garnered strong support for measures to reduce threats to public safety and order and to mitigate the disamenities associated with the sale and consumption of alcohol in public places.

As informed MHA's press release dated 7 November 2014, this support came through 395 pieces of written feedback and the participation of 624 members of the public in the electronic poll, including the Ministry's discussions with 200 stakeholders. This officially strong support contrasted markedly against an informal Straits Times poll which revealed an opposite response. One day after the First Reading of the Bill in Parliament, 78% of 9,000 Straits Times readers who participated in the poll disagreed with the proposed Bill. Ostensibly, in response to this poll, a telephone survey conducted by the Government feedback unit swung the pendulum back the other way with strong support for the Bill from over 1,000 residents.

This oscillating difference of opinions suggest that certain operational aspects of the Bill may need to be looked at and fine-tuned to achieve a calibrated application of the law in

Page: 25

practice.

I seek the Minister's reconsideration of two specific regulations that this Bill will introduce into law, in tandem with the wide-ranging public feedback which differs in some cases even among those who agree with the Bill. And I hope these can be accordingly considered.

Firstly, the proposal to restrict the drinking of liquor to 10.30 pm at residential areas, such as void decks, is welcomed. This is borne out of the lived experience of many residents in various HDB estates. However, greater policy clarity is required for certain public areas like hawker centres which may not be situated in residential areas and where the liquor consumption rules can be made subject to greater flexibility. For example, it is understood that liquor sale and consumption in places like coffee shops would be subject to liquor licensing conditions and customers will be allowed to consume alcohol within these premises beyond the 10.30 pm guidelines, depending on the conditions of the respective licence.

However, it is unclear whether a similar licensing philosophy can be extended to hawker centres where customers drink liquor, purchased from stalls within their premises where patrons could, for example, be allowed to continue consuming liquor till midnight. In this context, I ask if the Ministry can consider allowing the consumption of liquor at hawker centres, akin to the licensing framework similar to that applied in the case of coffee shops.

Similarly, a more liberal liquor consumption regime should also be considered at places away from residential areas, like East Coast Park. Such a regime would also address the real concerns of the unnecessary atmosphere of control, prejudicing and targeting the majority of Singaporeans, who, I would argue, drink responsibly. It would also obviate the need for permits that add an administrative burden not just for the Police but for the public as well.

Secondly, the Workers' Party is of the view that the blanket ban covering the retail sale of alcohol up to 10.30 pm may be too interventionist and too strong a measure, one that operates to underestimate and may even undermine the capacity of Singaporeans to engage in responsible behaviour, as alluded to earlier.

The Workers' Party proposes that the retail sale of alcohol be allowed to continue as long as an individual does not consume the purchased alcohol in a prospectively disallowed public area, as it is foreseeable that such purchases may be for private consumption, rather than at bars and clubs where alcohol is usually more expensive to purchase.

It follows that the operational implementation of the new liquor control measures should not be applied bluntly, painting every liquor retailer with the same brush. A flexible

Page: 26

licensing regime can be accommodated, as licensing officers are empowered with extensive powers to add or remove conditions from retail licences. This is conceivable in cases where community feedback, for example, determines that a certain retail outlet should stop the retail sale of liquor after a certain point and depending on the individual case, even before 10.30 pm, if necessary. Such a regime puts self-regulation and community engagement in as a first step before regulation kicks in. It is also likely to be fairer in principle and more calibrated in application.

Mdm Speaker, my colleagues will share with the House, perspectives on Police enforcement of the measures proposed, amongst other points relevant to the Bill.

To recap, while the Workers' Party agrees with the principle of the Bill, we are of the view that the regulations proposed by the Bill need to be scoped more finely to better balance and to reflect the public interest.

Mdm Speaker, I speak in support of this Bill. I first learnt about the problems related to the public consumption of alcohol very early on in my stint as a Member of Parliament. As soon as I did a block visit near one of the local shops, I was told, "You have to stop liquor in this coffee shop. People drink beyond the hours. They make a lot of noise. We cannot sleep. It is even worse at about two, three o'clock. There are no toilets and they urinate at the void deck". This is a perennial problem. It continues. There are probably one or two tables of people at most who drink beyond the coffee shop hours, but they create disamenities for the entire three or four blocks that are in that vicinity. The Police are called every now and then and that creates the "cat and mouse game" that some Members mentioned earlier. They disappear for awhile and they come back later.

