Hansard, Tuesday, 18 February 2014

1 Dr Lim Wee Kiak asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs what is the Government's position on reports that the Indonesian Navy has named one of its new warships after the two Indonesian marines who were convicted and executed for the bombing of MacDonald House in Singapore in 1965 which killed three persons and wounded at least 33 others.

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I will take Question No 1 and then Minister for Defence will take Question No 2, and then we could answer the hon Members' questions.

Yes, please.

Thank you. Mdm Speaker, the hon Members want to know the position taken by Singapore and by Indonesia on this matter over the last two weeks. We have taken a principled stand. We have expressed our concerns directly and clearly to the Indonesian government. We have heard their response. I recently spoke at some length to the Singapore media about why we feel this way and why we take the position we are taking. Allow me to briefly set out the main points.

We were surprised and disturbed to learn that the Indonesian Navy was naming a warship after the two marines, Usman and Harun. I was, in fact, in Jakarta when the news came out in the media, and spoke immediately to the Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa to convey our concerns.

Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean and Defence Minister Ng Eng Hen also called and spoke to their Indonesian counterparts. We respectfully requested that Indonesia takes our concerns into account and reconsiders its decision to name the warship Usman Harun. Later, we followed up with a Third Person Note (TPN), which is a formal diplomatic note, to the Indonesian

Page: 8

government to register our regret.

We asked Indonesia to undertake constructive steps to minimise the damage to our relationship. In particular, we noted that both countries had considered the episode closed in May 1973 when then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew visited Indonesia and scattered flowers on the graves of the two marines. That was a gesture to close a painful chapter in bilateral relationships. The naming of the ship now reopens this issue.

Why are we concerned about the naming of the warship? We have to look at what happened in 1965 and what it meant then; and what does the naming of the warship mean to us now. The facts of the MacDonald House bombing are not in dispute. The two Indonesian marines, Usman and Harun, in civilian disguise, planted a bomb in MacDonald House. It was part of a campaign of terror targeted at civilians. This action was quite contrary to international law. The two marines had committed a serious crime. They were tried in the Courts in a fair trial. Their appeal went all the way up to the Privy Council in London and they were found guilty and hanged in 1968.

Not many remember that Usman and Harun were not the only Indonesian saboteurs whom we arrested during the Konfrontasi. Two other marines, Stanislaus Krofan and Andres Andea, were caught and sentenced to death for the crime of carrying a bomb which exploded. Indonesia also appealed for their release. We pardoned them, because there were no deaths. In total, 45 Indonesian saboteurs were released and returned to Indonesia. But we could not pardon Usman and Harun because their crime was very serious and civilians had been killed and injured.

Not pardoning Usman and Harun was a defining moment for Singapore. Had we agreed to release them, it would have set the precedent for our relationships with all bigger countries. That precedent would be that we will – or we should – do what a bigger country asks and pressures us to do, even when we have been grievously hurt. That is a different concept of sovereignty that is not good for us and which we cannot accept.

The Indonesians consider Usman and Harun heroes. But for Singaporeans, in particular the victims and their families, their action was criminal, not heroic. We do not quarrel with Indonesia's sovereign right to choose their heroes. But it is quite another thing to name a warship after these two marines. The warship will travel to different places, bringing painful memories wherever it goes. This is something that Singaporeans quite justifiably will find hurtful. I am sure that

Page: 9

many Indonesians would feel the same way if they were in our position.

Indonesian Foreign Minister Marty Natalegawa has said that Jakarta takes this issue "very seriously" and that there is no "ill-will" or "malice". We welcome his comments. That is a step in the right direction. I agree fully with Minister Marty's remarks that there is a need for mutual respect between Singapore and Indonesia.

As we go forward, it is important for us to know that the marines are not being honoured for killing Singaporeans. It is also important that it is understood and acknowledged that the naming of the ship impacts on Singapore, especially the families of those killed and injured.

A fundamental tenet of our foreign policy is that we deal with other countries – irrespective of size – as sovereign equals, based on mutual respect. Just as Indonesia expects others, including Singapore, to show sensitivity to its concerns, we too expect the same of Indonesia.

We see Indonesia as an important partner of Singapore and we value their friendship and support. We have a strong bilateral partnership and also cooperate closely in ASEAN where our interests converge on many issues. We, therefore, hope that it will be possible for us to maintain and strengthen this friendship and cooperation. The naming of the ship has caused an impact. And we have stated what our position is on that issue.

2 Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for Defence what is the response of the Ministry and SAF to the Indonesian Navy's decision to name one of its new warships after the two Indonesian marines responsible for the bombing of MacDonald House in Singapore in 1965.

Mdm Speaker, in reply to Question No 2, for MINDEF and the SAF, the Konfrontasi was a violent and wrenching chapter in Singapore's history. The Indonesian armed forces, known as ABRI then, targeted non-military installations and defenceless civilians in Singapore from 1963 to 1965. In all, at least 58 people were killed or injured by the 37 bombs set off. Great suffering was inflicted on the victims and their

Page: 10

families. The MacDonald House bomb blast killed three civilians and injured at least 33 more. They still bear the physical and psychological scars of that tragedy to this day. Just take the families of those killed: Elizabeth Choo's six children became orphans, Juliet Goh's parents lost their only child, and Encik Yasin left behind a widow and eight children.

The naming of an Indonesian Navy ship after Usman and Harun now, nearly 50 years later, would undo the conciliatory actions from both sides that had lain to rest this dark historical episode. It would, as we have said, reopen old wounds. The Singapore Government was therefore deeply concerned when we received news of the naming and reacted immediately, instinctively.

Three Ministers, including Deputy Prime Minister Teo, telephoned our counterparts. My counterpart, the Indonesian Defence Minister was in Europe on an official visit and it was 8.00 am there when I called him. I would not have disturbed his trip unless it was an important matter and the Indonesian Defence Minister knew it. I stated the Government's position, and followed up with a written note, so that there would be no misunderstanding about our deep concern. All three Ministers respectfully asked our counterparts, on behalf of the Singapore Government, that Indonesia reconsider the name of the ship. We knew the harm it would cause to bilateral relations.

We want good defence ties with Indonesia and have worked hard to develop our friendship and military cooperation. Deputy Prime Minister Teo related to me how he had taken part in the first ever naval exercise with the Indonesians in 1974 – it was called Exercise Eagle – after President Suharto's visit to Singapore. And since then, military-to-military relations have improved considerably. In fact, two years ago, the SAF celebrated the 20th Anniversary of the Indonesia-Singapore Coordinated Patrols to jointly protect the waters of both countries from sea robbery.

In times of need, Members will remember that both militaries have also quickly stepped up to help each other. When SilkAir Flight MI185 crashed near Palembang in December 1997, Indonesia spared no effort in the search and rescue operations; when the Indian Ocean tsunami struck Aceh in 2004, the SAF was the first on the ground to assist Indonesia with its largest disaster assistance relief effort ever.

Such reciprocal support and close cooperation based on mutual respect strengthen defence ties when Indonesia and Singapore treat each other as sovereign equals. With closer ties, the TNI and the SAF have been able to

Page: 11

discuss sensitive matters, sometimes behind closed doors, to find amicable solutions that meet each others' concerns. Where there are disagreements, we find ways to put them on hold until conditions improve to settle them. But the naming of the ship came as an utter surprise. MINDEF and the SAF were disappointed and dismayed over this inexplicable move. Even without ill intent, how can the naming of the ship after the two bombers build good ties, or enhance mutual respect and regard with both our countries?

On the contrary, a ship named "Usman Harun" sailing on the high seas would unearth all the pain and sorrow caused by the MacDonald House bomb blast, which had been buried and put to rest. It would be a bête noire, unleashing resentful feelings and spirits from the past, a constant reminder of the military aggression and atrocious crimes committed by Indonesian marines who killed or irreparably damaged the lives of innocent civilians and their families in Singapore. For Singaporeans, this is the weight of the dark history of Konfrontasi – of lives tragically cut short in vain, the suffering and blighted futures of hapless victims – that this ship will always carry with her.

Singapore will not allow this military ship named "Usman Harun" to call at our ports and naval bases. It would not be possible for the SAF, as protectors of this nation, to sail alongside or exercise with this ship.

As Deputy Prime Minister Teo, Minister for Foreign Affairs and I have said to our counterparts, the naming of the ship will have consequences on bilateral relations. Already suspicions and resentments have heightened on both sides, setting back many decades of relationship building in defence ties.

We want good bilateral defence ties and close military-to-military relationships with Indonesia. But strong defence ties can only be built on mutual trust and respect, expressed through appropriate acts that underscore friendship and amity.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank both Ministers for the reply. I have one supplementary question for the Foreign Minister. There have been reports to say they are going to put up statues now of the two "heros" in the nearby island, next to Singapore. The question now is what can we do to prevent further of such occurrences? What other confidence-building measures can we engage at the government-to-government level in order to prevent such things from happening? The decision to name this ship: who decided at which level to name the ship ultimately? Do we know that?

Page: 12

I thank the hon Member for the question. There are some press reports about potentially some statues being put up but they remain as press reports. From our perspective, the question is this: looking at some of the comments that have come up from Indonesia – where they have said there is no ill will, there is no malice – it almost appears there is no reason to think otherwise. They had proceeded without really considering the impact on Singapore or how Singapore might view it. The fact that we have now registered our point, we have taken it up, we have said exactly how we felt, we have issued a Third Person Note, their Defence Minister has outlined what is and is not doable with the Indonesian Navy in the context of this ship, I think we have made it crystal clear where we stand, and that is achieved. The objective of making sure that it is at least in the consciousness of Indonesia that there is a certain mutuality to that relationship. Our responses have been calibrated. We take it one step at a time. We wait to see what happens as regards to the statues.

Mdm Speaker, I thank both Ministers for their replies and I will have supplementary questions for both Ministers. I will start with the Minister for Defence. The "inexplicable move", as the Minister has put it, rubs salt into old wounds as it was a painful past for Singaporeans. My heart goes out to the families of the victims who have to relive history again today and each time the warship goes out to open seas. Does the SAF see this as a renewed threat, especially when there are parties who are fully supportive of this act and this shows a more nationalistic and militaristic front of Indonesia? Is the SAF also concerned that the warship could be made into a certain national symbol each time there is disagreement, conflict or difference in positions between our two countries?

I also believe that mutual peace and prosperity should be the way forward for both countries. What plans do the Ministry and the SAF have to find common ground with the Indonesian military and government to come to a position that is a compromise and how we can put this episode behind us?

For the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, I see a future trend looming as our larger neighbours prosper, they may take a more nationalistic or an abang-adik view to Singapore as well. Singapore's rational diplomatic position and our value to trade in this region also make us a very nice guy. When Minister Marty says, "We have no ill intent" —

Mr Zaqy, can you put your questions forth?

Page: 13

In the Minister's view, how is MFA prepared to deal with such tests, or potential provocations from bigger countries willing to test Singapore as a young and small nation?

Mdm Speaker, the SAF and MINDEF will not over-read or jump at shadows from this act. We have stated our view very clearly. I do not want to add to that. As to how we can move forward, this has happened and I think the task before us, as I said, we want good bilateral military relations and we have to take it from there and to rebuild mutual regard, mutual respect that we have taken 40 years to reach. It has set us back. And I would say that, over the next period, we will see what we can do to rebuild the ties. But it also depends on what both parties do.

Thank you, Mdm Speaker. The point about bigger and smaller countries is never going to change for us. It is not a new issue. It was always there from the time we became independent. The size of others was used as a bargaining chip with us. We withstood that. In international relations and international diplomatic exchanges, the weight and the might of the participants are usually the most important factor.

We have been able to hold our own, punch well above our weight simply because we have been faster, skilful and successful. If we were not successful, we would not be having this debate here.

As we go forward, we must fully expect that others will progress, will indeed seek to move us and move our policies towards their direction. It is not just the region. It is beyond the region. Everyone. And to deal with that, we need to look at it at three levels. One, at the core, our defence has to be top rate. If we cannot protect ourselves, nothing else matters. Two, beyond that, we need to make sure that our regional relationships, both bilaterally as well as multilaterally through organisations like ASEAN, are strong so that we can deal with issues, diplomatically, bilaterally as well as through regional platforms which help move everyone along. Three, at the larger level, we do need, therefore, a very strong network of international partners beyond the region. We have to be successful economically, socially, in defence, all of it. That is the requirement for Singapore to survive.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the two Ministers for their response. We can all agree that the robustness of our response to the Indonesians is important. I have two supplementary questions for the Minister

Page: 14

for Defence.

First, I would like to ask whether the withdrawal of our formal invitation to the TNI-AL chief to our Air Show has any significant impact on our relations as well as on the Air Show itself. Secondly, the Minister has spoken about our stance on bilateral military exercises. However, our two navies are involved in a significant number of multilateral exercises, such as Exercise CARAT, and our ADMM-Plus arrangements. If the TNI-AL should send this warship to these multilateral exercises, what would be our stance?

Mdm Speaker, I do not propose to go into a litany of what we are going to do and what we have done or what we are not going to do. I do not think that is productive. We have stated our concerns. I would suggest that it is more productive to focus on what and why we are deeply concerned about the naming of the ship, what it meant to us. I have stated explicitly in terms of not allowing the ship to enter our port and that SAF would not be associated with or exercise with the ship. I think that is abundantly clear. I do not choose to add to that.

Madam, I welcome the Government's position on this matter. I think it is important for us to state our position clearly. I would just like to ask the Minister for Foreign Affairs whether the Government actually accepts the Indonesian government's explanation that the marines are not being honoured for killing Singaporeans. I do not see how these marines would have had been accorded such honours had they not been hanged for their acts in Singapore. So, I would appreciate the Minister's clarification.

I think what the Indonesian government, through its Foreign Minister, has said is that there was no ill will or malice. I do not think there has been an expressed statement in terms that they are not being honoured for killing Singaporeans.

Madam, I welcome the Government's strong stand on this matter. There have been some who said that the episode is being drummed up at this time because of elections in Indonesia, with politicians finding it to their favour to gain popularity through nationalistic sentiments. Can I ask the Minister whether he agrees with this point of view and whether Singapore should stand firm against being used as a convenient election tool just to satisfy domestic gains?

Page: 15

My second question has to do with the abang-adik relationship that seems to be recurrent in the relationship between Indonesia and Singapore. Can I ask the Minister whether he agrees that the KRI Usman Harun episode is yet another reminder of the mindset of Indonesia towards Singapore, seeing itself as the big brother in this abang-adik relationship, rather than one where neighbouring states are viewed as equal sovereign entities where sensitivity is a two-way street?

I assume the Member is directing the questions to me, not to the Minister for Defence.

As regards the first question on whether the naming was a calculated act of internal politics, I think we have to take the Foreign Minister of Indonesia at his word that there was no ill will and there was no malice, which means that it was a decision taken at a professional level. What it also makes clear is that there was not enough consideration or perhaps even a substantial degree of thought given to how Singapore might perceive it, and therein lies the rub. So, I would not want to speculate on whether there were broader reasons. I will take the Foreign Minister at his word, as to what he has said.

On the Member's second question whether it is an abang-adik relationship: without characterising it in those terms, I think it is not just in this region, in every part of the world, an inalienable fact of international diplomatic relationships is that every country will use every advantage it has to pursue its interests. And obviously, their size, economic weight, military might, all of these are factors that are often used in negotiations and discussions.

By definition, we will always be at a disadvantage because of size. And we have overcome that disadvantage. What the episode shows in this particular instance is that since 1973/1974, as the Minister for Defence pointed out, we have built a very strong relationship with Indonesia at various levels, including the military-to-military relationship, and we have helped each other on many occasions. A strong bond and mutual trust have been built up. What this episode has shown is that, nevertheless, there was not, at the minimum, due consideration for how we might feel. As Singaporeans, we have to remember that and note that.

Page: 16

3 Mr Alex Yam asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth with the Singapore Sports School marking its 10th anniversary in 2014 (a) whether the school has achieved its aim to enable young athletes to realise their sporting and academic potential by combining world-class sports training with quality academic education; (b) how have the students been performing on the sports and academic fronts; and (c) whether more can be done to help sporting students in their sports and academic aspirations.

4 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth (a) whether the Singapore Sports School has achieved its desired outcome and managed to attract top-tier athletes; and (b) whether the Ministry will consider (i) lightening the School's academic curriculum to enable its students to focus more on their sports; and (ii) having a through-train integrated programme to a university degree for athletes.

