Public Entertainment and Meetings (Amendment) Bill

Madam, I rise to speak in support of the Public Entertainments and Meetings (Amendment) Bill or PEMA. I am the local Member of Parliament in the Kampong Glam and Jalan Besar vicinity. Residents would largely welcome this Bill. Most important to many residents − not just in my area, but I think in other areas as well − the Bill will strengthen the ability of Government to ensure that Public Entertainment is not carried out in places that are not suitable to its nature.

As Members of Parliament serving residents in the city district, colleagues such as Melvin Yong, previously Edwin Tong and myself, have had our fair share of challenges to balance the tension between the needs of residents and the needs of public entertainment outlets and events. Let me share a few examples from my past few terms serving my residents.

Along Queen Street, several years ago, the problems of noise especially from customers arriving and leaving, drinking during hours when nearby residents are sleeping, had resulted in many complaints to the Police and also gave rise to Police raids.

Then, at Little India, where merchants organise live concerts to attract visitors including tourists and foreign workers; residents, young and old, in nearby public housing, could not accept the resulting noise and crowds and often called up Member Melvin and myself.

Third, at mixed developments such as Sultan Plaza and Textile Centre, the nearby night joints created at one time, much unhappiness to the local residents living upstairs. This had resulted in many night phone calls to the Police, to the Member of Parliament and Police raids as well, creating much tension between the residents and the nightspot operators.

And then, where religious activities take place in establishments such as mosques in my Kampong Glam area, there had also been constant tension with the neighbouring F&B and entertainment outlets whose offerings may be considered potentially offensive to some who go the mosque to worship.

But kudos to the diligent Singapore Police Force, the Home Team members, who are based at, especially Marina Bay and the Rochor Police Posts, incidents are markedly reduced over the years. This peace is, however, achieved not without the high cost of enforcement by the Police and the supporting efforts of the local grassroots helpers and the Members of Parliament.

Madam, 456 public entertainment licences out of an approximate 2,700 island-wide are in the Bugis, Jalan Besar and Beach Road areas. My first point of concern is to seek the Ministry's assurance that these residential areas will not become unsuitable for residential living, whether in public or private developments.

Public entertainment establishments, Madam, should generally not be located within residential areas. This is due to the dis-amenities that will most certainly arise; amenity issues such as the issues of noise that would still occur when customers arrive and leave through even sound-proofed doors, and often during the resting hours of residents. Although the Home Team brigades I work with are some of the most diligent and helpful public servants I know; on behalf of my residents, I still urge the Government to consider the following measures.

Number one: adopt a Whole-of-Government approach, with relevant agencies, besides the Ministry of Home Affairs, the URA, the Ministry of National Development (MND), HDB and MSF as well, to ensure a more appropriate tenant mix of businesses with the right licences in residential estates. There should be more community services located closer to the residents such as senior activity centres, pre-schools, childcare centres, polyclinics, grocery stores that will be useful to the residents. This should be part of urban planning zoning for residential estates in the city. A more family-friendly wholesome tenant mix in residential areas will certainly save considerable amount of resources to monitor, track, raid and arrest potential culprits.

Number two: the Government should avoid issuing business licences for establishments such as massage parlours, bars, jackpot operators, night entertainment licences in neighbourhoods of religious establishments.

And number three: in urban planning, I think Government should seriously re-consider the building of mixed developments. It sounds sexy and good but it is really hard to implement especially if these mixed developments for residential and commercial are within the same building. Nightclubs, massage parlours, bars and entertainment outlets in buildings with residents living above is a sure recipe for conflicts and tension as they are most likely, always the sources of complaints and conflicts.

Madam, I believe that much of the potential conflicts between residents and public entertainment operators can be proactively alleviated if there is a more effective whole-of-Government approach and proper public communication of zoning principles in urban planning.

Madam, there are also specific parts of the PEMA Bill that I would like to seek clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary.

First, on the amendment of section 4 that provides for the Licensing Officer to appoint "individuals who are suitably trained" to perform the powers of inspection and other duties of the Licensing Officer. About these authorised persons, I would like to ask the Ministry on the extent of power that may be exercised by them and also the courses of action should a normal routine procedure escalates to a full-blown public disorder or even a riot situation.

Second, on the amendment of section 15A. Whilst I understand the need to align the two areas of licences by MHA and MCI, I would like to seek clarification so that things will be more transparent, on the decision framework that the Arts Entertainment Licensing Officer may impose in classifying any arts entertainment.

And lastly, I would like to seek clarification on the Public Entertainment Appeal Board which is one of the additions to the Bill, as to the reasons for setting this up and the scope of this Board, the Board's decision-making framework and approach and how this might be different from the current arrangements.

I look forward to the Parliamentary Secretary's considered response. I fully support the Bill.