In that sense, this Bill addresses a very real concern for many residents in the heartlands. It also addresses concerns for residents who live near the so-called hot spots, the party areas. Many people were saying that areas like Clarke Quay and so on should be permitted to be designated party areas. But my understanding is, the local hon Member, there was probably one of the first to crusade against the sale of alcohol to the public in Clarke Quay because of the public order issues. So, I believe that even in the so-called party areas, there is a necessity to limit unruly behaviour and public consumption of alcohol.

When this Bill first came up, I was quite happily in support of it. Of course, as soon as the Bill was announced, the immediate reaction perhaps from the more vocal group was quite different. Some of my colleagues came up to me and said "So, do you support the anti-alcohol Bill?" I answered, "Anti-alcohol Bill – what does that exactly mean?" Actually, we

Page: 27

were talking about this Bill. Well, I said, "I support the Bill. I do not quite think it is an anti-alcohol Bill". So, then they said, "Do you drink?" "Yes, I do, but not in public and not after 10.30 pm in open areas." When you ask the next question to many of them, "Do you actually drink on the bridge, drink at the void deck?" They would say, "No, actually we do not, but our right to do so has been taken away." And they were quite indignant.

The reality is that when you talk to people more and you explain to them the issues that arise and how other people suffer as a result of it, many people start to understand why this Bill was necessary. Everyone wears two hats: one hat is of them as a resident, and the other hat is of them as a free-spirited person who likes to do what they will. And sometimes, the two are inconsistent.

If you look at how this Bill balances things, I think it strikes the right balance. There is no one answer. You cannot have a perfect solution to deal with the two competing tendencies. On the one hand, people want the freedom to drink; on the other, people want the right to have a quiet and peaceful life at home. This Bill does do a good job in striking the right balance.

Let me talk about the components of what I mean is the right balance. This Bill could have taken many different forms. In countries like Australia and the US, in many parts of those countries, there is a complete ban on public consumption of alcohol. In many parts of the US, you cannot even have an open bottle of alcohol on the street. That is one extreme that you could go to. We did not go that far. We only stopped the public consumption of alcohol between specific times – between 10.30 pm and 7.00 am. And this is flexible. The Minister has the flexibility to amend those times, if necessary, at a later stage. So, we certainly did not go to the most extreme measure of banning public consumption of alcohol.

I also think it plays an important part in allowing intervention before problems get serious. Right now, the current legislative framework allows you to intervene only when things go seriously wrong, if there is a public order issue, say a fight starts or there is affray or violence. Or, in the other extreme, where the person is incapable of taking care of himself after getting drunk. But there is nothing that allows you to intervene before we get there. So, you can have people getting very drunk in public areas, making some noise but not exactly committing an offence. That is when you have the problem with the Police coming by but not being able to do very much.

At least, with this Bill, you are giving intermediate power for the authorities to step in and prevent problems from getting that bad. That, I think, is an important part of striking the right balance, too.

Page: 28

The third aspect that I think is very important is the flexibility to designate special zones. Clearly, you cannot treat every area as the same. In some areas, the problems are greater than others. Where the problems are greater, it makes sense to have greater restrictions.

At the moment, I understand the special zones that will be designated are Little India and Geylang and this is largely a result of the figures based on the public order issues there. Having experienced the Little India riot, I think everyone here would not disagree that Little India is definitely an area that needs special care.

I also understand that the figures of public order issues in Geylang are quite serious. We definitely do not want another issue like that there. Certainly, the legislation is flexible enough for more special zones to be designated. In that sense, this legislation framework, I think, is broad and flexible enough for us to expand, if necessary, or even cut back, if necessary. If an area gets safer and there are less concerns, it may no longer need to be designated as a special zone.

One other aspect of this Bill that is quite interesting is that the Police have gradated powers of intervention. So, it is not envisioned that the first thing the Police would do is to go round and arrest someone for being caught with an opened bottle, as I think some scare-mongers were spreading. What they would probably do in the first instance is to tell people that they should move somewhere else, move back home and that power is within the framework. If the person does not listen, then the Police have escalated powers. These powers are a step-up provision and it is something that allows the Police to have some teeth but also give them the flexibility not to have to wield too heavy a stick. In that sense, I think this is quite an interesting component of the Bill that gives enough flexibility for the enforcement authorities to do what they feel it is necessary in a particular situation.