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, I will take Question Nos 3 and 4 together.

Yes, please.

The Singapore Sports School (SSP) has largely succeeded in its aim of combining an excellent sports programme with a quality academic education. Within a decade, the school has produced several Olympians and world champions. At the recent Southeast Asian Games in Myanmar, SSP student-athletes and alumni accounted for almost half of Team Singapore's gold medal haul, or 15 out of 34 gold medals. The school has also done well in supporting the academic needs of its student-athletes. Last year, more than 90% of its "O" level graduates were eligible for places in Junior Colleges, Millenia Institute and the Polytechnics.

Nevertheless, given the increasing level of international competition, the SSP plans to step up its game. Hence, MCCY has announced a strategic review to see how the Sports School can become a national sports academy of excellence and provide talented student-athletes the best environment to train and develop their full potential.

Page: 17

The review will see how we can better optimise the training and competition schedule of our student-athletes, and still give them a sound academic education so they can progress to Institutes of Higher Learning.

This could mean, for example, a more flexible curriculum for those with the potential to excel at the international level. As it is – and Members would be aware of this – the Sports School has already been piloting a customised academic curriculum which wraps around the student-athlete's training schedule, or what is known as the School-Within-a-School (SWS) programme. The review will examine how we can further enhance this programme, and also explore partnerships with more tertiary institutions, including local and overseas Universities, to extend and expand the range of through-train programmes, as suggested by Er Dr Lee.

We are mindful that the needs of the different sports are different. So, rather than taking a one-size-fits-all approach, the review will consider how the sports and academic programmes can be better customised to each sport. We will also see how the Sports School can partner more effectively with the National Sports Associations (NSA), the Junior Sports Academies which MOE runs, and the Singapore Sports Institute (SSI) to attract top-tier student-athletes in each field, and provide them with an attractive pathway to pursue their sporting aspirations.

Mdm Speaker, I would like to thank the Acting Minister for a comprehensive answer. Thank you for mentioning the SWS programme. I would like to ask the Acting Minister two supplementary questions. The curriculum for the SWS programme is still almost the same as any other school. I would like to ask if there is any intention to lighten the curriculum as in many other sports schools in other parts of the world.

The next question is: is there any intention for MCCY to work with MOE to finetune the Direct School Admission (DSA) exercise because I notice that a lot of good table tennis players have been grabbed by a lot of good schools, especially RI and RGS? Is there an intention to specify minimum PSLE score? Because it is quite unfair to other students as well because they take in players without specifying their PSLE scores so long as they are good in games.

On the first question: indeed, the direction of the review is to look at, as I said earlier, how we can customise the curriculum better for talented student-athletes. For that particular group of athletes with the potential, the ability to excel at the international level, and also the commitment

Page: 18

to do so, our sense at this stage is that we can have a better balance between sports and academics and, in particular, give a bit more weightage to the sports. So, lighten their academic curriculum so that they can focus on their training but we still need to assure them of quality education so that they can progress to the next level. That is the intent.

We are studying other international models and we are looking at what we can do in terms of tying up through-train programmes so that when these student-athletes complete their education with the Sports School, they have assurance of a good education and also assurance to progress to the next level. So, indeed, that is what we are doing for the SWS programme.

On the second question: that merits a completely separate Parliamentary Question (PQ) in its own right. Whether or not we are going to review DSA admissions is something that will also require MOE's inputs. I would not be in a position to answer this today. I know where the Member is coming from in terms of DSA admissions with schools. It is something that MCCY has noted and we will continue to look at this with MOE. If the Member would like to file a separate question, we can address that separately.

Mdm Speaker, one supplementary question for the Acting Minister. Having travelled and trained in a variety of sports institutions around the world, this concept of trying to balance academics and sport is something that Singaporeans hold very dear. It seems to be ethos of the Sports School. Would we ever come to a stage and acknowledge the fact that at the top level of global sport now, it is almost impossible to reach Olympic champions level, trying to balance academics in sport the way that we try to do in Singapore?

That is exactly the motivation behind this particular review: that we recognise that for student-athletes with the ability, the potential to excel at the international level, grappling or balancing the demands of both the academic and sports training based on the current curriculum in the Sports School, may be a bit difficult. That is exactly the motivation behind the review that we are doing.

I would caution going the other extreme which some countries have done, which is to hothouse students from a very early age and focus only on sports training without any education. I think actually it ends up to the detriment of the student especially for the very many who are unable to excel at that level and the attrition rate is significant. Many end up with not very much of a sound

Page: 19

education to fall back on, and they have difficulties finding a good job and progressing on in their careers.

I note that the balance being asked for in terms of trying to skew a bit more towards sports, but I know parents have also voiced concern that if they send their kids to the non-sports schools, for example, would they get disadvantaged. Would MCCY take into consideration the principle that kids should also have a choice?

Firstly, the parents and the students have a choice. We would have a diversity of options for them to choose from, whether or not they want to do more and focus more intensively in sports training, or they want a more balanced approach. Secondly, I would say even for the Sports School, as we do this curriculum, we are also mindful of thinking about how the Sports School can extend beyond what it is doing with its own students and reach out to students from other schools who have the potential to excel and to be part of the Juniors National Team or to be part of the National Team, to see how that training can extend to them. In that sense, while the review is for the Sports School, we are also looking beyond the Sports School.

Madam, while I welcome the partnership between NSAs and the Singapore Sports School, I hope the Acting Minister can give the assurance that for athletes who choose not to go to the Sports School, the National Sports Associations will not discriminate against them. If we go on the basis that "Oh, you can't train so many hours", I think that is very unfair. We should look at the performance and I think that is all that matters because after all, we are a meritocratic society.

Again, we are deviating quite a bit from the original question of what the Sports School review is supposed to be. This is a matter of selection of athletes which is the purview of National Sports Associations (NSAs) and the SNOC, and these are people-based organisations. But I agree with the Member's observation and comment that it all has to be based on merit.

5 Mr Nicholas Fang asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth whether the Sports Hub is on track to meet the target of opening by April 2014.

Page: 20

Mdm Speaker, the Sports Hub Pte Ltd (SHPL) has informed us that they will be able to largely complete the construction of the Sports Hub by the original timeline of April 2014. The main exception is the National Stadium which will take a few more weeks to complete. And this is because the SHPL is using this time for the testing and certification of the National Stadium's retractable roof and moveable seats. The Singapore Sports Council (SSC) is closely monitoring the progress of this final phase of construction.

Based on the latest construction schedule, SHPL has worked out a phased opening of the facilities in the Sports Hub. And given the scale of the project, such a phased opening will enable SHPL to progressively step up its staff deployment, test out the systems, and ensure a safe and smooth transition from construction to operations.

For example, facilities like the Aquatic Centre and Water Sports Centre will be opened for use from April onwards. The first event at the National Stadium is being planned in June, and SHPL has assured us that the Stadium will be ready by then. SHPL will announce the opening schedule and the full calendar of events at the Sports Hub later this month.

6 Ms Faizah Jamal asked the Minister for National Development (a) when were the feasibility studies for door-to-door waste collection services for fish farms conducted; (b) how many licensed fish farms existed at the time when the feasibility studies were conducted; (c) what is the quantum of costs that AVA found too high for the farmers; and (d) what costs will AVA consider low enough for the farmers to pay in order to initiate such a service.

7 Ms Faizah Jamal asked the Minister for National Development (a) what is the frequency of AVA's routine inspections to monitor fish farms including night raids; and (b) whether these cover the southern and western coastal fish farms.

8 Ms Faizah Jamal asked the Minister for National Development what are the steps that NEA takes to audit trash disposal by offshore fish farms to ensure that our water quality is not affected.

Page: 21

Mdm Speaker, with your permission, may I take Question Nos 6 to 8 together?

Yes, please.

Mdm Speaker, under the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority's fish farm licensing conditions, owners of offshore fish farms must properly dispose of the waste generated from their farms. The owners must also keep their premises in good condition and ensure that the waters in and around their farms are clean and pollution-free at all times.

AVA carries out quarterly inspections and ad hoc night raids on all fish farms, including those in the southern and western coastal areas, to check for compliance with its licensing conditions. During the inspections, AVA officers will check that farmers use proper waste disposal methods. In addition, night raids deter farmers from illegally towing fish farm trash to the shore under the cover of darkness.

In October 2013, AVA explored if door-to-door waste collection services could be provided for fish farm sited in the eastern Johor Straits. There were 60 licensed eastern fish farms at that time.

AVA estimated that each fish farmer would have to pay $160 per month for weekly door-to-door waste collection service. With the new AVA jetty at Lorong Halus ready later this year, the eastern fish farmers can bring their farm waste to the waste collection centre at the jetty to help facilitate proper waste disposal. This is similar to the arrangement for the western fish farmers who use the waste disposal services at the Lim Chu Kang jetty.

I have a few supplementary questions. These questions were actually filed before the recent incident of fish deaths. So, I think the questions are even more important at this stage for us to consider.

My first supplementary question is this: there has been mention that the owners have to dispose of the fish trash correctly. However, immediately after the Parliamentary Question (PQ) response that I received in November, I checked at Changi Creek and I found there were no skids there at all. Up until only when the fish deaths happened that a skid was actually provided. And even then, it disappeared yesterday – it is no longer there. So, my question is: how

Page: 22

was the fish trash disposed of previously from the eastern shores and what happened to the disposal now with the fish deaths? That is the first question.

And secondly, with the fish deaths happening at the moment, what is AVA going to do about the monitoring of the water quality? Given the fact that the reason given for the fish deaths was a plankton bloom, does it mean that AVA had not been monitoring water quality and given feedback? And if so, what is going to be the solution going forward?

Next question: is AVA going to be studying what the health impact is on us as a result of a possibly bad water quality as a result of this incident?

And lastly, would AVA now consider going forward again and helping fish farms to use more technologically advanced and environmentally friendly methods of fish farming in the future?

I thank Ms Faizah for the set of questions. On the skid at Changi Creek, we will ask AVA to investigate on what happened. If the Member's observation is right, we have to find out exactly who is responsible for that.

On the recent issue of what happened at the fish farms, the plankton bloom: the conditions happened over the last couple of weeks facilitated a plankton bloom because there is heat as well as the tide. Because of the low tide, we were told that facilitated the flourishing and the blooming of the plankton.

AVA is monitoring such a condition. But when it happened, it was very fast. It also linked up to the type of fish that the farmers were actually rearing. There were three types of fish that were susceptible to such conditions and these were the ones which were not able to survive. I think there was a multitude of factors that led to that condition.

On the issue of the quality of the water: the way the fish were disposed of during the recent fish deaths, AVA brought in their contractors to help the affected fish farmers. Under the normal situation, the fish farmers are responsible to dispose of the fish waste – that is their responsibility. We have two locations: western and southern, and the eastern.

The western and southern section, they have the Lim Chu Kang jetty that has facilitated a more controlled fish waste disposal system. They dispose of their waste at the jetty and there is a central disposal system available there. At

Page: 23

the eastern farms, we do not have that system at this point in time. That is one of the reasons why we are building the Lorong Halus jetty to facilitate similar processes. Once we have the Lorong Halus jetty, then the farmers can dispose of their waste centrally at the Lorong Halus jetty. The jetty will be ready by this quarter and will be operational probably by the later part of the year.

On the issue of the health impact, we are studying the health impact and the conditions of the water; we are monitoring very closely.

On the last question on technological advancement: that is really one of the things we found when I visited the farms recently. We have put in place opportunities for the farmers to improve their conditions. One of the challenges they had was that they had very poor aeration system. Some did not even have generators to facilitate aeration as an immediate action when the oxygen level of the water came down. The oxygen level came down because of the plankton blooms.

We are working very closely with the farmers to help them improve on their current systems. One of the challenges that we acknowledge – and I think the farmers acknowledge it as well – is we want to turn this situation from adversity to opportunity, and see how we can actually facilitate them in improving their systems such that future occurrences may be prevented.

There are farmers who have successfully tapped on the Food Fund and they have put in better systems that had allowed them to mitigate the impact of the current situation. So some of the farms were not affected because they have invested in proper technology and proper systems that allowed them to mitigate the impact of such sudden changes in the temperature and sudden changes in conditions. Their aeration systems were a lot more advanced. They were able to manage the oxygen levels within their farms.

A supplementary question, Mdm Speaker. Would AVA then consider revoking the licences of those farmers that have not been up-to-date or have not been keeping to the promises that they made to AVA?

When we revoked their licences recently, there were a lot of pleas from the fish farmers. We want to try to help the fish farmers. The first thing is to help them develop their systems as well as to be able to produce. Certainly, there are targets that have been set in place because we have very limited spaces. We have limited water and land spaces for farming activities. With the farmers, we have put in place opportunities for

Page: 24

them to improve other productivity levels.

Yes, in a worst case scenario, we will revoke licences for those who have failed to comply with the regulations we put in place, including those who fail to produce the kind of quantity that is required. The way to go right now is to help them. We want to help the farmers because this is their livelihood. We want to try to be sympathetic even for those who have recently suffered the mass fish deaths. AVA is working very closely with them, trying to facilitate and, possibly, help them with the purchase of fish fries, fingerlings, put in greater subsidies to help them get back on their feet. We want to try to help our local farmers. We also have targets where we want to improve the productivity level of our fish production because fish is one of the key food items in our food strategy.

So, as much as we want to try to make them comply, we will take a very calibrated approach to support them. For those who have failed over several years and they have not been taking part in productivity movements, certainly we will look at the worst case scenario of revoking their licences.

The following question stood in the name of Mr R Dhinakaran –

9 To ask the Minister for Trade and Industry (a) what is the progress of work by the Entrepreneurship Review Committee and what are its findings; and (b) whether there are recurring themes in the feedback collected by the Entrepreneurship Review Committee.

Question No 9, please.

Mdm Speaker, the Entrepreneurship Review Committee (EnRC) has concluded its review of the entrepreneurial landscape, and the Committee's recommendations were announced in January this year.

The EnRC found that the entrepreneurship scene had matured over the past 10 years, with more start-ups being formed. The number of active start-ups increased by 58% from 24,000 in 2005 to 39,000 in 2012. There are also more youths thinking of becoming entrepreneurs, as well as successful exits by start-

Page: 25

ups.

Given the maturity of the start-up scene, the EnRC recommended that the private sector should play a larger role in shaping the entrepreneurship landscape. So, the Committee recommended that focus should be given to helping startups grow, through facilitating collaboration with larger companies and expanding overseas. Finally, the Committee also recommended continued focus on infrastructure to support start-ups, and training and education to equip youths with entrepreneurial skills.

In announcing the EnRC recommendations at the Action Community for Entrepreneurship (ACE) Gala Dinner in January, I have also announced that we will be transitioning ACE into a private sector-led entity. The relevant Government agencies are studying other recommendations and details will be released in due course.

10 Ms Janice Koh asked the Minister for Communications and Information (a) if he will provide an update on the new Arts Classification Framework and proposed Term Licensing Scheme; (b) what are the views and feedback received from artists and arts groups during the consultation process; and (c) what are the challenges of implementing the new framework and scheme.

Madam, I had earlier announced that MDA would be introducing co-regulation for the arts through a Term Licensing Scheme (TLS). This two-tiered scheme will allow arts groups to self-classify performances that fall within the "General" rating under Tier One, while Tier Two licensees will be able to self-classify performances up to the "Restricted 18" rating. It aims to empower arts groups with the responsibility of self-classifying their own performances, while being mindful of community standards and expectations.

To provide for the TLS, the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act (PEMA) will need to be amended. MCI is currently finalising the amendments to the Act. We aim to conduct public consultation on the Amendment Bill in the second quarter of 2014.

Page: 26

Madam, in preparation for the implementation of the TLS, MDA is reviewing the Arts Classification Framework (ACF) to ensure that the classification guidelines are sufficiently clear when used by arts groups to self-classify their performances. Last year, MDA consulted with various stakeholders, including arts groups and the larger community, including MDA's advisory committees, on both the TLS and the ACF. Let me share some of the feedback which was gathered.

On the ACF, both arts groups and community stakeholders asked if the review would result in a tightening or loosening of the content standards. I would like to clarify that the MDA does not, at the onset of a review, unilaterally decide to loosen or tighten the standards. Rather, it aims to calibrate our content standards to reflect the majority view across society, taking into account views from both the arts industry and the public, including parents and consumers.

