Madam, I am one of the Members of Parliament directly looking after the Little India area. The other is Minister Lui Tuck Yew, in whose precinct the riot of 8 December last year happened.

For several years, both in and outside this House, the two of us have raised the concerns of our residents whose lives have been impacted by the excessive congregation of migrant workers and other visitors to the estate. We had also been working closely with the police from the Neighbourhood Police Post and the Auxiliary Police Officers who patrol Little India to ensure public safety and order for our residents.

I stand to support the Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill for one key reason. I believe it is better to be safe than sorry.

Let me now share why I have more reasons to support this Bill than object to it. First, I believe that this Bill is an appropriate response to the severity of the 8 December riot. Madam, the significance of what happened on 8 December last year must not be under-estimated.

The riot is the worst public order disturbance in Singapore in more than 40 years. One migrant worker lost his life – this was the gentleman whose death triggered the unruly riot. Twenty-three emergency response vehicles including ambulances were damaged. Out of these, five were burnt. Another seven private vehicles were damaged. Forty-nine Home Team officers sustained injuries.

Even those of us who are familiar with the concerns in Little India were shocked. The extent of the disregard for uniformed personnel and police vehicles; and the damage sustained in the 8 December riot in Little India last year was unexpected and very alarming.

Many people did not believe it was happening in Singapore when they saw or heard the news when it was first reported. Safety and security had been taken for granted for years by many of us in our country. Although the riot was quelled within the same night, the recovery from the shock did not happen as fast.

I fully agree with Member Mr Hri Kumar that the consequences of the riot could have been far worse. The scene of the riot is near the MRT and residential blocks where many families live. It is not inconceivable that residents and other visitors, both young and old, could get in the way of the rioters and be harmed physically. It is also not inconceivable that some people at the scene could decide to take advantage of the situation and begin looting nearby shops, causing greater mayhem.

Had our Home Team officers been less restrained, shots could have been fired and even more lives lost. The unblemished track record of Singapore as a safe place to live, to work and to do business in would have been dented. As it is, the very riot had already revealed a vulnerable spot in Singapore's public safety and order landscape, which if not addressed with a stronger touch, would threaten the peace and security we had taken for granted for years.

Secondly, the Bill addresses the fears and concerns of majority of residents in Little India. Madam, there are several key stakeholder groups with an interest in how the post-riot plans will pan out.

In recent months, thanks to the advocacy of NGOs, the Migrant Workers' Centre and business associations, the interests and the plight of migrant workers and businesses have been articulated, loud and clear.

Indeed, the needs of the migrant workers who frequent Little India must be addressed. Many of us appreciate these special ones who left their families and travel here to make a living by helping us build the facilities that Singaporeans want, doing work that many locals are not prepared to take on. Like the rest of us, they have physical, social, recreational and other living needs that must be met. Treating them with dignity and respect is the right thing to do. I am very pleased that more has been done and more will be done to look into the building of purpose-built facilities, dedicated recreation centres and provision of services that they need such as remittances, shopping, sports and so forth. The idea – I think it was Member Ms Tin Pei Ling who suggested – of promoting alternate off-days so that popular places such as Little India will not see excessive congregation is also welcome.

On businesses. Businesses in Little India whose bottom line and sustainability are important to them, they are also our key stakeholders. Although many had enjoyed years of very good runs by catering to the high number of visitors, both local and foreign, a number already have suffered, we know a number of them have suffered a decline in business. This is the time to re-balance and find creative win-win solutions that hopefully will not cripple the businesses further. I urge the Inter-Ministerial Committee to look into helping affected businesses ply their trade, perhaps, within the dormitories and expand their business network throughout Singapore for the very businesses that they are good at.

But one very important stakeholder group is the residents who live in Little India. They too deserved to be heard loud and clear. Madam, they have a right, like the rest of us who live elsewhere in Singapore, to a safe, secure and peaceful living environment. Let us put ourselves in their shoes. As places like Little India become increasingly popular to tourists, migrant workers and other Singaporeans, the quality of life of my residents in Little India have been compromised. They had been ceding their communal living spaces such as the void decks, playgrounds, exercise areas and sometimes even corridors outside their flats to others who come visit, who congregate there.

On the fateful night of the 8 December riot, many residents who live just next to the riot scene and even others who live across the street at Veerasamy Road and Rowell Court, stayed indoor; some of them in fear and anxiety. What would have been your response if this were happening at your doorstep? What if a family member of yours is still making his/her way home, along the streets or MRT close to the riot site? What if some people decide to take advantage, as I said, and start to loot the shops, spreading the riot further across the street?