Like Mr Hri Kumar, I also share the concern about whether or not Police resources will be adequate to deal with this. I envision there will be a lot more complaints, at least when this Bill first comes about. And given the additional powers, there will probably be an expectation from residents that the Police will intervene. There might be expectations that the Police will have to come down very quickly to deal the issues relating to public consumption of alcohol.

I expect this concern to get better with time. As the public understands the new rules, behaviour normally changes. This is what has happened in places like Australia and the United States. And once behaviour changes, I do not think there will be a need for an extended period of policing. But at least in the initial stage, I expect the Police will get a lot more complaints on this front.

Page: 29

I have a few questions for the Minister as well. The first is, at the moment, with the designation of special zones, I understand the main concern with public order-related issues and Geylang and Little India have been designated as the main ones. But are there any other zones that the Minister thinks we should be keeping a look out for, based on these public order statistics? Anecdotally, different people have mentioned different names. I will not mention any here but I am just curious whether or not there is a range of places that have been monitored and whether others may also be designated based on these public order concerns.

The second is whether the Minister might consider a slightly more flexible framework in the future. Some areas of flexibility include longer hours in areas that are further away from residential areas. One area that has been mentioned quite commonly is the beaches or, at the very least, the barbecue pits at beaches.

I can understand why the Minister would not want to designate this as purely an area where drink is allowed at all times, just in case that becomes a congregation area for anyone who wants to drink, including foreign workers and everyone else. But I can see a fair argument in favour of maybe slightly longer hours, say, at the barbecue pits at East Coast Park, up to midnight or something, because that is quite far away from the public and that is the place where people ordinarily gather to have drinks and parties. This could even be tied up to, say, the booking of the barbecue pits, if you want to restrict it even more. But I think there is some merit to having a slightly more flexible framework going forward.

Broadly speaking though, I think this is a very good Bill, it solves very real problems we have. It strikes the right balance in not being too heavy-handed in approach while, at the same time, doing the minimum necessary to deal with the problem of public consumption of alcohol. With that, I support this Bill.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. This Bill is the result of a one-year long public consultation by MHA to counter problems caused by public drinking. Eighty percent had supported a partial ban on alcohol consumption and sales. I, too, support a partial ban and find the Bill's current form overly restrictive. In fact, according to a recent Straits Times online poll, over 75% of the 12,000 participants indicated that they did not support the Bill. The main concerns were "over-regulation and discriminatory practices".

However, 81% of a recent REACH survey involving 1,145 respondents supported the Bill. As these are randomly selected Singaporeans and Permanent Residents and data had been

Page: 30

weighted to ensure it represented the demographics of Singapore, it does show that the majority of the general public is supportive of such a law. However, most netizens have painted a different picture. Just on my own social media pages, I have received comments, such as "This law is silly", "Singapore is again a nanny state, with a drinking curfew", "It is nice to know that the Government wants to take care of us but please do not treat us as small kids". Is this merely a difference between online and offline comments and maybe, between younger and older members of the public?

So, I do not think that these people who find the law restrictive are frequent or even regular drinkers, but they feel that if Singapore wants to be a mature society, this measure is regressive, drastic and unnecessary.

While I have no issue with stopping retail alcohol sales at 10.30 pm, I do not think that it is necessary to ban alcohol consumption in all public areas from 10.30 pm to 7.00 am. Generally, most drinkers here are responsible. Singaporeans do not have a drinking problem. To deal with the minority who create trouble, the Bill is taking pre-emptive measures several steps upstream. If one drinks in public after 10.30 pm, one might get drunk, hence, one might end up with undesirable anti-social behaviour, therefore, no public drinking after 10.30 pm. Perhaps, the solution is not a ban but an increase in our efforts in public education. The focus should also be on managing the law breakers instead of imposing a blanket ban. Or we could reduce the number of retail stores that could sell alcohol, especially in residential areas.