The consultations on the TLS attracted diverse views. While some arts groups questioned if term licensing would result in self-censorship, other stakeholders, including parents, were concerned that MDA no longer classifying all arts performances might result in a relaxation of standards. It is important for us to remember that the TLS represents the first step towards MDA's co-regulation with the arts industry, taking into account societal norms. It provides an invaluable opportunity for arts groups to partner with MDA to contribute towards an arts scene that is both vibrant and socially responsible.

MDA also received feedback on issues related to the implementation of the TLS raised by arts groups. These included the responsibilities of term licensees vis-a-vis the content assessors, the duration of training hours required, and the consequence of misclassifications.

Ms Koh also asked about the challenges to implementing the TLS and the revised ACF. We envisage that term licensees and their content assessors will need time to familiarise themselves to self-classifying their performance using the ACF. Therefore, in addition to the training which MDA will be providing to all content assessors, MDA will be conducting a pilot of the scheme in the second quarter of 2014 to test the processes and allow arts groups to clarify issues before it is formally launched.

In conclusion, let me reiterate that the TLS is an important step towards a meaningful co-regulatory partnership between MDA and the arts sector, which takes into account our societal norms and values. The active participation of the arts group and feedback from stakeholders will be instrumental in ensuring the

Page: 27

success of the scheme.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister. I just have two sets of supplementary questions. The first is: classifying content, even with a set of recommended guidelines, relies on some degree of subjective judgement. How does MDA intend to deal with disagreements with an arts group on the appropriate rating for a show? And in the spirit of co-regulation, will the arts groups be given a wider berth to make those judgement calls since they would be the ones who know their audience best?

Secondly, in the event of adverse feedback or a complaint from the public, how will MDA assess whether or not a complaint is warranted and assess whether or not there has actually been a breach in guidelines? What will be the punitive measures and will there be an appeals process or recourse for the arts group in the event there is a difference in opinion?

I thank the Member for those very important questions because these are the sort of questions that I am sure the arts groups are also thinking about.

On the first question as to how do we deal with disagreements, first of all, we will put in place measures to ensure that all the term licensees receive adequate training, so that they can do self-classification with greater confidence. But we recognise that this will take time. So, that is why we have included training and refresher training sessions for content assessors, so that they can get a lot more training hours.

In addition, as I mentioned in my reply, we will first test this scheme through a pilot launch in the second half of this year, so that we can help the arts group to familiarise themselves with the classification standards, yet at the same time allow the MDA to understand better how the scheme will work at the ground and what is the feedback that we can gather from this.

Even after we have formally launched the scheme, our doors are not closed. Both the term licensees and the content assessors can continue to consult MDA if they are not confident about classifying their performances. The most important thing is that when there is disagreement over misclassification or wrong classification, I think we will be reasonable and fair in assessing that decision, because, at the end of the day, we want to allow the industry to move forward rather than to hold it back. So, I will give the assurance to the Member

Page: 28

that we will be flexible and understand the context by which the misclassification took place.

On the adverse feedback, we are clear that we just cannot take it from one source. As the Member knows, we have the consultative panel that we can fall back on. In any of the performances that we have come across whereby there could be differences of opinion, we consult widely. We are prepared to even consult the arts group because they may have a different point of view. But, finally, we have to make the decision as to whether or not misclassification has taken place or not, and what are the measures that we have to put in place.

As I mentioned earlier, the Bill will be up for consultation. Within the Bill, there will be discussions about what sort of punitive measures are being considered. It is not the intention of MDA to try and penalise every arts group out there. But, as I mentioned in my reply, we want the arts groups to work together with us to ensure a vibrant arts scene, yet at the same time meeting the societal norms and standards. We have to be socially responsible because, at the end of the day, we want to ensure that parents feel comfortable that their children of whatever age, when they attend a performance, the classification that we have given, or given by the arts group, meets the contents standards and the societal norms that we see prevailing in our society.

11 Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Prime Minister (a) if he can give an update on the progress of the implementation of the Population White Paper; and (b) whether there are plans to engender a better and nuanced understanding of the role of both short-term and long-term immigration in the development of Singapore so as to enable sustainable support for our population policy.

Mdm Speaker, the Population White Paper outlined our strategies towards a sustainable population in Singapore. It proposed strategies for a strong and cohesive society with a strong Singaporean Core, a dynamic economy to create good jobs and opportunities for Singaporeans with a calibrated slowdown in foreign workforce growth, and a high quality living environment through planning and investing in infrastructure ahead of demand.

Page: 29

We have taken steps to try and prevent the decline of our citizen population. The 2013 enhanced Marriage and Parenthood (M&P) Package has been implemented to provide more holistic support for Singaporeans to fulfil their aspirations to set up families and have children. We have also maintained a stable inflow of immigrants who are better able to integrate into our society, to stop our citizen population from shrinking and improve the age distribution in our citizen population.

At the same time, we are slowing the inflow of foreign workers to curb the rapid population growth that would have otherwise occurred if we continued to grow as in the past. In 2013, our total population growth slowed to 1.6%, the lowest in the last nine years, due to tightened foreign manpower policies and a weaker economy. Foreign workforce growth, excluding foreign domestic workers, in non-construction sectors halved compared to the year before. The foreign workforce growth was mainly driven by the construction sector, to support ongoing infrastructure developments in housing and transport.

We have stepped up efforts to restructure our economy and improve productivity. We have introduced schemes to encourage companies to move up the value chain, such as the Wage Credit Scheme and the enhanced Productivity and Innovation Credit Bonus. We are also working with employers to nurture a strong Singaporean Core in our workforce, with fair consideration for employment, opportunities for upgrading and a more inclusive work environment.

We are making progress to alleviate the infrastructure strains, with more buses, new segments of rail-lines and new trains, and more homes and hospitals being built. Care has also been taken to enhance our living environment with accessible green spaces and facilities to serve the needs of all segments of our population.

We have taken in the feedback from Singaporeans on the Population White Paper, and will continue to engage the public on the considerations behind our population strategies. We have emphasised the steps taken to slow down our foreign workforce growth and speed up the development of our public infrastructure, especially transport. We will explain important trade-offs, such as maintaining a balance between the manpower needs of our industry and the social sectors, and responding to the concerns of Singaporeans regarding the rising number of foreign workers. This balance is important to ensure that Singapore continues to thrive and remains a good place to live, work and play

Page: 30

in a sustainable manner.

Mdm Speaker, I welcome the Minister's update. I hope that Singaporeans will continue to keep an open mind towards immigration. Can I ask the Minister whether there will be greater efforts in the "software" aspect in trying to get Singaporeans and newcomers, whether they are long- or short-term immigrants, integrate better? The "hardware" of infrastructure is the easy part. We have the financial resources to do that. It is the software part of building a nation that is a lot more challenging. I am sure the Minister appreciates that. I wonder whether she could update us on what the plans are to further enhance integration.

Mdm Speaker, we agree with the hon Member about the importance of integration. Both in terms of our selection criteria of new immigrants, we have special attention on the assimilability of the new citizens that we award to and, at the same time, we continue to meet regularly with the various sectors, both in the employment sector, the companies and employers. We are also encouraging schools to engage the students in community projects together with the foreign students, including the people sector such as the clan associations, new immigrants association and the People's Association (PA). We believe that we have to work with multiple sectors and continue to persevere in this journey of promoting integration not just amongst Singaporeans and foreigners but also across all races and all religions.

12 Mr Ang Wei Neng asked the Minister for Education of the top 10 Secondary schools that accepted the most students under the Direct School Admission (DSA) scheme in 2013 (a) how many of these students are accepted under the DSA (Academic) and DSA (Sports) respectively; (b) of those accepted under DSA (Sports), how many students obtained PSLE T-scores that are 30 points below the respective schools' cut-off-point; and (c) what is the rationale of having DSA (Academic) when Secondary schools can rely on PSLE T-scores to assess the students' academic ability.

Madam, 121 Secondary schools participated in the 2013 Direct

Page: 31

School Admission (DSA) Exercise, for admission to Secondary 1 in 2014.

The 10 schools that took in the largest number of students via the DSA scheme are schools specialising in developing specific talent areas – namely, NUS High School for Mathematics and Science, School of Science and Technology, School of the Arts, and schools offering the Integrated Programme.

Of the students who were admitted via DSA to these schools in 2013, 63% of them were accepted on the basis of a range of non-PSLE, academic-related merits; and another 17% of them were accepted on the basis of their sports-related merits.

Specialised schools like the NUS High School for Mathematics and Science would pick students with the potential to excel in various mathematics and science disciplines based on their strengths as well as inclinations displayed in these academic disciplines. Such peak academic merits may not be reflected in the overall PSLE T-scores.

Of the students admitted via DSA based on their sporting merits into these 10 schools in 2013, about 10% had PSLE aggregate scores that were 30 or more points below the school's PSLE cut-off point that year. Schools do ensure that these students, who were admitted via DSA based on their sporting merits, can cope with the pace of academic learning in the school.

I thank the Minister for State for her comprehensive reply. First of all, I would like to clarify that I support the DSA scheme in general because it provides the students with more options to choose a Secondary school without the PSLE scores. However, I am concerned about the DSA scheme. One of the concerns that I have is that it has unintended consequences. For example, some top schools not only manage to pick and choose the top students with the best academic results, these schools also manage to absorb students who excel in the area of sports but are less academically inclined, as revealed by the Minister of State. Ten percent of them have 30 points below the cut-off points. Perhaps these students could be better absorbed by the Sports School as they have this unique programme to develop both their academic as well as their sport talents. In my view, could MOE review whether some of the top schools could stop accepting sport students with PSLE scores 15 points below the cut-off points of the respective schools?

Madam, I am glad the hon Member supports the objectives of the DSA scheme, which was introduced to allow schools the flexibility to

Page: 32

recognise a more diverse range of student achievements and talents other than performance at the national examinations. The Member has asked whether we could consider ceasing accepting students with PSLE scores of a certain range below the cut-off point of a particular school that is considering them under the DSA scheme.

Madam, I wish to highlight here that all schools would endeavour and do their best to support and develop the students under their care. Under our current system, we allow diversity in the approaches that the schools take to develop their students and every effort is made to ensure that students at the point of admission, whether via DSA or the secondary one posting, understand what is the approach favoured by a particular school. Also, efforts are also made to support students throughout their journey in school to ensure that they are able to cope in the school and that they are able to learn. Having said that, MOE will be reviewing our policy with regard to DSA with a view of developing our students better, taking into account their long-term needs as well as the educational objectives of DSA.

I thank the Minister of State for the reply. I am glad to hear that MOE is reviewing the DSA scheme. Are there plans to expand the DSA scheme to include all Secondary schools and/or possibly even revamp the DSA scheme to make it non-optional, where every student taking the PSLE can gain admission to a Secondary school of choice based on both the PSLE results as well as their progress through a student portfolio that showcases their achievements in both academic and non-academic areas?

Madam, I thank the hon Member for her inputs. These will be taken into consideration. I am aware that there are a range of views with regard to DSA. I just wish to reiterate that when we look at these issues, it will be with a view towards the original focus as well as the educational objective, which is to recognise a range of students' achievements and talents aside from performance in the national examinations.

I would like to ask the Minister of State what is MOE's policy with regard to students who drop out of the CCA activities that they were selected in through DSA, say, after one or two years in the school? And does the Ministry keep track of this number?

Page: 33

I do not have the information on hand that the Member is asking for. Perhaps the Member would like to communicate with us separately.

It is about the policy in general. If you do not have the number, what about the policy?

Member, please address the Speaker when you want to take the floor.

Madam, depending on the particular school that the student agrees to enter into, there would be a certain set of expectations upon which the student is offered entrance and upon which the student accepts. So, this really depends from case to case.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, next Question, please.

13 Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked the Acting Minister for Manpower with the tightening of our foreign workforce policies (a) how is the Ministry monitoring companies to ensure that PMET job vacancies are filled by Singaporeans and permanent residents instead of foreigners; and (b) in the past three years, whether the Ministry has encountered cases where companies, particularly those in the IT industry, retrench their local staff and subsequently fill the vacancies by employing work permit holders and, if so, what action is taken against these companies.

Mdm Speaker, unemployment rate among locals remained low in 2013 – the non-seasonally adjusted figure was 3.9% in June while the preliminary annual average was 2.8%. This is in part due to the fact that the economy is relatively healthy. We are generating many jobs and opportunities. In fact, we are generating more than there are Singaporean job seekers. Among local PMETs, the non-seasonally adjusted unemployment rate was even lower at 2.6% in June 2013. Foreign manpower will continue to complement and augment our local workers because our economy plays a regional and global role. As a result of that, companies do invest and come to Singapore. Local companies continue to remain here and thrive and, in turn, they all create opportunities and jobs for our people. The Government's aim is to help Singaporeans have access to these opportunities. Part of it is to make sure that Singaporeans are also job ready

Page: 34

and competitive so that they are able to take on the jobs that our economy creates. We also expect firms to consider Singaporean citizens fairly and objectively for PMET jobs. But it is ultimately the decision of employers to determine the best candidate for the job based on their evaluation of the applicants' credentials and experience. I think it is neither practical nor desirable for MOM to monitor or intervene in companies' hiring decisions, unless there have been discriminatory practices.

Instead, we have measures to help foster a level playing field, equip Singaporeans with the skills to be job ready and competitive, and also support those who are unfairly dismissed. First, we have to discourage firms from systematically favouring foreign PMETs based on cost reasons. This is addressed by our foreign worker framework. We have adjusted the qualifying thresholds for S Pass last year and Employment Pass (EP) this January to keep pace with rising local PMET salaries.

Second, we are sending a strong signal that we expect all firms to consider Singaporeans fairly for jobs, and create a more transparent labour market to match job-seekers with vacancies. These are done through the Fair Consideration Framework (FCF). With effect from August this year, employers who submit new EP applications will be required to first advertise the job vacancy on the new jobs bank administered by the Singapore Workforce Development Agency (WDA) for at least 14 days. In addition, we are monitoring companies' proportion of PMEs that are Singaporean. Outliers will be identified for additional scrutiny in their work pass applications, and further action will be taken if necessary.

Third, we will continue to help our local PMETs be job ready through our education system and Continuing Education and Training (CET) programmes. We also have in place efforts to match PMETs with job opportunities via WDA's CaliberLink. PMETs can approach CaliberLink for career consultancy services and to meet potential employers. Programmes with industry partners, such as professional conversion programmes (PCP) and the Max Talent programme, also help PMETs to move into growth sectors by equipping them with the requisite skills.

Lastly, we will also look into complaints of unfair dismissal, though not all cases are valid or substantiated. Some employers may have legitimate reasons to terminate the employment of workers due to performance-related reasons. Or it may also be due to internal restructuring where functions the locals are in are moved offshore leading to retrenchment, and new functions are added where there are not enough experienced locals. For cases that are valid or

Page: 35

substantiated, there are existing legislative measures such as the Employment Act which has provisions to help employees seek recourse under the Act against unfair dismissal.

I would end by saying that the best solution to address employment issues is really to have an economy that is doing well and healthy, which in turn generates opportunities and jobs for our people.

Mdm Speaker, I have been receiving feedback from residents that, increasingly, they lay off Singaporeans especially in IT companies but they did not hire immediately. Later on, they hire foreigners with cheaper salaries. I would like to ask the Acting Minister: is there such a thing as whistle-blowing? Is there any helpline that people can call to report such cases? They said that nowadays companies are very smart, they do not hire immediately to replace but later on, they replace the staff with foreigners with cheaper salaries.

Mdm Speaker, the short answer is yes. Complainants can approach TAFEP to report these cases. We do monitor the situation. For example, if companies are engaging in discriminatory practices, the employees who were unfairly replaced and existing staff should call us and we will take a look. We will interview the people concerned. We will also look at the proportion of the employees that are Singaporeans within those companies, to determine whether there are unfair and discriminatory practices taking place.

14 Mr Png Eng Huat asked the Minister for Transport (a) what is the number of MRT track intrusions recorded from 2003 to date; and (b) what are the protocols and type of training given to MRT staff to handle non-fatal emergency rescue for track intrusions.