Who can guarantee that it would not happen again if the post-riot measures are lifted or if we do not apply a strong touch to this? Who is to say that another similar incident would not happen, in light of the frequent jaywalking and big numbers of people, usually men, congregating in the neighbourhood?

Resident Ms Nisa Mohamed Maideen, a 23-year-old accountant witnessed the violence during the riot. She spoke the minds of many women who reside in Little India. Ms Nisa expressed to the media that she is "not xenophobic but [she] hopes that the clampdown on the safe and consumption of liquor and the increased police presence will continue." Ms Nisa said she does not mind the workers. She said this: "I just want to feel safe like any other resident in Singapore and be able to take a walk in my own neighbourhood..."

Similar sentiments were expressed by many residents on both sides of Serangoon Road – whether from feedback garnered during house to house visits – we did quite a lot of that – dialogues or community functions, even up to two nights ago on Sunday when I met them. Many residents have expressed support to the auxiliary police patrols that Tuck Yew and I have arranged, pre-riot. They also supported the potential of stricter alcohol sale and public consumption in the review that was started by Ministry of Home Affairs in November last year. Most of all, many of them are thankful for the post-riot measures that were implemented, and especially those pertaining to the sale and public consumption of alcohol which was what was proposed in clauses 4 to 7 in the Bill. I do not get the sense that they feel that just because they are included in this Bill that they are discriminated against or, that they feel very deprived because they are now seen as living in a special zone. That was not the sense that I get when I speak to many of them.

Community leaders who live in Little India are also willing to put on record their support for the measures and the legislative means it takes to enforce them. They include:

-           Mr Martin Periera, who is the Chairman of Tekka Residents' Committee

-           Mr Lim Herh Kim, Chairman of Rowell Court Residents' Committee; and even across the street

-           Mr John Yeo Teck Chow, Chairman of Kelantan Court which is just across Jalan Besar. He expressed concern if he and his neighbours would be left out of the protection zone.

All of them represent thousands of residents in the special zone covered by the Bill.

Thirdly, the Bill further empowers and assures the safety of the HOME TEAM MEMBERS deployed for assignments of such nature.

As one of the MPs in Little India, I work closely with the officers from the Rochor Neighbourhood Police Post and the auxiliary police personnel deployed to maintain public order.

I am compelled to speak up for these officers and the others who were deployed to quell the riot on 8 December last year.

Madam, officers and auxiliary police officers on their weekly and daily patrols face pressure from residents who want better outcomes. At the same time, they also have to carry out the unpleasant duty of reducing the presence and dis-amenity issues that are caused by non-residents who congregate at the void decks and other communal spaces meant for residents.

During the 8 December riot, these Home Team officers faced risks that were worse than their routine pressures. I had the opportunity to speak with some – we can call them the first responders. I spoke with some of them when I visited the Neighbourhood Police Post on 24 December last year. The Prime Minister was there and Minister was there as well.

For many of these officers, it was their first time they encountered such a big unruly crowd who had no respect for them, no qualms in throwing projectiles – they call them projectiles – such as bottles, concrete slabs and bricks, on them. In total, 43 officers were injured.

Post- riot, some of the officers have to put up with criticisms levelled at them for running for their lives when their lives were being threatened. I am speaking about the video which went viral, showing some officers having to run from, I think it was an ambulance before it was set on fire. Seriously, what would you do under such circumstances when you are told that the vehicle you are in would be set ablaze? Would you not run for your life?

On 20 January this year, hon Member Mr Low Thia Kiang also asked Deputy Prime Minister on why the Special Operations Command (SOC) took, I quote, "nearly one hour" after the request for help was made. Mr Low also wondered "if the SOC had responded faster…, perhaps the setting on fire of vehicles could have been averted." A good case of 20/20 hindsight.

There are many reasons, I guess, why help could not arrive earlier. But I think it is not inconceivable to imagine that it would have been very challenging for police vehicles, SOC, ambulances and other vehicles to enter a riot zone where so many rioters and onlookers gather. It would have been very tough to clear the way.

Prevention is better than cure and I am very glad that there are provisions in the Bill to ensure more timely support for our Home Team officers at the scene. In this regard, clauses 11 and 14 which empower the police to direct persons – to manage human and vehicular traffic – and regulate the use of any roads, streets or footpaths in the special zone. This will help clear the way for the early arrival of help such as the Special Operations Command from other parts of Singapore.

Fourthly, the Bill bears a historical context which should not be dismissed. Before I get to that point, let me say this. I think there were many concerns in the House that powers would be abused. I believe that, notwithstanding the powers, I am very confident that the Home Team officers and the auxiliary police will exercise with restraint and not abuse the powers that they are given. Their behaviour during the 8 December riot bears testimony to that.