So, while the good intent of this Bill is clear, it, unfortunately, sends a dampening message. Therefore, Madam, I would like to make a suggestion. Instead of a nationwide ban, we could increase the number of Liquor Control Zones. In addition to Little India and Geylang, other areas may include Clarke Quay, Boat Quay, Chinatown, Golden Mile Complex and locations with existing problems of frequent public nuisances due to drinking. The law could empower the Minister to designate additional areas as Liquor Control Zones, as and when necessary.

We hear the problem of displacement. So, therefore, the Ministry may consider increasing the buffer zone by between 500 m and 1 km. The Little India Liquor Control Zone has a well-delineated border surrounded by commercial and Government buildings which contains potential displacement. For example, a 500-m buffer zone around Little India would cover areas up to Orchard Road, Kallang Road, Boon Keng Road and the CTE. It is unlikely that people who frequent Little India for the shops, services and activities would spill over to these areas just to drink in public. The Geylang Zone, however, may benefit from an enlarged buffer zone in the north and south as there are a number of residences beyond Sims Avenue and Guillemard Road.

Page: 31

I would also request that the Ministry ensure that approval for extended hours of drinking at social activities, such as barbecue parties, be simple and easy to obtain. Regulations should spell out clearly under what circumstances an application would be rejected. It should also be made clear what constitutes a public place. For example, are chalets public or private places? Now, Madam, I would like to continue my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, drinking can put you in a happy mood but it can also make you lose self-control. So, the aim of this Bill is to control the latter, not the former. Some people take to drinking to forget their sorrows but they get even more sorrowful. We also do not want people to live a befuddled life, getting drunk whenever alcohol is available or to be emboldened by alcohol to commit dangerous acts. To have a few drinks, get slightly tipsy but still in full control of oneself is a good way to be relaxed and to enjoy life.

In modern city living, the pace of life is fast and, after a long week of work, on a Friday or weekend night, you would want to relax. But after 1 April, after 10.30 pm, you can only do so in licensed coffee shops, restaurants and bars. Some low-income people may not be able to afford this. Of course, you can drink at home, but you must buy the alcohol before 10.30 pm.

What I am more concerned about is the impact on some of the Chinese traditions, such as the Seventh Month dinners. Currently, when organisations, such as temples, community or commercial groups, apply for a permit, they have to agree to end their activities by 10.30 pm. However, there would usually be auction of items at such events; people can get enthusiastic and it would overrun past 10.30 pm sometimes. The organisers will tone down the volume after 10:30 pm so that it will not disturb the nearby residents. People are generally tolerant of this.

Public areas with tentage are also considered a public space. I would like to ask the Minister, upon reaching 10.30 pm, do they have to clear or pour all the alcohol on the tables? Or is it considered not an offence as long as they do not drink alcohol?

It is easy to simply turn the knobs on the sound system but not so easy to clear glasses on dozens, or even hundreds of tables quickly. Can they apply to drink after 10.30 pm? What documents are required – the number of people, their names, the type and quantity of the alcohol? How long beforehand do they have to apply and how long will the authorities take to make a decision?

Page: 32

Four months after the new Bill comes into effect will be the Seventh Month of the lunar calendar. So, I hope the Ministry would provide the detailed information as early as possible so that people can get ready in good time. Mdm Speaker, I support this Bill.

Mdm Speaker, fellow Members, good afternoon. Firstly, I would like to declare that I am the President of the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry.

I support the Bill. From the feedback that I have gathered from those in the business community, their reaction has generally been positive. Businesses, including the most affected ones, such as the mini-marts, share the same concerns as the Government about public order, safety and anti-social behaviour arising from public drinking. The coffee shop operators are also relieved that the Government did not shorten the hours stated on their existing liquor licences and recognised that they need to smartly manage their operations on the ground in order to comply with the law. However, having said this, we hope the Government can find a balance between achieving public security, being pro-business and maintaining Singapore's tourism appeal.

Please now allow me to elaborate on my speech in Mandarin.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] Mdm Speaker, last week, the Singapore Chinese Chamber of Commerce and Industry (SCCCI) invited the trade associations affected by the Bill to a closed-door dialogue to understand their views on the proposed Bill, especially the challenges that SMEs will face after the Bill comes into effect. Earlier on, in English, I have briefly shared the main content of the meeting.

At the dialogue, the trade associations' representatives talked about four main points.