Madam, since 2003, there have been a total of 177 track intrusions in our MRT network. Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) are in place to guide MRT staff in responding to such incidents. The train captain is required to stop the train immediately if there is a known or suspected track intrusion, and to immediately report the incident to the Operations Control Centre. Traction power is turned off immediately to ensure the physical safety of the track

Page: 36

intruder and allow response staff to enter the track. If injuries are reported, the Operations Control Centre will inform SCDF for ambulance services. The station managers are also trained to provide first aid prior to the arrival of SCDF.

Madam, I just have one question. I am not sure if the Parliamentary Secretary answered the number of track intrusions recorded. I missed that – the number of track intrusions recorded from 2003 to date. That was the first part of the question. One hundred and seventy seven? Okay. My supplementary question is: are the staff trained in basic first aid? The last intrusion in February – there was an elderly man on the track near the Expo, and there was an announcement going out requesting for passengers with scissors to help in the rescue. Are they given first aid training, basic first aid training, so that when they go on the track, they at least carry a basic first aid kit?

Madam, I mentioned that there were 177 track intrusions on our MRT network. I would like to also share with Members that, yes, our station managers as well as staff are trained; they are given first aid training on how to respond to the different situations that happen on the ground. It is important that they continue to be trained to ensure that they are able to respond effectively.

15 Assoc Prof Tan Kheng Boon Eugene asked the Acting Minister for Manpower what are the circumstances and conditions by which the employers' CPF contribution rate will return to being on par with that of the employees' contribution rate and whether this can be expedited to ensure retirement adequacy for CPF members.

Mdm Speaker, CPF contribution rates currently stand at 36%, with 20% from employees and 16% from employers. In a Ministerial Statement in 2003, then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong explained that we would not be restoring CPF contribution rates to 40%, with equal contributions from employers and employees. The considerations then against raising employer contributions were to keep our wage costs competitive, and importantly, because we will price ourselves out of the competition. The considerations remain valid today.

Page: 37

Ensuring retirement adequacy is important, especially as Singaporeans require more savings for retirement and healthcare because, obviously, we are living for a longer period of time. Raising overall CPF contribution rates further beyond the current 36% will make a difference and would certainly be one way of providing that adequacy. But, importantly, I think we also need to understand what that impact would be when we raise the contribution rate. It will have an impact on business costs and, importantly, a knock-on effect on employment opportunities. It is really about balancing the tensions between these two conflicting requirements.

Further increases in our CPF contribution rates will have to be carefully considered, together with our tripartite partners, and we need to do it in a calibrated and gradual manner – both wanting to address retirement adequacy, which is a valid concern, but at the same time, to make sure that employment opportunities are not denied as a result of the decreased competitive nature of our businesses.

Other than raising CPF contributions, there are different ways that we can address the issue of retirement adequacy. For example, in recent years, we have helped CPF members grow their savings. Since 2008, an extra interest of 1% is paid on the first $60,000 of a member's combined CPF balances. Workers earning lower incomes also enjoy a boost to their CPF savings via Workfare. We have also gradually been increasing the contribution rates for older workers, which are currently set below the 36% rate for workers aged 50 and below, while bearing in mind the need to maintain their employability. Again, it is the issue of employability that is at stake – we balance that off with increases in CPF contributions. The Government also makes top-ups to members' CPF accounts from time to time. We are continuing to explore with MOF other ways to enhance the system while at the same time keeping it sustainable.

Lastly, I would add that as we live longer, one of the issues at hand that we need to address is the ability of Singaporeans to continue to work longer if they choose to and if they need to. This is where we also need to bear in mind how we facilitate that because as we continue to work, that would also add to our CPF contributions and also would help our retirement adequacy. So, addressing retirement adequacy spans across a few different approaches, of which raising contribution rates is one.

Mdm Speaker, I do not think there is ever a good time to raise employer's CPF contribution rates. I would like to ask the Minister whether he would consider an incremental – bit by bit – increase. The alternative, perhaps, is to manage expectations by saying that we

Page: 38

are never going to increase the employer's contribution rates. I think it has been quite a while since the rates were equalised. While I agree that there are other ways to provide for our retirement adequacy, I think the Minister would agree that it is the CPF contributions from both the employee and the employer who are the main contributors.

Mdm Speaker, as employees, all of us, prefer to have a higher employer's contribution. That goes without question. But the issue at hand really is not about that part alone. It is about the impact on business costs. Again, it is not just concern about business costs but the knock-on impact on employability.

The considerations, as raised by then Prime Minister Goh Chok Tong, remain valid today. We need to watch our competitive advantage. That is something that was of concern then. It remains a concern now. If anything, I think the competition has become more acute, especially with globalisation. The world has become a lot smaller. Competition is right at the door step even though it may not physically be so. We do need to watch that.

As explained, I think we will continue to review how we should look at the CPF contribution rates but, importantly, it is to look at retirement adequacy as a whole entity. Some of the measures highlighted earlier are areas that we can look at to improve to make sure that retirement adequacy is to be addressed in other ways as well. Addressing it purely by raising employer's contribution to CPF is one way but it has a very real impact on employability which is a big concern of ours as well.

The following question stood in the name of Mr Nicholas Fang –

16 To ask the Minister for Defence what is the potential for (i) a joint multi-national ASEAN force that is focused on humanitarian assistance and disaster relief efforts in the region; and (ii) a joint multi-national military ASEAN force to address security threats in the region.

Question No 16, please.

Page: 39

Mdm Speaker, ASEAN has put in place several mechanisms to respond to disaster situations. All ASEAN member states are party to the ASEAN Agreement on Disaster Management and Emergency Response or AADMER, and this provides the framework for cooperation in disaster relief operations within the ASEAN region.

ASEAN has also established the ASEAN Standby Arrangements for Disaster Relief and Emergency Response where Parties volunteer assets and capacities which could be mobilised for disaster relief and emergency response. In addition, a set of Standard Operating Procedures on the use of military and civilian assets in disaster relief operations has been drawn up. The ASEAN Co-ordinating Centre for Humanitarian Assistance on Disaster Management (AHA Centre), based in Jakarta, has also been set up to facilitate cooperation and coordination among the Parties, and with relevant United Nations and international organisations.

These existing mechanisms provide a framework for countries to increase the collective ability to deal with disasters in our region. We should aim to strengthen these mechanisms but, in reply to Mr Fang's question, there is still some way to go before we can start thinking concretely of a joint multinational force for Humanitarian Assistance and Disaster Relief (HADR).

And the reason is simple. ASEAN is not a security or a military pact. The establishment of the ASEAN Defence Ministers' Meeting (ADMM) in 2006 does provide an important platform for strategic dialogue but is working on building trust and confidence, and enhancing inter-operability for militaries within ASEAN. We have established an Experts' Working Group on Humanitarian Assistance Disaster Relief, together with our extra-regional partners.

We should let these platforms and initiatives evolve organically over time. This is to accommodate the different capabilities and aptitudes of different ASEAN member nations for multilateral humanitarian operations.

17 Ms Janice Koh asked the Acting Minister for Culture, Community and Youth what consideration has been given to promoting Singapore's cultural and creative assets as part of cultural diplomacy to extend Singapore's soft power and influence overseas.

Page: 40

Mdm Speaker, MCCY works with MFA and our overseas missions to promote our cultural assets abroad. Such cultural diplomacy will help Singapore broaden our bilateral relations and position Singapore as a vibrant cultural capital. Currently, we have good cultural ties with many countries, and also bilateral agreements to facilitate cultural exchanges. A case in point is the Singapore-France Cultural Agreement. Under this agreement, we will be organising a Singapour Festivarts in Paris next year, which will feature many of Singapore's arts and cultural talents.

At the same time, profiling our artistic and creative talents overseas provides them the exposure to grow and scale new heights. Hence, NAC provides grants to enable artists and arts groups to present at international platforms, such as arts festivals, fairs and artists residences. Over the past five years, some 850 artists and arts groups have benefited from such support. In addition, the NAC supports Singapore's presence in established platforms, such as the London Book Fair and the Venice Biennale.

Our cultural diplomacy efforts also extend to other creative fields like media and design. For example, MDA provides support for media practitioners and filmmakers to participate in international festivals and trade fairs. The Design Singapore Council's Overseas Promotion Partnership Programme provides co-funding for participation in prestigious design fairs, enabling our designers to access business opportunities overseas and to establish a global presence. To date, we have supported the participation of more than 300 design companies in over 60 international platforms.

MCCY will continue to work with relevant partners as well as our missions abroad to strengthen our cultural diplomacy efforts.

Madam, just two quick supplementary questions for the Acting Minister. The first is: is the Minister able to give an estimated spending each year on promoting and profiling our arts and cultural assets overseas? And secondly, how exactly are we working with MFA to extend Singapore's soft power without a cultural attaché in our embassies? Is there room to consider establishing a cultural secretariat in certain key cultural capitals like Tokyo, New York, Shanghai and London, for instance?

Madam, on the first question, I do not have a single figure because, as I mentioned earlier, we have many efforts to promote our

Page: 41

cultural assets and creative assets and it extends across different agencies. We do not have a central fund to do so but the efforts are multi-pronged and so I do not have a particular figure that tracks this. As I mentioned, if you look at all the different schemes under NAC and MDA, you would have a sense where our efforts are.

On the second point about how we work with MFA and whether or not there is a way to improve our efforts in cultural diplomacy, I would say that we are already discussing very closely with our missions and whenever we have artists who are going overseas whom we are supporting – filmmakers or designers – we make an effort to touch base with the missions that are based there with the ambassador in that particular country. We will work with the ambassador and the mission overseas to think about how they can best utilise or make use of the opportunity of having Singaporean artists showcase their works in that country, how the ambassador and his team can then make use of that opportunity to also project Singapore and to make use of that opportunity to extend our cultural diplomacy efforts. So, that working relationship is already being formed between MCCY, NAC and all our overseas missions.

Order. End of Question Time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No 22(3), Written Answers to Question Nos 18-23 on the Order Paper are reproduced in the Appendix. Question No 24 has been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 21 February 2014.]

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

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

On 20 January 2014, Deputy Prime Minister Teo delivered a Ministerial Statement on the riot that took place at Race Course Road on 8 December 2013. The Statement detailed the chronology of events, actions taken against those involved in the riot, and the measures implemented to stabilise the situation

Page: 42

and restore law and order following the incident.

These measures included heightened security with stronger uniformed presence on the ground and the installation of more security cameras; restrictions on the sale of alcohol and the ban on consumption of alcohol in public areas; and changes to the transport and traffic arrangements.

These proactive measures were taken by the Police and other Government agencies to address factors that could have contributed to, or aggravated, the incident that occurred on 8 December 2013. These include the very large congregations, the relatively easy access to alcohol and its widespread consumption in public areas, and the traffic condition in Little India on weekends.

Collectively, these measures have helped to stabilise the situation, instil confidence, and been broadly accepted by many stakeholders. This Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill 2014 will allow Police to continue to take calibrated measures to maintain public order and calm in Little India.

Why do we need this legislation? Mdm Speaker, in the aftermath of the riots, the Government relied on a variety of laws to implement some of these key measures to restore order in the Little India area. In particular, the Police powers were largely derived from the Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA).

However, this is not appropriate for several reasons. Because we currently do not have laws to impose restrictions on the consumption of alcohol in public places, we had to invoke a provision under the POPA to implement this measure.

But the POPA was conceived to deal with far graver situations. Consequently, it is an Act with broad and extensive police powers, and it requires the Minister for Home Affairs to proclaim the existence of a state of danger to public order in a designated area – in this case, Little India. With each proclamation, which has been the case for every weekend and public holiday since the riot, the entire suite of powers under the POPA becomes available to the Police.

While some of these powers are needed to maintain public order in Little India, many others are excessive and unnecessary for this purpose. These include the power to implement curfews, impose reporting requirements on persons, discontinue telephone services, take control of any movable or immovable property and, if necessary, authorise lethal force to overcome

Page: 43

resistance during arrest.

However, given the heightened security environment in Little India, there is still a need for a limited set of powers to continue implementing the measures I have described. These limited powers are, in fact, already available under the POPA and they are also prescribed in other legislations, such as the Public Order Act.

The heightened security environment in Little India on weekends is similar, though not identical, to that in large scale special events. In recognition of this heightened security environment, this House passed the Public Order Act in 2009 to provide the Police with targeted additional powers to uphold law and order, and maintain security during special events, such as the annual National Day Parades and the Youth Olympic Games in 2010. These powers are enumerated in Part III of the Public Order Act.

However, these powers cannot be applied to the weekend gatherings of foreign workers in Little India because they do not qualify as special events under the Act. Further, there are some inconsistencies in the current enforcement powers. For example, a range of enforcement actions, from fines to suspension or revocation of licence, can be taken against a business that has a valid liquor licence but violates its conditions. Yet, a commensurate range of enforcement powers is not available, under the Customs Act, for actions against an errant business which sells alcohol without a valid liquor licence. The only course of action available is to initiate prosecution for an offence under the Customs Act, while the errant business can continue to operate in the interim.

This Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill addresses these concerns by providing for a focused set of powers, far more limited than the extensive powers available today under the POPA, to support the security, traffic management and alcohol restriction measures in Little India. The powers accorded to the Police and regulatory agencies under the Bill have precedents in our existing laws. These provisions are derived from relevant public order legislation and scoped to serve the specific objective of maintaining law and order in Little India.

The Bill is "temporary" in the sense that it is valid for only 12 months from the date of its publication in the Gazette. In short, this legislation is limited in duration, location and scope of powers.

Page: 44

Madam, let me now go through the key clauses in the Bill pertaining to its jurisdiction, the acts that are prohibited, the permit regime that creates exceptions to these prohibitions and, finally, the regulatory powers that our agencies require to carry out their tasks effectively.

This legislation will be limited temporally and geographically. It will be valid for a period of 12 months. This should provide sufficient time for MHA and other agencies to deliberate and implement longer-term measures, taking into account the findings and recommendations of the COI, and the review of the liquor licensing regime.

The Bill will apply to the same area that has been proclaimed under the POPA since 8 December 2013, which is designated as a "special zone".

Clause 3 allows the Minister for Home Affairs to amend the boundaries of the special zone. It can be reduced in size, as and when the situation improves, or expanded to include adjacent areas under certain defined circumstances, taking into account any spill-over occurrences.

Clause 4 makes it an offence for any individual to consume alcohol in any public place within the special zone. This includes consumption within licensed liquor establishments. Clause 4 also makes it an offence to sell or supply alcohol on any premises in a special zone.

Mere possession of or bringing of alcohol into the special zone is not an offence under the Bill.

Clause 4 provides for exceptions under certain circumstances, such as where the consumption, sale, supply and use of alcohol are carried out in accordance with a permit.

The prescribed penalty for unlawful consumption of alcohol in a public place within the special zone is a fine not exceeding $1,000. This is similar to the offence of smoking in a prohibited place. The penalty for unlawful sale or supply of alcohol within the special zone is a fine not exceeding $5,000, which follows the penalty for a similar offence under the Customs Act.

The Bill also prescribes higher penalties for repeat offenders to reflect the seriousness of such violations.

Page: 45

Clause 5 establishes a permit regime to serve as an exception to the prohibitions in clause 4.

Two types of permits are possible under the Bill. The first is a class permit which applies to a class of similar persons without the need for persons within that class to apply individually for a permit.

The Commissioner of Police may, by a notification published in the Gazette, grant class permits to exclude classes of persons from the general prohibitions in clause 4. These may consist of residents, transient visitors, or persons with a place of business or performing lawful business within the special zone.

One such class permit may be issued to all persons in the special zone consuming alcohol outside of weekends, public holidays and their eves, and special occasions. This will ensure that the prohibitions apply only in those specific times, as they apply at this point as well.

Another class permit could be for establishments like restaurants, hotels, pubs and coffee shops which hold public house and beer house licences, to continue their business by allowing the sale and consumption of alcohol in their premises, in accordance with their respective licence conditions.

The second type of permit is for individuals who do not fall within the terms of a class permit but may need to seek exemption from the prohibitions in clause 4 for a specific ad hoc activity. Such applications will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

In addition, clause 6 allows any guest of a permit holder to consume alcohol in a public place hired by that permit holder.

Clause 7 further allows the lawful delivery within the special zone of alcohol bought or owned by a permit holder at his request.

Clause 5 also provides for cancellation and suspension of any individual permit or class permit, with due process, if the permit holder fails to comply with the terms and conditions specified in the permit, or to maintain order in the special zone.