Next, the Bill bears a historical context which should not be dismissed. For years, there had been congregations of huge numbers of visitors to the vicinity. The growth of the foreign workforce, as Manpower Minister said, accelerated towards the latter part of the 2000s to feed the demand for labour in our country to build infrastructure such as roads, MRT networks, housing, schools and other public facilities.

Little India is a favourite destination spot for many. The crowds are especially large during specific hours in the weekends when busloads and lorryloads of migrant workers are ferried to the popular Little India.

As more of them congregate and as more of them form a ready customer base, the profile of shops including the HDB shops there begin to change to cater to the needs of these migrant workers. Businesses selling alcohol, phone cards, plying trades for remittance services and food items that cater to the migrant workers - all these businesses thrived.

Complaints about disamenity issues – what Member Ms Foo Mee Har said – such as littering, taking over of communal spaces meant for residents such as the void decks, playgrounds and parks, were rife. Sprawls, fights, jaywalking and sleeping at staircase landings were not uncommon. The easy access to alcohol does not help, especially when they are available not only at F&B outlets but also at grocery shops, some of which are located on ground floors, just one floor below residential units. In some of these shops, I have mentioned in this House before, alcohol of various brands and strengths – Kingfisher, Knock Out, you name it -- deck the shelves, floor to ceiling, wall to wall.

Fortunately, we had the support of several Ministries such as the Manpower and Home Affairs Ministries. The situation was somewhat abated in recent years by the deployment of uniformed auxiliary police to the area, although I must say their powers are fairly limited.

HDB has also helped by redirecting some of the roads, and installing Electronic Parking Systems (EPS) to allow the residents to claim back the use of car parks that are meant for the residents, sometimes occupied by the lorries and the buses that came.

Needless to say, our Town Council cleaners in this vicinity have had to work extra hard to pick up after the throngs of visitors when they leave the area.

Even before the riot, alcohol was one factor identified as one of the contributory factors impacting public order. In fact, a wider review of the sale and public consumption of alcohol was initiated before the 8 December riot. There were even calls amongst many for a stricter regime, much like the "open-container" or "open-bottle" laws in most of the United States, in Canada and Australia and parts of Scandinavia. All these before the riot. That is the history.

This is not a Bill that is borne out of a single incident on 8 December 2013. Its historical context should not be dismissed. The COI will only be completed in June this year. And thereafter, I believe we need to give time for the recommendations to be considered and also for the recommendations from the larger review of the alcohol sale and public consumption to be completed. After this, we still need to have public consultation, I guess to consider the recommendations to propose a larger plan for the country. It is likely to take more than six months, later than June. And during this period, I would ask for a stronger touch still to be applied.

Finally, Madam, based on the comprehensive explanation by the Minister, I am satisfied that the Bill is temporary and it is a stop-gap measure until the longer term measures recommended by the COI and the wider alcohol review are proposed.

I see no reason to suspect the legislative intent of this Bill to be anything more than allowing prevailing post-riot measures to be continued without reliance on the more extensive Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA); and also to address some of the operational areas of concerns, gaps that are not addressed by existing laws.

The current laws, for example, do not provide for the suspension of operations of errant business operators without a valid liquor licence. The current laws also do not explicitly provide for Police officers to question persons in possession of alcohol to give the necessary details to ascertain if there had been any illegal sale of alcohol. These gaps are now addressed in the Bill.

I am satisfied that the intent of the Bill is not, as some Singaporeans put it, used against innocent citizens for activism. If it were so, then the scope of the Bill would have been much enlarged. It would not be limited to: (1) a 12-month duration; (2) to only the special zone in Little India and; and (3) to the factors that might have contributed to the 8 December riot such as public consumption of alcohol and so forth.

Nonetheless, I think it would be useful for the Minister to assure persons who are concerned that this Bill will only be used for the specific purpose it was drafted.

I would also seek further assurance and clarifications from Minister on a few things. How sufficient these measures are and whether there are measures beyond this Bill for Home Team officers to respond even more promptly in public disorder situations of similar nature. I would like to find out how the safety of persons living and working in the special zone can be further secured should the riot happen in very close proximity or within residential zones. I want to know how Home Team officers deployed in future similar situations can be better equipped and protected. And lastly, I would seek an update of actions taken so far to address the root causes of excessive congregation of visitors, both locals and migrant workers in not just Little India but also other popular destinations such as Beach Road/Golden Mile, Geylang, Lucky Plaza and so forth.

So Madam, in conclusion, I just want to repeat this. I support the Bill. I support the Bill for one main reason and that is - better safe than sorry.