Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Bill

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam, the spirit of the legislation, I am sure, is not to target the occasional social drinkers in areas unlikely to attract large congregations, where there is low risk for public disorders arising from liquor consumption. The purpose of this Bill, as I understand, is to target socially-ill behaviours that might cause public disorder, nuisance and even risks to others especially residents. When I checked with the authorities, they expressed difficulties in trying to draw the boundaries and therefore, the decision on quite a blunt measure was implemented for now.

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

I also urge the Ministry to monitor the implementation of the Bill for a year and consider further loosening the regulations for those areas at lowest risk of public disorder and disamenity arising from liquor incidents. I believe the Bill, in its current form, is flexible enough, to allow for changes in regulations. Perhaps, later on, instead of two tiers – liquor-control zone or not liquor-control zone – there could be three tiers – Tier 1 for those at highest risk of public disorder; Tier 2 with moderate risk; and Tier 3 where there is little or no risk.

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

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

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

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

So, I would urge Singaporeans who feel strongly about issues to try their very best to make known their views during public consultations and not way after. One of the channels you may wish to consider is the REACH e-Government portal that we have, where I know feedback is taken regularly and seriously analysed to shape Government policies.

At the same time, I would also urge Government to improve its public consultation mechanism. Number one, outreach has to improve; the ways by which we outreach. In this case, many Singaporeans are not aware when and where the public consultations were held, although these were gazetted and information is published in the mainstream media, in the relevant Ministry websites and the REACH portal.

Some people have suggested that, besides this current outreach channels, put up relevant links in, for example, the Prime Minister's Facebook, the Prime Minister having the highest reach so far in social media, I think. There is data. And perhaps like even on Member of Parliament's Baey Yam Keng or the rest of us, on our social media, so that the links and communication of these public consultations can be more widespread or the information can be more widespread.

Two, it will be useful for Government also to consider doing a "curtain-raiser" of sorts for Bills such as this before its first reading; not so much to play to popular votes, but to ensure that perspectives previously unheard are surfaced and addressed before finalising any Bill, and if information come in useful, to be incorporated in the development of the Bills. Information such as that shared by Minister Iswaran just now and during the Second Reading, about the national data and places where there are higher incidences of public disorders and so forth, I find are very, very useful data. If they were revealed earlier than the First Reading, I think the support for the Bill would have been even higher.

As far as public consultations on major policies are concerned, I believe that both citizens and Government can do better.

In conclusion, Madam, Singapore has one of the most lax regimes as far as liquor sale and consumption is concerned today. I am glad we have taken a step as a country to be moderate in our approach to this topic.

As with most Bills, there are gaps and concerns. Where these concerns are valid such as those of the occasional social drinkers, I trust that the Ministry will adopt a light touch and after a season of implementation, consider if measures could be more lax or removed. For now, I urge Singaporeans to give this Bill a chance and ask the Ministry to review the regulations after a period of implementation. Madam, with that, I support the Bill.