Page: 46

A person who is aggrieved by a refusal or cancellation of an individual permit can appeal to the Minister for Home Affairs. His decision is final.

Madam, clause 8 makes it an offence to bring into or possess prohibited items within the special zone, unless it is supported by a permit under the Bill.

Let me now turn to the scope of police powers under the Bill. The police powers in the Bill are far less than what we already have today under the POPA. The language of the provisions in the Bill are also adapted from those set out in Part III of the Public Order Act to explicitly enable the Police to better enforce restrictions imposed in Little India. These more focused powers have proven to be necessary and effective in policing large crowds and ensuring public order, similar to what is done at special events, and it will be similarly useful in the context of the special zone in Little India.

Under clause 9, a police officer, or an approved auxiliary police officer, can inspect any person present within, or seeking to enter, the special zone, and the person's personal property, for any prohibited item or any container of alcohol. This is adapted from section 24 of the Public Order Act. The Police have established protocols, based on operational experience with various special events, to ensure that such checks and interviews, when needed, are conducted purposefully, responsibly and professionally.

Like section 28 of the Public Order Act, a police officer or an auxiliary police officer can, under clause 10 in the Bill, interview any person present within, or seeking entry to, the special zone to establish the person's reasons for doing so.

Under clause 12, if a Police officer reasonably suspects that an offence under the Bill has been, is being, or is likely to be committed, the officer has powers to enter any premises, search any property within the special zone, and detain any person, without a warrant. This power is not unfettered; only a Police officer, not an auxiliary police officer, of at least the rank of sergeant, can exercise these powers, and can do so acting upon reasonable suspicion that an offence has been, is being or is likely to be committed.

Clause 11 of the Bill is adapted from section 29 of the Public Order Act and empowers a police officer, or an approved auxiliary police officer, to direct a person who intends to enter or has entered a special zone to leave and not re-enter the special zone or to refuse the person entry to the special zone, in lieu of arresting the person.

Page: 47

However, any order to leave and not re-enter must be for a reasonable period of not more than 24 hours, and similarly, any order refusing entry to the special zone cannot be for more than 24 hours.

Clause 13 empowers the Commissioner of Police or any authorised Police officer to issue a written notice to a person banning the person from entering the special zone or specified premises within the special zone for up to 30 days.

Before issuing such a ban, the officer has to consider the person's likelihood to re-offend or threaten public order, and the effectiveness of a ban in preventing or mitigating such risks.

However, the ban cannot be applied to persons whose place of residence, work or business is within the special zone.

Persons who are aggrieved by such notice may appeal to the Minister for Home Affairs. A person who without reasonable excuse enters the special zone in contravention of his banning notice commits an offence and will be asked to leave or face removal under clause 11.

Until MHA concludes its review of the liquor licensing regime under the Customs Act – taking into consideration the recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry – no new liquor licences or extension of trading hours for existing licences, will be granted for establishments in the special zone. Clause 18 of the Bill gives effect to this freeze for the next 12 months. Renewals and the transfer of existing liquor licences, and variation of such licence conditions may be allowed, provided they are consistent with the restrictions imposed under the Bill. These remain subject to assessment by the Liquor Licensing Board.

If there is evidence to suggest that the holder of a liquor licence or other business licence, such as that for food establishments, public entertainment or hotels, has supplied or sold liquor in contravention of the prohibitions in clause 4 of the Bill, the respective regulatory agency is empowered by clauses 18 and 20 in the Bill to cancel or suspend the relevant licence, after due process. This applies to the licences issued by the Liquor Licensing Board, NEA, AVA and the Hotel Licensing Board. This supplements the respective Acts of these regulators and is intended to enable swift action to be taken against those who contravene the restrictions. There are avenues for appeal, including to the Minister in charge.

Page: 48

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

To regulate vehicle and human traffic flow for safety and security purposes over short durations, especially during peak and festive periods, clause 14 empowers a Police officer of the rank of sergeant and above to order the restriction or closing of any road, street, footpath or waterway in the special zone, where he deems this necessary to maintain public order. The longest this order can be in force is 48 hours

Clause 15 provides that any Police officer who witnesses an offence under the Bill may arrest the person who commits such offence.

Clause 16 allows for the composition of offences by the Commissioner of Police or an authorised Police officer at his discretion. Subsidiary legislation will be made prescribing the types of offences which can be compounded.

Clause 17 provides that individual officers can be held accountable for offences committed by bodies corporate, such as registered companies or partnerships, if investigations indicate their complicity in the commission of such offences.

Clause 21 empowers the Minister for Home Affairs to make regulations for the purposes of the Bill. As this is a subsidiary legislation, any regulations made can only relate to subject-matter covered by provisions in the Bill and they cannot be inconsistent with any Act.

Mdm Speaker, the riot on 8 December 2013 was the most serious public order disturbance in Singapore in more than four decades. Our resolute response to restore order in Little India in the immediate aftermath and the efforts to maintain it thereafter have allowed us to ensure a safe and stable Little India since the riot.

The powers provided in the Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill are scoped tightly to enable the Police and other agencies to maintain public peace, safety and security for the benefit of all persons in Little India, without continuing to invoke the Public Order (Preservation) Act, and the extensive powers it provides for.

In the measures that we have taken, and in setting out this temporary legislation, we have endeavoured to balance the considerations of various stakeholders – residents, business owners and visitors – while maintaining

Page: 49

order and preventing a similar incident. Notwithstanding the diverse interests and perspectives within each group of stakeholders, we have been encouraged and gratified by the understanding and support of business associations, grassroots leaders and residents in the area. We will continue to work closely with key stakeholders even as we develop longer term solutions.

Meanwhile, the Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill 2014 will allow the Police to continue to maintain and ensure peace and public order in Little India. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

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

Mdm Speaker, the 8 December riot was a rude shock for all Singaporeans. We never imagined witnessing acts of violence and destruction we usually watch or read about happening in other countries. It was a timely reminder that we are not immune from, and cannot be complacent about, such matters.

But, as Deputy Prime Minister Teo said in his Ministerial Statement last month, the incident is also noteworthy for what did not happen. No shots were fired, no one was killed or even seriously injured on account of the riot itself. And while a small minority of the foreign workers involved clearly broke the law, we have seen videos, pictures and heard accounts of some who helped people to safety and tried to restore calm. But all that was not by design. It could so easily have been far, far worse. And if there had been large numbers of casualties, if Singaporeans had been killed, if properties and homes were damaged, I wonder if those objecting to this Bill would be so enthusiastic.

The real question is where do we go from here. This Bill gives the Police a wider array of powers so that they can calibrate their responses to different situations. Some charged that this Bill is an over-reaction and premature, and that we should first wait for the findings of the COI. However, that process may take some months. And more importantly, if the incident has identified gaps in our legislative framework to prevent and more effectively deal with such risks, then it would be wrong and irresponsible of us not to act now. Nonetheless, I hope the Minister will confirm that the legislation will be reviewed when the COI releases its findings and, if necessary, amend it. And this would ensure that the measures that this House ultimately enacts will be effective and deal with

Page: 50

the real, as opposed to perceived, risks.

But having said that, I wish to make a few points about the Bill. First, it is important that we avoid speculating on the causes of the riot, as it risks us training our scopes on the wrong issues. The COI has been convened to look into the incident, including what caused it and provide recommendations. Hence, may I ask the Minister for the rationale behind the significant emphasis of this Bill on alcohol consumption in the subject area? Clauses making expressed reference to alcohol consumption include clause 3, and this appears to pre-determine that alcohol consumption was the main cause of the riot.

Mdm Speaker, while it is indeed possible that alcohol consumption had a role to play in the rapid escalation of events, as well as the behaviour of the crowd, we should wait for the findings of the COI before passing judgement. I accept the necessity for decisive steps to be taken now to safeguard the peace, but I think the language of the Bill could have been more neutral.

Second, some will express discomfort with the significant discretionary powers this Bill gives our Police officers. But as the Minister has explained, these powers are not unprecedented. And I think it is an easy criticism to make of the Bill. It is telling that no one, at least to my knowledge, has been able to offer a viable and practical alternative. And the reason is simple. Police officers on the ground will encounter a variety of circumstances and situations, and it is impossible to legislate what they should or should not do in any given situation. They have to be given discretion so that they can properly carry out their duties to preserve public order. And if they abuse those powers, they should be taken to task.

Nonetheless, the Bill can and should ensure that with such wide discretionary powers, there must be a commensurate level of oversight and supervision. In this regard, the Bill does state that the discretion conferred is not unfettered – standards, such as a reasonable level of suspicion, have to be met before measures like search and seizure can be carried out. Moreover, it is important to note that judicial review is available. And even though clauses 5(6) and 13(8) express finality against appeal, the option of judicial review is not precluded.

Likewise, clause 19(3) grants the authorities immunity, but only when acting with good faith and reasonable care when exercising their powers under the Bill. Again, some may argue this is being overly generous to the Police, but again, what is the alternative? That the Police can be sued even if they acted in

Page: 51

good faith and reasonably? How are they expected to do their jobs?

But there are important things we can and I think we should do outside this Bill. And as part of its oversight, I urge the Ministry to look carefully at implementation issues. Giving officers discretion is clearly necessary. However, in matters like these, a good outcome will depend on a sensible exercise of that discretion. For that, there is no substitute for experience, good judgment and temperament. It is vital that we deploy experienced Police officers in the subject area. They will, in the main, be dealing with persons from different countries of different cultures, who may have limited understanding of English and, more importantly, with different perceptions of law enforcement, based on experiences in their home countries. A cool, experienced officer, who is able to communicate effectively, will be more effective in defusing a situation than well crafted pieces of legislation. I would like to ask the Minister what assurances we have that experienced and properly trained officers will be deployed in the designated zones. Furthermore, as auxiliary police officers are given the same powers under the Bill, I would like to ask the Minister if there are adequate steps to ensure that these officers from external sources are properly qualified and trained to wield these additional powers.

I have two further specific queries. First, clause 3(2)(b) provides that the Minister may "declare as part of a special zone, any additional area in Singapore that is adjacent to any area described in the Schedule". An incremental approach in widening the boundaries of the special zone has merits. However, should incidents arise in areas separate from, and not adjacent to, the proposed special zone, what recourse would the Minister have to deal with those situations? And is there a need to pass further legislation?

Second, clause 1(2) provides that this Bill, if passed, would continue in force until the end of 12 months after its commencement. It does not expressly provide for any renewal mechanism. Could the Minister clarify whether this Bill, if passed, will require the approval of the House at the end of 12 months for renewal?

Finally, just one other argument I have read. It has been argued outside this House that this Bill is discriminatory towards the communities living in the gazetted zone. I find that surprising but, on that issue, I look forward to hearing from my colleague, Ms Denise Phua, on the concerns of her residents, and she, no doubt, could have spoken to them. And those views are certainly important and should be given some weight. With that, Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Page: 52

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on the Bill. First and foremost, allow me to express my deepest condolences to Mr Sakthivel Kumaravelu's family for the unfortunate accident that led to his demise on 8 December 2013. I would also like to send my greatest appreciation to the first responders, Civil Defence and Police officers for risking their lives to render assistance to the victim and to keep Singapore safe.

The riot in Little India on 8 December 2013 was seen as one of the worst public order disturbances in more than four decades. Least of all, it shocked many Singaporeans, for the scenes on that fateful night were images we did not expect to see here in peaceful Singapore. Even foreign media took notice of this rare incident, which made news not just locally but also all over the world. The message that needs to be conveyed to Singaporeans is important and clear, that we should never take the peace we enjoyed over the last four to five decades for granted.

I have not personally lived through nor experienced any riot but have read about the darker days in the 1950s and 1960s when riots such as the Hock Lee Bus riots, Chinese Middle Schools riots and the race riots in the 1960s were not uncommon occurrences. Thus, I am unable to fully comprehend what it will be like to be near or, worse still, caught in the midst of such a mob.

Eyewitness accounts of the recent Little India riot, some of whom stay in the HDB block above where the riot took place, shared the following, and I quote:

"I felt quite scared during the riot. I've studied rioting incidents in other countries in school but I didn't think it would happen so close to home. It was my first encounter and it's quite traumatising!"

"I heard what sounded like bombs going off, three times."

"Some of the men lit beer bottles with fire and threw them at the Police."

I can imagine how terrifying it was for Mr Lee Kim Huat, the bus driver, and Mdm Grace Wong Geck Woon, the bus coordinator, to be caught in the epicentre of the anarchy. I wish them well as they recover physically and emotionally from their injuries and also the harrowing experience they have

Page: 53

gone through.

I am thus glad to hear that a Committee of Inquiry (COI) is convened to ascertain the causes of the riot, assess the handling of the riot and the management of areas where foreign workers congregate. I am sure that the recommendations of the Committee will do Singapore well as we seek to learn from the lessons of the riot.

While in Singapore, large scale riots, like the one in Little India, are, to say the least, unheard of since the race riots in 1969, riots have occurred in many other major cities all over the world. Some of the more infamous ones, which I think we will all remember, were the riots in England in August 2011, the Gujarat riots in 2002 where many Hindus and Muslims were killed, and even further back, the Chicago riots in 1968, sparked by the assassination of Martin Luther King Junior. These riots were similar in that they caused either significant damages to properties or loss of lives.

The invocation of the memories of these riots here is deliberate. It is perhaps easy to say that the England riots of 2011 were caused by the shooting of Mark Duggan, a local who was shot dead by the Police two days prior to the start of the riots; that the Gujarat riots were because of the Godhra Train Incident and that the killing of Martin Luther King started the Chicago riots. Yet, as any study of the riots will tell you, these were just triggers. There were underlying causes which would have contributed to the outbreak of violence, be it socio-economic, marginalisation or underlying tensions. Perhaps, it is prescient that Martin Luther King Junior spoke about rioting just a month before his assassination. And I quote him here:

"But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard."

While it is unfair to compare the situation in Singapore to that of Chicago or Gujarat, the reasons why I recalled the words of Martin Luther King seek to remind all of us that, very often, riots arise because people feel that they are silenced, or that perceived grievances are unheard, or if they feel any social injustice.

Page: 54

In our case, foreign workers do have needs that have to be met, be they economic, social or emotional. We need to examine deeply to evaluate the welfare and living conditions of the foreign workers working in Singapore. I am thus glad that Minister Tan Chuan-Jin had on 20 January 2014, acknowledged that foreign workers do have such physical and physiological needs – to catch up with friends, to eat or just to relax. On this note, I would like to ask the Minister on the measures taken to look into the welfare of these foreign workers and the provision of recreational facilities for them, besides their living conditions in their dormitories. I also hope that COI will dwell deeply into the root causes that have contributed to the perceived exaggerated reaction of the foreign workers on the night of the riot.

On the subject of needs, it is thus interesting to note that Little India has become a place of congregation for many foreign workers. Every week, we see thousands, if not tens of thousands of foreign workers descending upon that area. However, it is always a fine line when we ask if the provision of services follows the congregation of people or vice versa. For me, I would believe that these grow hand-in-hand, and that services grow alongside the growth in population. Thus, Little India has become busier and busier, and we see the evolution of more and more types of services to cater to the needs of these workers.

On this matter, the temporary measures, which confer wide-ranging powers on the Singapore Police Force, including the ban of alcohol consumption and sales in designated "special zones", may be useful in preventing possible spontaneous actions, pending the COI's findings on the riot. On the other hand, there is skepticism on the enactment of this Bill as it is being perceived as draconian and disproportionate, curtailing the basic privileges and rights of citizens and non-citizens. The timing of the Bill, before the conclusion of the COI and criminal proceedings, has also been questioned as being presumptive and reactive. There are some quarters who also question why this temporary Bill is necessary when existing statutes are already available to address the concerns arising from the Little India riot.

Clause 1 of the Bill states that the Act "shall continue in force until the end of 12 months after the date of its commencement". I would like to clarify with the Minister what happens after these 12 months as the Bill is silent on this.

With the imposition of these measures, it could also mean that Little India becomes an area shunned by people, both for the restrictions on alcohol sales and its consumption and a possible risk of being stopped and searched by patrolling officers. What then is going to stop foreign workers from

Page: 55

congregating at other areas and consuming alcohol there? There are also other areas where foreign workers congregate in large numbers, for instance, the Thais at Golden Mile and the Burmese at Peninsula Plaza. While these areas have remained relatively peaceful, if alcohol consumption holds such an impact, then should we not be concerned about these areas where foreign workers congregate?