First, can the licences which have been revoked be reinstated? In the past year or so, the liquor licences of about 40 coffee shops in Geylang have been revoked and the reason is because they have contravened the regulations. Inspectors have found people drinking in their premises outside the hours stipulated on their licences. Because their liquor licences have been revoked, their business is down by 20% to 30% and they do not know whether they are going to get their licence back eventually, or it has been permanently revoked. These businesses hope that the Government can give them a clear answer so that they can adjust their businesses if necessary.

Page: 33

Second, our members suggested introducing a demerit point system. If they really contravene the regulations, we suggest that the inspector issue a written warning upon the first violation, instead of the current practice of informing the business only when their licence is about to be revoked. The businesses hope that with this demerit point system, they will have a point deducted for each offence and at each offence a written warning will be given. When all the points have been deducted, then the licence will be revoked. This measure will have a strong warning effect to the businesses, reminding them not to contravene the regulations. The consequences can also be seen clearly. Compared to the current practice, the demerit point system is more transparent and will help the operators to exercise self-discipline.

Third, deal with drinkers who have contravened the rules. Of course, the business operators have to comply with the laws strictly, but the drinkers who have repeatedly violated the rules should also be severely dealt with. Hence, the businesses hope that the Government will use different channels to educate the public on the Bill. From past experiences, although the operators have reminded their customers to buy and consume their liquor before midnight, there are still some customers who refuse to listen to them. If the inspector happens to turn up at this time, it will be the business operator who will get into trouble.

Fourth, maintain Singapore tourism's vibrancy. Singapore is a global metropolis. There are many flights to and from Singapore and tourists arrive round the clock. When the new Bill comes into effect, no drinking will be allowed at public places after 10.30 pm, which aims to reduce the potential threat to public order. Many of the nightlife places frequented by tourists have liquor licences which allow them to sell liquor up until 3.00 am or 4.00 am. They hope that this can be extended to 6.00 am. Many places start the merrymaking after midnight. Stopping the selling of liquor at 3.00 am or 4.00 am does seem a bit early.

In conclusion, we support the new Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Bill. It will mitigate a threat to public safety. However, we hope that the Government can strike a balance between being pro-business and maintaining public order. In particular, we hope they will be sympathetic towards the small businesses. We want to maintain public order, as well as to maintain the vitality of Singapore as a tourist city.

Madam, I support the Bill, especially on the setting up of "Liquor Control Zones". Madam, I am one of the Members of Parliament looking after a part of Little India. My colleague, Minister Lui Tuck Yew is the other.

Page: 34

Together with many residents, the owners of licensed F&B outlets and religious organisations in my ward, I support the designation of Little India as a Liquor Control Zone.

The Bill that provides for Liquor Control Zones has been in the making since 2012. This is even before the Little India riot of December 2013. The trigger for a Bill such as this came from the increasing number of residential complaints and public disorder and disamenity incidents in not only Little India but also places, such as Clarke Quay, Boat Quay, Joo Chiat, Geylang and Chinatown.

Little India is a popular spot where locals, tourists and migrant workers congregate. For many years, they not only frequent the shops and eating houses in Little India, they – especially the migrant workers – gather in the void decks, the shops on the ground floors of the HDB flats.

Minister Lui Tuck Yew's and my feedback to the authorities on behalf of our residents had always been consistent, prior to and after the riot. Return the use of community spaces, such as the void decks and playgrounds in housing estates ,to the residents. Let the tenant mix of shops directly below their housing units be of a more wholesome profile – the unrestricted sale of liquor in bottles stacked from floor to ceiling does not belong to residential zones. These were our calls. The authorities began to seriously heed our call to action.

Then, the Little India riot of December 2013 happened. The Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Act was subsequently introduced in April 2014.

The alcohol curb and security measures that we implemented under this Temporary Act received very positive feedback and were most welcomed by many residents, regardless of race. One interesting indicator was when we began to see more children, especially little girls at our playgrounds now. Many residents want the measures under the Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Act to stay, as they worry the upcoming legislation would be more lax, once the Temporary Act expires in March 2015.

The shock of the Little India riot of December 2013 was not lost on them.