Should the unlikely eventuality of a similar nature of incident occur elsewhere in the country, further away from Little India, will another "special zone" be designated under this same Act?

At the same time, while we turn our attention to these foreign workers, let us remember that business owners and the provision of services have also been hard hit by the riot and the subsequent measures, especially those small businesses that depend on the sale of alcohol. These are small businesses, owned by Singaporeans who are just making their livelihood. I would thus like to ask the Minister if the impact on business in Little India is being monitored and, if so, are there measures being taken to help these small businesses.

Clause 12 of the Bill allows a Police officer not below the rank of sergeant, without warrant, to stop, enter, search and remove or retain any vehicle; enter and search any premises or place; stop, detain and search any persons on the basis that an offence has been or is likely to be committed. My concern is that with so much discretionary powers conferred on Police officers, some of them who can be relatively junior and inexperienced, even if he is above the rank of sergeant, how will the officer be adequately trained to ascertain that an offence is likely to be committed? What measures will be put in place to ensure that our officers will not be put in a difficult situation to exercise reasonable judgement and that over-zealous officers will not abuse the power vested on them?

I would also like to ask the Minister if any consideration will be taken in the monitoring of indicators to lift any measures, permanent or temporary, during the 12 months of the imposition of the Act.

Mdm Speaker, I speak with concern because my constituency in Sengkang West is in close proximity to foreign worker dormitories along Jalan Kayu. I have received much feedback from residents that they have witnessed many foreign workers sitting in void decks and along the pavements, drinking beer and "staring" at passers-by. Some of my residents expressed concerns and worry over the safety of their family members, especially in the night when they return home from work and need to walk along the quiet streets back to their

Page: 56

flat. While I have no objection to foreign workers visiting the nearby shops and making use of amenities in the estate, I am concerned about the effect of alcohol intoxication on the human faculty and behaviour, especially in public areas, such as streets, parks and HDB void decks.

I would like to urge the Government to take the bold step and go further and seriously consider banning the consumption of alcohol in public places, not just in Little India, but island wide. There have been numerous recorded events of riots associated with drinking in public in many countries, many resulting in massive damage to properties and loss of innocent lives. Countries that prohibit drinking in public places include Australia, Canada, Finland, Hungary, Norway, Poland, Russia, Spain and the United States. These are precious lessons we can learn from, and we should not wait for another incident to happen before looking at such a measure.

Mdm Speaker, the riot in Little India has taken many Singaporeans, including myself, by surprise. Did we expect a riot to take place in Singapore after 40 years of peace? Probably not. Will it happen again in the future? Maybe. Do we want to do something to prevent this from happening again in our beloved homeland? Definitely, yes!

The unprecedented serious damages to emergency response vehicles and injuries to Police and Civil Defence officers and the significant disruption to our peace and sense of security definitely warrants quick, decisive and bold measures to equip our law enforcement team with the appropriate powers to deal effectively with the local issues within Little India. I certainly hope that the Ministry will give due considerations to subsequent longer-term legislation, including banning consumption of alcohol in public, to ensure the peace and safety of Singapore, not just within Little India, but in the rest of Singapore, too. With that, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, that the "one-off" riot on 8 December last year did take place is disconcerting and troubling enough. The disturbance and the consequences flowing from it have interrogated and challenged the legitimacy of our economic and immigration policy. The Government has assiduously sought to manage public opinion seared by the images of the riot that have offended our sensitivities and sense of well-being. I see this Bill as part of this effort.

Page: 57

In order to win support, the Bill before us now is designed as a temporary law, portrayed as a necessary and tightly scoped law. I must emphasise that the violent actions of those involved in the disturbance cannot be justified, and that we must have a zero tolerance of such conduct.

This Bill speaks of the Government's resolve to possess the full range of legal and coercive powers, even if it is for 12 months, to prevent the disturbance of 8 December from happening again.

We would want to facilitate the recovery of and healing in Little India, particularly for Singaporeans who live and work in the area, and of the South Asian foreign workers who gather in the area over the weekends and on their days off.

The fundamental reason for this Bill is important. After all, who would be against a law that seeks to keep Singapore safe? But how we get there is just as important, if not more important. We must not lose sight of the "how" question.

Having considered carefully this Bill since its First Reading exactly four weeks ago, Madam, I do not support the Bill. I do not doubt at all that the Members of this House – and I include myself here – are steadfastly for the maintenance of public order in Little India and throughout Singapore.

I am unable to support this Bill because, first, the current suite of laws, while inelegant and perhaps cumbersome in their application, is sufficient; second, this Bill is a disproportionate and a knee-jerk response to the concerns of law and order in Little India; third, given that the Committee of Inquiry has begun its inquiry, this Bill proceeds, prematurely, on the basis that alcohol was the cause of the disturbance on that fateful night of 8 December; fourth, that the Bill will not aid in the healing and recovery of Little India, and instead pushes the discourse of immigrant criminality and risks erecting social boundaries between Singaporeans and the South Asian migrant workers when we can least afford it; and fifth, the Bill will enervate Little India of its vibrancy and relevance. I will now elaborate on each of them.

Firstly, the current exceptional measures in Little India are underpinned primarily by proclamations issued under the Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA). POPA provides that if, in the opinion of the Minister charged with the responsibility for internal security, public order in any area in Singapore is seriously disturbed or is seriously threatened and he considers it to be necessary for the purpose of maintaining or restoring public order in that area

Page: 58

to do so, the Minister may proclaim the existence in that area of a state of danger to public order.

So, we have had weekly proclamations under POPA since 14 December 2013. The proclamations take effect for 48 hours, typically from 6.00 am every Saturday and conclude at 6.00 am the following Monday. This is not elegant, but POPA still gets the job done. The authorities have not needed to use the full suite of powers under POPA.

The Government has indicated that there is nothing between the big stick that is POPA and the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. Hence, there is a need for this Bill. Save for the curfew and some other provisions, however, this Bill has incorporated most of the hard-hitting provisions of POPA. This makes the Bill a very sharpened instrument in dealing with a non-emergency situation.

By all accounts, Little India is now more orderly, and the crowds are returning. It appears that the series of measures implemented to restore calm and maintain public order in Little India are working. The measures include a ban on public consumption of alcohol and restriction on the sale of alcohol at specific times. As such, I cannot see how this Bill will make a significant difference. Instead, I fear that a heightened legislative and regulatory posture would raise the stakes and hinder a return to normalcy.

Secondly, that the Bill is a disproportionate and a knee-jerk response. Madam, the Minister has explained that this Bill is scoped more tightly compared to POPA's "wide-ranging powers" to deal more effectively with the local issues within Little India. It was explained that this temporary law will enable the Home Affairs Ministry to enact longer term legislation to take into account the findings and recommendations of the Committee of Inquiry (COI), and the recommendations arising from the public consultations on the review of the liquor licensing regime.

I listened attentively to the Minister's Second Reading speech but am still unable to see why we need to resort expediently to this Bill at this point in time. This Bill also clarifies, in clause 11(5), that the Police can also use the powers conferred on them under the Public Order Act. When it is enacted, the Bill will add to the law enforcement agencies' enforcement arsenal.

Page: 59

My concern is that this proposed law will have a chilling effect at a time when Little India is well on the road to healing and recovery.

I must confess that when I reviewed this Bill, I was worried whether there were clear and present dangers posed by migrant workers following the riot – information and intelligence which the Government is not at liberty to share.

Proportionality must be a touchstone of any coercive legislation. Unless the Government can show that relations have deteriorated between Singaporeans, the authorities, and the migrant workers, the powers sought by the Executive in this Bill strike me as excessive.

So, while the Bill is supposedly for Little India's "local issues," it, nonetheless, provides for powers that can extend well beyond Little India. For example, clause 12 provides for the police to stop, enter, search, remove any vehicle, vessel or aircraft whether or not it is within the special zone of Little India. Vehicles in and outside of the special zone I can understand, but vessels and aircraft? This wholesale porting of powers over from POPA strikes me as manifesting the Government's abiding desire to retain emergency-type laws and powers when we are far from experiencing an emergency situation. Are we generating a moral panic here?

Furthermore, clause 12 enables a police officer to perform certain actions, such as search persons and vehicles and effect seizures, even in situations where the officer reasonably suspects an offence is "likely to be" committed. This is a low threshold to use the powers of search and seizure.

And to boot, the police officer can do so without a warrant. I am prepared for such powers to be given to a police officer if he reasonably suspects an offence has been or is being committed. However, to exercise such powers without a warrant and, particularly, on the suspicion that an offence is likely to be committed, strikes me as affording too much discretion and pre-emptive power to the Police. Additionally, clause 12(2)(a) provides for search and seizure powers to be exercised "on a random basis" for the detection of an offence. This strikes me as being incompatible with reasonable suspicion. This might give licence to the Police to engage in fishing expeditions.

Madam, this Bill is a disproportionate response to the riot in Little India. Yes, it was the worst public order disturbance in Singapore in more than four decades, and resulted in substantial damage to emergency response and private vehicles, injuries to Home Team officers who responded to the scene,

Page: 60

and significant disruption to public order and our sense of security. It is also worth noting that the alleged rioters were rather discriminating in their targets.

Madam, we have been assured that the riot was a one-off spontaneous mayhem. Are we, therefore, using the proverbial sledgehammer to crack a nut here? Could the Minister state categorically what are the clear and present dangers posed by the migrant workers to necessitate this sharpened, proposed legislation?

In his Ministerial Statement in this House on 20 January 2014, the Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister said that:

"The majority of Singaporeans recognise that foreign workers are generally law-abiding and do contribute to our society and economy. As many foreign workers told Minister Shanmugam and Minister Iswaran, Mr Dhinakaran and Mr Vikram Nair during their visits to the dormitories, they want to continue working here, appreciate our rules and laws, and want to continue to live in peace and not be tarred with the same brush as the few who had done wrong."

Madam, the Police and other agencies must be provided with the necessary resources, including legislative ones, to do their jobs. It is certainly within the Government's realm of prerogative to seek to enact this Bill. However, we must be mindful of the impact it has on Singaporeans and the foreign workers. Passing this proposed legislation opens up a range of possible interpretations of the conduct of migrant workers in Singapore.

It is correct that this Bill is drafted to be of general applicability, but it would be naive to pretend that its implementation would be of general applicability. The powers proposed are likely to be used when the transient population in Little India swells by the tens of thousands over the weekends. We must be very mindful of this reality since the migrant workers will primarily be subjected to the proposed law.

Third, that this Bill proceeds on the basis that alcohol was the cause of the disturbance on 8 December.

Madam, the COI will begin its public hearings tomorrow. In the riot's immediate aftermath, Singaporeans were urged not to speculate on the causes but to allow the COI to go about its task.

Page: 61

Alcohol regulation has a strong presence in the Bill: see clauses 4 to 7 specifically, and clause 20 generally. The Bill proposes a general prohibition against the sale, supply and consumption of alcohol in Little India, and the creation of a permit regime to allow such activities to be carried out there under specific conditions. In my view, this Bill proceeds on the basis that alcohol was the primary cause of the disturbance on that fateful December night.

I accept that alcohol controls are necessary. In fact, Singapore has, by far, a too liberal regime governing the sale and consumption of alcohol. I have filed PQs on this matter of liquor licensing in Little India. In this regard, I find it worrying and very hard to comprehend how the Liquor Licensing Board could have issued 374 liquor licences in 2013 within a 1.1 square kilometre area in Little India where alcohol, until recently, could be purchased and consumed at will and for a long time, had been fingered as a major cause for much of social disamenities there.

It is all too convenient to blame alcohol consumption for the riot. It was certainly an aggravating factor but we must be careful not to make it a scapegoat for the poor controls with regards to alcohol, generally and in Little India, by the relevant government agencies. This Bill may seek to paper over the regulatory and policing inadequacies that contributed to the chaos of 8 December 2013.

And if long overdue controls on alcohol sale and consumption are needed to stabilise the situation, then let us address them by making the necessary amendments to the relevant legislation, such as to Part VIII of the Customs Act, or introduce other appropriate legislation.

Fourth, the Bill will hamper the healing and recovery of Little India. Madam, the Bill gives law enforcement officers enhanced powers to deal pre-emptively and decisively with potential public order threats in the special zone of Little India. For instance, officers will be empowered to inspect and interview any persons who enter the special zone for alcohol. This will also have powers to exclude or ban persons from entering the special zone for specified durations if a person's presence or actions are likely to threaten public order.

At one extreme, the powers envisaged under the Bill make Little India out to be a dangerous place. At the other extreme, the Bill may create the perception of immigrant criminality tendencies. In either case, we risk erecting social boundaries between Singaporeans and the South Asian migrant workers, and

Page: 62

perhaps migrant workers in general.

The crime rate of migrant workers is lower than that of residents. This Bill creates the mis-impression that the riot would not have occurred, had there been stronger alcohol curbs, and/or had there been stricter controls on the number of migrant workers in Singapore.

Madam, this Bill comes swiftly and specifically as a pointed response to the Little India riot. It draws unnecessary and suspicious attention to the transient workers who congregate in Little India. Given the long history of disamenities there, including minor illegal acts, the perception of immigrant criminality is reinforced by this Bill. Given, at best, Singaporeans' ambivalent sentiments towards short- and long-term immigration, this Bill unwittingly and ironically provides a top-down self-critique of our immigration policy.

The Bill will stoke the fear that migration threatens our wellbeing, the fear of being overwhelmed by foreign values, cultures, and influences, and the fear that Singaporean's identity, integrity, and innocence are under siege from within. Such negative sentiments towards immigration are infectious and counter-productive. Once immigration is largely equated with an existential threat, then the essence of an openness of mind, spirit and heart – so vital in an immigrant society like ours – will certainly concede to and be crushed by growing angst, anger and anxiety among Singaporeans and migrants alike.

I fear that this image of the "criminal" migrant worker will become firmly entrenched in public perception and discourse. I wonder whether this perception has actually crept into the Government's thinking and so now finds its way into public policy, even when the statistics have failed to provide a link between immigration and criminality.

Madam, we must do our best to avoid this in-group/out-group mentality in which the latter is threatening to the former. This racialised public sensitivity must be avoided because it would ultimately affect and infect inter-ethnic relations here in Singapore.

Fifth, the Bill will enervate Little India of its vibrancy and relevance.

This Bill makes Little India a special zone. But specialness here means a coercive regulatory framework that will be in place for 12 months. Given the heightened security regime in Little India, it will not be surprising if locals and migrant workers alike consciously and conspicuously avoid Little India. In some

Page: 63

respects, this Bill will transform Little India into a de facto gated community devoid of colour, charm and character that had made it attractive to locals and foreigners alike.

The special class permits required during the freeze period and the inspection regime for entrants to the special zone in clauses 5 and 9 to12 respectively would make Little India a much less appealing place for social engagements for locals and foreigners alike. The power to search will make movement into and within Little India inconvenient at the very least.

It is likely that Little India will become less vibrant and less congested. The latter is probably preferred from a crime control perspective. However, has the Government considered the Bill's impact on social life and the legitimate business activities in Little India? Again, I question whether the response manifested in this Bill is an over-reaction, an over-kill.

Madam, I now conclude. As I emphasised in my speech at the Second Reading of the Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Bill last year, we are all in full agreement with the goal of a safe and secure environment, something which Singaporeans enjoy today and perhaps may even take it for granted. The question of how we get there – the means to achieve the end of a low crime-rate of a safe environment is of utmost importance. Put simply, the approach cannot be one of the ends justifying the means.

Will the Police and other agencies be hampered in their efforts to maintain public order in Little India without this Bill? Not at all, as it has been demonstrated since 14 December 2013. In fact, POPA, the Public Order Act, the Penal Code and many other laws will always be there for the authorities to use. There is a spectrum of laws that allow for a calibrated approach.

Although this Bill is temporary, and will have a non-renewable 12-month or shorter life span, I fear that this Bill will be the precursor of, the test-bed of permanent legislation that will come about after the COI has completed its work. If indeed the COI recommends that tough laws, especially relating to alcohol are needed, I am prepared to support them. But until then, we should hold our horses and not pass judgement. We must proceed with utmost caution and not put unnecessary strain to a delicate situation.

Madam, this Bill can be more tightly scoped. It can be stripped to its bare essentials, primarily providing ancillary support for the maintenance of law and order such as those in clauses 18 and 19 on the Liquor Licensing Board's powers

Page: 64

during the freeze period, and clause 20 for the swift cancellation or suspension of any business licence of a licensee who commits or is reasonably suspected of contravening the law.

But this Bill is designed for much more than that and will be implemented as a substantial law. It will be the primary legal tool for the special zone of Little India during the freeze period. I regard the Bill as a coercive tool that is not justified by the circumstances. It is hard to quarrel with the individual provisions of the Bill given that the priority is to maintain law and order.

However, they are not stand-alone provisions, and when the provisions are collectively considered, which this House must, then a different narrative is played out. When it comes into force, this Bill will probably pass muster any legal challenge to its constitutionality. But it is a loaded legislation; it carries far too many connotations. And we must be very careful of the unintended consequences that this Bill elicits. Mdm Speaker, for the above reasons, I do not support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, thank you for allowing me to speak on this Bill, which I believe is in response to an unfortunate incident in Singapore's short history.

The riot that took place last December came as a shock to all of us, and elicited all sorts of responses from Singaporeans – from empathy to rage. The response from Government leaders, authorities and workers' groups was extremely important and necessary to calm down the situation and emotions. In this respect, I wish to commend the initial measures taken in Little India to ensure that the matter did not escalate or spill over to the days after.

The Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA) rolled out then alongside the ban on alcohol sales and consumption in the immediate week after, helped to bring calm and stability to Little India.

We can all agree that that move was necessary then. The Bill we are discussing today addresses how the Little India area will be characterised moving forward – one which is deemed as a high-risk security area and, therefore, this Bill is designed to deal with that threat. In fact, the rationale given in the Explanatory Note explains that Little India poses a security risk and that

Page: 65

more powers are needed for the officers to maintain public order.

However, in reality, the Little India area is just like any other area in Singapore where members of Singapore's South Asian community shop, dine and do business. It is also a home for many Singaporeans as well as foreigners.

I think it is fair to say that the riot in December was an unfortunate but isolated incident. The people who were responsible for that and who participated in it, whether actively or passively, have been taken to task and dealt with. The swift actions taken by our police force in handling the investigations and arresting the suspects, did send a strong signal to others that such incidents will not be tolerated in Singapore. Mdm Speaker, just because of one incident, it does not mean that people who visit Little India, be they foreigners or Singaporeans, pose a high risk.

Mdm Speaker, I am afraid that the situation could worsen because of some of the ambiguity in this Bill and the powers it accords to the Police. For instance, the Bill gives the police the powers of strip-search anyone based entirely on the suspicion of the police officer. These are violations of the privacy of a person and not to mention a blow to his self-respect and dignity.

I fail to see how giving Police officers such powers would help cool things down and mitigate risks in this area. Further, the Bill also empowers Auxiliary Police Force, indirectly, to perform random and judgemental searches as per sections 9, 10 and 11 of the Bill. With the delegation of powers all the way to Auxiliary forces on matters which require caution and informed judgement, it may cause emotions to influence judgements across a wide variety of people who visit this area and have nothing else but looks common. This may also affect genuine tourists who come to visit or stay in this special zone. An inadvertent action on a tourist with no bad intent will also result in loss of collective goodwill for Singapore.

Impact on businesses. Mdm Speaker, I declare my interest as a businessman as well as the Vice President of Singapore Retailers Association. I am concerned about the businesses in this area. I have consulted the Little India Shopkeepers Association (LISHA) and they have shared their concerns and sentiments with me. Allow me to share with you some of their thoughts.

The Little India Precinct in Singapore has been catering to the foreign workers for the past 30 years with regular visitorship of about 100,000 workers over the weekends. Of these numbers, only a fraction, about 1%, of the foreign

Page: 66

workers consumes alcohol there. The remaining 99% are there to visit relatives and friends, run errands and also purchase their necessities. Little India is considered their home away from home. Approximately 95% of businesses in Little India cater to the foreign workers market which takes place during the weekends on Saturdays and Sundays. Apart from the liquor shops, which only form about less than 5% of these businesses in Little India, there are provision shops, remittance centres, prepaid cards and mobile shops, barbers, restaurants, eating outlets, medicine shops, ayurvedic treatments, homeopathy centres and so on, all of which depend solely on foreign workers as their customers. All these businesses are very dependent on revenue from the foreign workers on Saturdays and Sundays. Almost 70% of the revenue during the weekend is generated from 8.30 pm to 11.30 pm from the sales to the foreign workers.

These businesses pay very high rentals and are affected due to liquor sales and consumption ban and also limited timing of the transport arrangement from Little India back to the respective dormitories of the workers. The current transport timing ends at 9.00 pm to encourage the foreign workers to return to their dormitories earlier. However, the foreign workers prefer to work on weekends due to extra revenue from overtime on weekends and public holidays. Thus, they are most likely to visit Little India after 7.00 pm. They do not have enough time to run their errands and shop within such a short span of time, also bearing in mind that it takes about 30 minutes to queue for the transport. Therefore, the foreign workers leaving Little India by 9.00 pm has affected 95% of Little India's businesses drastically these days.

Further, the ban on sales of liquor from 8.00 pm to 6.00 am within the Little India boundary seems to be a double whammy to the liquor businesses as there is already a ban on consumption of liquor in public areas within Little India Zone. It affects residents who prefer to buy liquor and consume it within their premises. They are unable to do so now. The restriction of sales should be lifted as the patrons purchasing liquor automatically have to consume within their residences or outside the Little India boundary. Without the ban on sales of liquor, customers will still be able to buy alcohol but the consumption of liquor must be outside Little India or within the restaurants or coffee shops with permits. The ban will affect the businesses in the precinct and will lead to severe financial losses and loss of jobs which is currently unwelcome for all the parties involved.

Madam, I fully agree with the principle of having the ban on alcohol sales and alcohol consumption in public areas in Little India, in the weeks after the riot as it was a necessary step, to calm things down. But at this point, I am not

Page: 67

sure if it is the best decision to continue with the ban on the sale of alcohol.

First and foremost, while alcohol may be a contributing factor to the riot in December, whether it was the most important factor remains to be seen. We have vested that responsibility with the Committee of Inquiry (COI) to determine the root causes for the riot. Are we not literally jumping the gun by taking such strong measures that will hurt businesses there and even perhaps tourism in the Little India area? After all, we should not punish everyone else, including businesses, for the folly of some.

Secondly, if it is determined that alcohol is, indeed, the main threat to security in the area, then it should be asked if the bans are the best way to handle alcohol consumption in the localised area. There are other ways – investing in public education, partnerships with groups and governance over the issuance of licences to sell alcohol. To maintain calm and order in the area, a longer term and more sustainable approach would be more appropriate and perhaps more effective.

I would like to say that while we have witnessed an unfortunate and severe incident, our efforts should not even inadvertently harm the very people we are trying to help and protect. Today, with a tough economy and high costs, every business is struggling to keep itself afloat. The small businesses in the area are bystanders of this unfortunate incident but are paying a very heavy penalty with the clampdown and ban on alcohol sales and restrictions on movement which are affecting their livelihoods.

In conclusion, Mdm Speaker, we all understand that foreign workers are an important part of our workforce and we must put in more efforts in making their lives here better, and to better integrate them with our ways, culture and law and order practices of our country.

Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.35 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.13 pm until 4.35 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.35 pm

Page: 68

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]

[(proc text) Debate resumed. (proc text)]

Madam, Little India is a very special place. Many Singaporeans are proud to have such a unique quarter of vibrancy where Indian culture and custom, and the uplifting aroma of Indian spices, seem to transport India to our shores.

I remember bringing a visitor there. He was a young man when he left India 30 years ago for the United States where he later became a naturalised American citizen and taught at a leading American university for more than three decades. Once he and I arrived at Little India, he was so reminded of his home country that he kept returning to the area on his own every day for the following days of his visit.

Is it any wonder that our foreign workers from South Asia find comfort relaxing there on their off days? Such is the magnetic draw of Little India to both Indians and tourists alike. The authenticity of Little India has stood the test of time, unlike what has happened to many other parts of Singapore, including Chinatown. The legacy of Little India is to be preserved and defended.

At the same time, the social disamenities created by overcrowded streets on weekends and holidays are not new. Residents and the Members of Parliament for the area have been giving feedback to the Government authorities for years. As far back as 20 years ago, I recall being deployed as a Police Officer on operations in Little India, to give out information to foreign workers and visitors not to obstruct road traffic, to walk on footpaths and not to use drains as urinals.

Over the years, the overcrowding worsened and made it impossible to drive through roads at weekends and public holidays. I am sure that the authorities are aware of the situation, but I am not sure what the authorities have been doing to manage the situation all this while.

The hasty introduction of this Bill in the aftermath of the 8 December riot is, to me, a knee-jerk reaction. Though the Government's desire to act is understandable, this Bill will instead stigmatise Little India as a "special zone"

Page: 69

requiring special legislation from Parliament.

This Bill is unnecessary at this time, especially when the Committee of Inquiry (COI) set up to investigate the causes of the riot is set to release its recommendations by June. There are already sufficient powers under our laws and administrative regimes to manage the situation until the COI findings can be acted upon. I also have some particular concerns about the Bill. Let me elaborate on these points.

First, COI findings out soon. The COI was appointed on 13 December and has six months to complete its report, which will take us to a deadline of 13 June. Assuming this Bill is passed today and comes into force in March, it will be effective for 12 months, from March this year to March next year. It will be in force for about three months before the COI report is out. After the findings are out, the Bill will continue thereafter for another nine months, regardless of what the COI findings are.

The Bill provides for draconian and resource intensive measures, including needing special permits to serve alcohol at hotel weddings – clause 5; Police searches for alcohol containers on persons and vehicles – clauses 9 and 12; questioning persons who wish to enter the area – clause 10; and refusing entry and banning individuals from the zone – clauses 11 and 13. What if the COI findings are such that all these measures are barking up the wrong tree? How much wastage of taxpayers' money and inconvenience to the public will be caused with continuing the measures for the remaining nine months?

In my view, the Government has taken decisive steps to calm the situation post-riot. There is no need to rush to pass a special law when the COI findings will be out soon. The Government can continue to calibrate its actions within the existing framework of national legislation and administrative powers until the COI findings can be acted upon.

Next, Madam, why the existing laws and the administrative arrangements are adequate in the interim. In the immediate aftermath of the riot, the Government used the existing Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA) to designate Little India a proclaimed area. For every weekend and public holiday since then, the Minister has issued such proclamations. This has facilitated a ban on the consumption of alcohol in public on those days. Businesses selling alcohol for off-premise consumption were also directed to do so within shorter hours.

Page: 70

As Deputy Prime Minister Teo said in his Statement to Parliament on 20 January, the authorities were able to calibrate the extent to which they utilised powers under the POPA. Earlier, the Minister said that the powers under POPA were excessive and not appropriate for the situation at hand. While it is true that POPA contains wide powers and the fit is not ideal, the Government has shown that it can calibrate its approach to the application of POPA to use only the provisions which are appropriate. In any case, this is just for a few more weekends until the COI findings can be acted upon.

Madam, there are actually some aspects of this Bill which are wider than how POPA has been applied. For instance, in applying the POPA, the Government has calibrated its approach to Little India, gazetting a proclamation only during public holidays and weekends. The Bill before us will make Little India a special zone every day of the week for 12 months. This is a stark indication of how the Bill is more onerous than the POPA in application.

The current legal framework already provides the Government vast powers to meet law and order problems. POPA stipulates that if any one commits the offences on unlawful assembly or rioting in a proclaimed area, he will be subject to double the imprisonment. In the case of rioting, this means 14 years' jail. Besides POPA, there are also many other laws at the Government's disposal. The Penal Code criminalises acts of violence and gatherings of persons intending to use violence; conspiracy, abetment and attempts of such offences are also crimes. Under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, drunkenness in public and disorderly behaviour are specific offences. Suspects can be arrested by police without a warrant on the spot. The carrying of prohibited items such as weapons and corrosive substances are already criminalised everywhere in Singapore under the Arms and Explosives Act, the Corrosive and Explosives Substances and Offensive Weapons Act, the Dangerous Fireworks Act and others. In 2009, Parliament passed the controversial Public Order Act with provisions allowing the Police to issue "move on" orders to persons it suspects may disrupt or disturb others in a public place. Are the existing laws not enough until the COI findings are out?

Besides legal measures, administrative measures are also available to manage the situation at Little India. As indicated in Parliament on 20 January, policing arrangements have been enhanced post-riot by way of 20 to 30 police officers as well as Special Operations Command troops, complementing the 81 existing auxiliary police and private security officers. Other measures initiated included more CCTV surveillance and building stronger community partnership programmes. Foreign worker management has also been reviewed. Employers and dormitory operators have provided alternative recreational activities, while

Page: 71

the transport for workers to and from Little India has been adjusted with drop-off and pick-up arrangements improved. LTA is also involved in relooking at road access and traffic management. These positive moves have been very helpful to manage the situation in the interim.

Madam, I have three other concerns about the Bill. First, stigmatisation. Is it good for the residents of Little India to be singled out as living in a special zone where a dedicated security law has to be passed by Parliament? The current arrangement of using POPA is more palatable as it is a law that can be used for any part of Singapore facing a temporary law and order situation. Passing this Bill will mean that for 12 months at least, residents can only drink alcohol outside their homes under a class permit and their friends and guests will need to be extra careful when visiting them on any day of the week. Civil defence paramedics and pharmacists in the zone who carry alcohol products for medical emergencies need to refer to clause 4(3) to confirm that they can do so. They are joined by priests serving communion for church services. Under clause 12, even driving through Serangoon Road in transit with a bottle of wine may attract searches and questions. Have we gone too far?

Secondly, a resource question. The provisions of the Bill are onerous to implement. Vast policing resources appear to be required to question persons entering into or remaining within the special zone to search for and destroy alcohol containers, to search vehicles whether inside or outside the special zone, to issue banning orders to suspects and so on. During the Ministerial Statement on the Little India riot on 20 January, the Government already expressed concerns as to whether the additional deployment rates at Little India were sustainable. How much more resources would be needed to do what is envisaged under the Bill, every day of the week? Related to this, the role of auxiliary police is going to be enhanced. My colleague Pritam Singh will speak on this point. Are they suitable for the tasks under the Bill?

Finally, displacement effects. Designating the special zone may lead to displacement effects for the duration of the Bill. Persons who would otherwise frequent Little India may go to the neighbouring areas outside the zone, for example, across Jalan Besar. While the Minister can expand the special zone to cover adjacent areas under clause 3, how this will change the landscape and living environment of adjacent areas for the next 12 months remains to be seen.

I have spoken of my concerns about the hasty manner in which this Bill is presented and the wisdom of jumping the gun when the COI is to complete its work by June. I have also elaborated on why I believe the existing legal and administrative framework can be used in the interim to manage the situation

Page: 72

until the COI findings can be dealt with. My colleagues will further elaborate on the reasons why the Workers' Party has grave reservations about the need and the wisdom of this Bill.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, we are aware of the plight of the long-suffering residents in the area, who have put up with social disamenities for decades. The incident of 8 December suggests that the authorities will need to make some changes. However, the current holding measures should suffice until the COI findings are out.

For these and other reasons my colleagues will elaborate on, the Workers' Party opposes the Bill.

Mdm Speaker, at the very time of the incident in Race Course Road, I was in the vicinity from about 9.45 pm to about 11.30 pm with my daughter as we had something that we urgently needed to buy and the only place open at that time was the 24-hour shopping centre, after which we had adjourned to a nearby coffee shop.

Perhaps, it was because we were at the other end of Little India, but hard as it may to believe, there was no indication at all throughout the entire time that we were there, including whilst we were having supper, that anything was amiss. In fact, the service staff, as well as the customers at the coffee shop were laughing, talking, eating. It felt like a normal Sunday evening. I later learnt that the first public statement was made only at 11.30 pm.

When walking home after that, just by taking the route that we normally do from Little India back home, I had commented to my daughter how blessed we are in Singapore to be able to walk at that time of the night, safely and without encumbrance.

So, it is with a huge sense of irony that I discovered only when I got home, that something had gone terribly wrong at the place where we had been just hours before.