Lest we forget, that riot is the worst public order disturbance in Singapore in more than 40 years. One migrant worker, who triggered the riot, lost his life. Twenty-three emergency response vehicles, including ambulances, were damaged. Out of these, five were burnt. Another seven private vehicles were damaged. Forty-nine Home Team officers sustained injuries. The findings of the Commission of Inquiry confirmed that alcohol was one of the root causes of the incident. Thus, the continued designation of Little India as a Liquor Control

Page: 35

Zone is a relief to many of my residents.

Madam, I also believe that there is pressure on the Ministry to introduce stronger measures and enlarge or increase the number of Liquor Control Zones.

Just outside the Little India special zone, residents who do not live in that zone have protested about more migrant workers crossing over from the special zone to their blocks and their field to drink and to litter. And I just received a petition on this. In Geylang, where my colleague Mr Edwin Tong serves, there was a request by a resident for the common areas in his condominium to be designated as a public area so that the liquor curbs can apply there. Some Tekka residents – Minister Lui Tuck Yew's area – want the restriction hours to be extended over the weekend.

There are also some opposing voices, too. Merchants, whose businesses depend on the sale of liquor and merchandise to migrant workers in Little India, are affected. And I had, together with Minister Lui Tuck Yew, in and outside this House, urged the relevant Ministries to help these businesses ply their trade, for example, in the large dormitories or the recreation centres for migrant workers.

So, Madam, you can imagine the challenges of the Ministry in trying to decide where the boundary should be, because there are so many conflicting demands.

I am satisfied that MHA has taken a moderate approach and did not over-extend the number of Liquor Control Zones. Only the top two hotspots, Geylang and Little India respectively, were designated Liquor Control Zones, versus other contenders, such as Clarke Quay, Boat Quay, Chinatown and Joo Chiat. In short, the regulations could have been more restrictive but they are not. And for sure, the Bill, when enacted, will bring a lot of respite, especially to our residents in Little India.

Next, on Occasional Social Drinkers in Lower-risk Zones. Madam, much of the criticism about the Bill centres on whether it is clamping down on personal freedom. Singaporeans who drink socially at public places, such as BBQ pits along the East Coast or holiday chalets, are concerned that they are now deemed to be committing an offence if they drink beyond 10.30 pm. And if they simply want an occasional beer, they would now require a consumption permit, as mentioned in clause 13 of Part 3 of the Bill.

Madam, the spirit of the legislation, I am sure, is not to target the occasional social drinkers in areas unlikely to attract large congregations, where there is low risk for public disorders arising from liquor consumption. The purpose of this Bill, as I understand, is to target socially-ill behaviours that might cause public disorder, nuisance and even risks to

Page: 36

others, especially residents. When I checked with the authorities, they expressed difficulties in trying to draw the boundaries and, therefore, the decision on quite a blunt measure was implemented for now.

But still, I urge the Ministry to assure the public that it will apply a light touch in these situations, for example, issue warnings and only take punitive measures through public nuisance.

I also urge the Ministry to monitor the implementation of the Bill for a year and consider further loosening the regulations for those areas at lowest risk of public disorder and disamenity arising from liquor incidents. I believe the Bill, in its current form, is flexible enough to allow for changes in regulations. Perhaps, later on, instead of two tiers – liquor-control zone or non liquor-control zone – there could be three tiers – Tier 1 for those at highest risk of public disorder; Tier 2 with moderate risk; and Tier 3 where there is little or no risk.

Next, on Current and Future Public Consultations. Madam, I wish to touch on the mode of public consultations for major policies. First, let me clarify that I do not believe that a country should be run by referendum. But I do believe that consulting more people with different views in the population will surface different kinds of perspectives and even blind spots that may be very useful in developing national policies.

It has been asked by some who do not support the Liquor Control Bill if the Bill has "genuine public support". Madam, to be fair to the Ministry, much effort, perhaps more than in other Bills, has been made to consult the public, both for general and specific proposals. The first public consultation, I think, was in October 2013, even before the riot.

The truth of the matter is that those who feel strongly about the issue, in this case, liquor control, took the effort to step forth and to let their views be counted. Those who did not step forward and respond to the call for views did not have their views made known or considered.

So, does this Bill have support? Well, at least from the people who took the time to respond to the calls for public consultations. Their personal experiences and strong support for some form of restrictions in the sale and public consumption of liquor – not total ban, as in some western countries, but partial restrictions – their views were registered and taken into account in the development of this Bill.