Mdm Speaker, I do not take lightly the work and the effort that the authorities have taken to ensure the safety and security for people like myself and my teenage daughter. I will also categorically state that I acknowledge and appreciate the fact that on the night of this very serious incident, not a single

Page: 73

shot was fired in what was an extremely tense situation and that the incident did not spread further than the site where it occurred.

Living not very far from Race Course Road, I can only imagine how I could easily have been personally affected, bringing back memories of 1964 when even now, I still remember even though I was a very young child then, sensing that my adult relatives, who had been gathered in my house to celebrate Prophet Muhammad's birthday, were filled with fear and apprehension as they anxiously looked through the windows of our house as they were forced to stay overnight for their own safety, away from the angry mob that was running through the streets not far from where we were. It is not the kind of memory that I wish my teenage daughter to experience.

With the seriousness of what had happened on Race Course Road, I am thankful for the restraint shown by the authorities and the speed with which they quelled the incident. I am, however, less thrilled and not at all enamoured by what is before us today and wished that the same level of restraint had been shown before tabling this Bill in the House.

Mdm Speaker, it is puzzling to me that this Bill is tabled even before the Committee of Inquiry, which was set up immediately after the incident, had barely even begun its work, and with its deadline to complete investigations only a few months from now.

Why indeed could Parliament not wait for the COI to complete its investigations, and for reasonable time to be given for the relevant Government agencies and this House to examine and study the recommendations? As it is, how would the public be assured that the COI is still able to remain neutral in their investigations and recommendations?

Even more seriously, Mdm Speaker, is how the focus in the Bill seems to be on alcohol, to the point where it seems to have been a given, a causal link, even though as I understand it, alcohol was no more than a contributory factor.

Mdm Speaker, we have been cautioned by several Ministers not to speculate as to the causes of the incident. Surely, by practically determining the link between alcohol and the incident as the Bill has done, is the Government itself not indulging in "speculation" ahead of the COI investigations?

Further, given that there are many other existing pieces of legislation that can be amended to deal with this issue, for example, the Intoxicating

Page: 74

Substances Act or the Miscellaneous Offences Act to name just two, why can these laws not be used instead?

Mdm Speaker, this Bill considers Little India as a "security risk" requiring special powers. It is a term that I find troubling as I do not have see any evidence to show that it is indeed the case to warrant the Bill, nor are we given a comparative study with places such as Boat Quay or Clarke Quay, where incidents, albeit less serious than the one in Race Course Road, have taken place as a result of alcohol, sometimes resulting in serious bodily injuries too.

One other vague term is the phrase "public space". The definition is unclear, leaving any person open to the actions of Police and auxiliary officers, in the exercise of their wide and discretionary powers of search and seizure.

Mdm Speaker, another extremely serious provision is how wide and discretionary the powers of not just the Police but the auxiliary Police as well. I seek justification for why this is so.

Even more serious is the immunity given to the Government that as long as it has "acted in good faith and with reasonable care", there can be no recourse by aggrieved parties to question the actions. These words are extremely subjective, open to interpretation and abuse, and with the immunity, no one may ever know, on one may seek redress.

If indeed this Bill is passed, I therefore call for an open and transparent process to any inquiry that might ensue as a result of any possible transgressions by a public officer, and that this process be with the full public participation and disclosure of all the relevant facts. Otherwise, Mdm Speaker, the Bill runs counter to all principles of administrative law and justice.

Mdm Speaker, far beyond all that I have raised on the clauses in the Bill is a more fundamental concern. It is the paradigm under which this Bill is based upon.

In an interview for the magazine "Challenge" of 14 February 2014, a magazine of PS21, a Public Service Division of the Prime Minister's Office, Mr Roy Quek, Deputy Secretary (Operations and Development) of MHA, when asked for the "behind-the-scenes" work of this Bill, said that it took relevant Government agencies "a few weeks" to discuss the issue, and the Attorney-General's Chambers "a week" to draft the Bill. He also stated that this is to ensure that the Bill was in time for the First Reading at the next Parliamentary

Page: 75

sitting, slated for 20 January. In short, this Bill was put together with great speed and efficiency.

Mdm Speaker, efficiency is a laudable thing and in fact, that is what we as a country is respected for. However, in a situation as serious as this, and where the issues may not be as clear-cut as we would like to believe, and given the kind of solution that the Government agencies came up with in the form of this Bill, surely this would have been a completely acceptable time for efficiency to take a back seat, make way for a deeper reflection and a more measured response in the law-making process especially with the COI already in place.

I have said that the issues may not be as clear-cut as we would like them to be. In an article called "Why People Riot" by Ken Eisold, PhD, it is clear that riots are not simply criminal acts. There are always deeper and many-layered issues of unexpressed frustrations and an absence of channels for constructive articulation of such emotions, whether real or perceived.

Mdm Speaker, life is not so neat and linear. It is not black and white but shades of grey, and sometimes very murky shades of grey.

I submit that in a situation such as these underlying issues of race, language, culture, class, the heavy hand of authority perceived or real, discomfort and suspicion of each other are only some of the murky issues which, whether we like it or not, need to be given an honest airing first in the spirit of healing all communities affected by the incident.

I submit that the speed with which this Bill is tabled springs from a linear, defensive, problem-centred, fear and worry based paradigm. It denies, or at least, does not create space to explore the possibility that human dimension and stories behind the incident are multi-faceted, multi-layered, one that requires time, one that requires hard questions to be asked before deciding on a conclusion, and one that requires the participation of all stakeholders, no matter how contrary their views may be.

To deny this process its due in a desperate need to find an answer and come up with a solution in the form of this Bill as quickly as possible, I submit, does not augur well for not only policy and law making; it does not augur well for community and nation-building and healing either. And the consequences of such unwillingness and denial to explore the levels of dimensions and cues, and not just the cues as the Government sees it, may be disastrous for the future of our country as a whole, way beyond what happened on Race Course Road

Page: 76

that fateful night. Denial, Mdm Speaker, as a wise person once said, is not a river in Egypt.

Mdm Speaker, this Bill also springs from the paradigm that a strongly worded law is what it takes to deal with the issue. No law, no matter how tightly woven, will do the trick. No law based on powers of a few over the many will be sufficient.

Instead, we need to come from a space of solution-invested, community-oriented paradigm, the kind of good solutions that Wendell Berry, a noted American community activist said, "solves more than one problem and does not create new problems". And the wise words of another Berry, that of Thomas Berry, who said, "We need to resist the impulse to command, to control, to force, to oppress and to begin quite humbly to follow the guidance of the larger community on which all life depends."

I believe the Bill is well meaning. However, unless we have the courage to go beyond the tried and tested methods that we have been so used to, beyond the fastest and most efficient way towards the answer that we seek, that we be willing to learn to be comfortable with the uncomfortable and hard questions that need to be asked and the slow though necessary process that this will take, the problem will bubble under the surface and will appear elsewhere and maybe with even more severe consequences.

Mdm Speaker, I started with a grateful acknowledgement for the work that the authorities have done in making our streets safe. I end with this. I am not convinced that this Bill, with is wide discretionary powers, with its quick dismissal of other possible factors that may have given rise to the riot, will help me sleep even better at night, when any fellow citizen, any tourist, any foreign worker who has been responsible, literally, for building our country, or indeed any person who happens to be in the vicinity of Little India, is open and vulnerable to the potential humiliating actions of representatives of my Government under this Bill.

Mdm Speaker, we as parliamentarians having a seat in the highest law-making body of the land are a privileged lot. We also bear a huge responsibility to understand that we can be violent in many ways. The incident in Race Course Road is only one form of violence. When we make laws that are not in keeping with established principles of administrative law, when we allow our citizens and all who work for us and with us and who live with us in fear of such wide and discretionary powers without recourse, when we dismiss out of hand the

Page: 77

valid concerns of many credible people in civil society, that too, I submit, is a form of violence.

I believe we are made of sterner stuff, better stuff. I believe in this moment what we need is enlightened and inspired actions. I believe in this moment, we should let the COI take its course, and that we do not need to take this step and pass the Bill right now. As it stands, at this moment, I am finding it difficult to find any good reason why I should support this Bill.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] I support the Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill.

Based on feedback from my residents and community leaders, many Singaporeans believe we must adopt stricter measures against those who have broken public order, so as to deter similar incidents from happening again.

Some media reports say that this Bill seems to be targeting a certain racial group, and, thus, it is discriminatory. I feel this is not what Singaporeans would generally think. In fact, most people are concerned about safety in the community. The rare, large-scale riot occurred last December made many Singaporeans concerned with the possible reoccurrence of a similar event, and the safety of their family and children. Undoubtedly, we have become accustomed to the safe living environment for many years, and have taken good public order for granted, thinking that the situation would never change. In a media interview, Minister Shanmugam once said, "Although this is an isolated incident, can we say for sure that it will not happen again? Or shall we proactively find out the root causes and do everything we can to prevent this from happening again?"

His comment has reflected the thoughts of many people. How to make sure riots will not happen again, and how to protect the Police and SCDF officers from injuries while maintaining public order has become something that is of the utmost concern right now.

Once the Bill is passed, it will allow law enforcement officers to implement those measures more effectively. For example, upon discovering an offence by a merchant or a suspected offence by him, the Police can immediately suspend or revoke his licence. The Police can also take actions against anyone who is a

Page: 78

threat to public order in the Special Zone.

According to Singapore's laws, the Government could actually invoke the wider ranging Public Order (Preservation) Act, but it did not wish to use such draconian measures. Instead, it chose to introduce a temporary Bill with a validity period of 12 months.

This temporary Bill will enable law enforcement officers to take actions against behaviours not amounting to criminal offences. For example, officers can order people to leave the Special Zone before they can even cause any public disturbance. Put simply, these are controlled yet important measures to ensure our safety.

Some community leaders feel that in order to lower the risk of similar rioting incidents from happening, we must take different, more proactive measures in educating foreign workers coming from different cultural background on how Singapore laws emphasise public order. One suggestion is to detail what had happened in the riot through a slide presentation shown by employers to their foreign workers and explain to these foreign workers the severe consequences of breaking public order.

At the same time, we must encourage more Singaporeans to join community involvement programmes, so as to understand how to react calmly in a crisis and, as much as possible, help to allay the emotions in the community and assist law enforcement officers, Police and SCDF officers to restore public order as soon as possible.

Lastly, I would like to commend our law enforcement officers. Facing a bottle-throwing, window-smashing mob, they defied dangers and demonstrated great courage and managed to arrest the rioters without firing a single shot. All these have demonstrated the capability and efficiency of our law enforcement officers. The Bill will give more teeth to their enforcement efforts. Let us give them more trust and continue to support the maintenance of public order.

For many years now, South Asian foreign workers, the same ones responsible for building our roads, schools and HDB flats, congregate in Little India. They are ferried there in buses and after working six days a week, Sunday is the one day they come to Little India, repatriate

Page: 79

money, consume familiar cuisine, meet with friends and sit in public areas in Little India discussing everything from their local politics to the health and happiness of their families back home.

Little India has been a crowded place on weekends for many years now. Given the large numbers of such workers, the prospects of a minority of them drinking too much and congregating at HDB void decks in Little India is a reality. In fact, many Singaporeans avoid Little India on Sundays primarily because it is too crowded and work their schedules around this fact, a behavioural state of affairs that mimics drivers who try their best to avoid Orchard Road on Saturday afternoons and weekends in general.

Unsurprisingly, and for many years now, residents in Little India have given feedback on a range of issue affecting foreign workers: the lack of portable public toilets for foreign workers on weekends causing them to relieve themselves indiscriminately at times; the lack of proper drop-off points in view of the large numbers of foreign workers ferried to the area; and the number of liquor licensees in the area. This is in addition to feedback asking the Government to consider using the significant foreign worker levies it collects to be ploughed back into welfare-related concerns for foreign workers.

The Government certainly has a duty to take measures to prevent the recurrence of another riot.

However, it is difficult to understand the timing of this Bill especially since the reasons behind the riot have not been established by the Committee of Inquiry (COI), in addition to the fact that the Government has gone on record to state that there are a variety of opinions on the cause of the riot. In view of such ambiguity, a pre-emptive Bill that is clearly tailored to addressing alcohol-related concerns in a specific area only cannot represent a positive example of how laws ought to be made in Singapore.

The fact of the matter remains that as a society, we have had no sustained conversation amongst ourselves as Singaporeans, as to the reality of living with foreign workers where Singaporeans themselves already live cheek in jowl. Have their numbers grown too large for a small island to accommodate without us unwittingly impinging on their civil liberties, preferring them to be out of what we consider to be our space? Can our foreign workers really be expected only to be confined to their living quarters? This is a sustained conversation that needs to take place and unsurprisingly, educational initiatives to understand and respect the rights of our foreign workers who number almost a million, are not

Page: 80

mainstream, even though foreign workers represent a very significant minority in Singapore.

In view of this, it would have been far more propitious of the Government to await for the findings of the COI to be presented before tabling the Bill, so that a holistic legislation can be looked into how to accommodate the recreational rights of our foreign workers, not just in Little India, but throughout Singapore, especially in areas where foreign workers congregate, along with the concerns of local residents. This would also have allowed for more time for the collection of public feedback, including in areas where alcohol-related businesses and residential areas sit close to one another.

In fact, about two weeks before the riot, the Minister of National Development went on Facebook to comment, "void decks in HDB towns have sometimes been abused by drinkers who go on to urinate in staircases and that this is a common complaint from residents." This comment made on the back of the launch of a MHA public consultation exercise to review measures on liquor sale and consumption in public places which started on 25 November 2013.

Significantly, this MHA statement of 25 November 2013, while referring to the problem of alcohol sale and consumption, acknowledged that the issue was not unique to Little India. But this Bill before Parliament today targets Little India specifically and will operate in practice to curtail civil liberties of a specific community of foreign workers in an area frequented more than others by a specific community of Singaporeans.

The Bill itself grants a number of worrying powers to the authorities and, in particular, to Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) who will have to make calls and decisions based on their judgement, on the basis of reasonableness, which, in theory, sounds fair, but which may not be so simply deduced on the ground.

Clauses 9,10 and 11 of the Bill give APOs the power to inspect people entering Little India, including possible strip-searches, powers to require reasons for entry and powers to refuse anyone entry into Little India.

We can debate this Bill in Parliament and extend powers to APOs accordingly, but the practical workings of this Bill on the ground are not adequately addressed. The Minister for Law has correctly stated that South Asian foreign workers, like the rest of our foreign workers are generally a well-behaved group. However, there is concern that without the proper language,

Page: 81

mediation and cultural training, APOs who may not be Singaporeans and who are contract officers – some of whom may not have the depth and quality of training of police officers – may be ill-equipped for the job.

Are there areas of concern that foreign workers may be shouted at on the ground or spoken to rather roughly to on grounds of reasonable suspicion? Bearing in mind that these are the very same officers that will be making active decisions on the ground on strip searches, deciding who enters Little India and have powers to turn people away from Little India, can the Minister, inform Parliament what training, in particular, cultural training, APOs will undergo, lest APOs themselves unwittingly become a factor "that prejudices the recovery of the community".

As this Bill has identified a specific area in Singapore, frequented by members of the South Asian community – be they local or foreign – it is practically inevitable that South Asians will be subject to these powers more than any other community. While powers to strip-search an individual do exist in the context of other laws, with this Bill, such powers will be exercised for an extended period, in an area of Singapore frequented by one ethnic community in particular. Could there be unintended consequences that encourage racial profiling in Singapore and is this a healthy law enforcement development in the context of a multi-racial society? Even though the Bill is only a temporary measure, a worrisome precedent would already have been set.

It has been publicly stated by the Government that this Bill reduces the powers available to the authorities to manage the situation Little India today. If this is the case, then why the need for this Bill? Can the Minister further clarify what are the serious operational shortcomings on the ground that do not allow the Government to wait until the COI finalises its report? Does the Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA) preclude the authorities from moderating the exercise of their powers?

The argument that this Bill scopes existing powers better comes into distinct relief with regards to clause 12 on powers of search and seizure, which give a police officer – on reasonable suspicion – the power to "stop, enter, search, remove and retain any vehicle, vessel or aircraft" not just in Little India, but anywhere in Singapore for the reasons spelt out in clauses 4, 8 and 13(11).

Another troublesome detail concerns clause 11 read with clause 13 on the special zone banning notice. The explanatory note to the Bill states that a lone demonstration in support of causes within Little India can also be subject to the

Page: 82