By MP for Aljunied GRC, Pritam Singh
[Delivered in Parliament on 30 Jan 2015]
Understanding the connection between liquor-related disamenity and law and order problems
Madam Speaker, the Workers’ Party supports the principle of the Bill to empower the government to regulate the supply and consumption of liquor at public places.
Nonetheless, there has been a considerable public anxiety about the extent of the restrictions mooted by this Bill. The Workers’ Party believes that there is greater scope to better calibrate the operational application of the Bill, so as to secure greater public buy-in for the liquor control measures proposed by the Ministry.
Generally, it would be important for the Minister to share more information and statistical evidence on the nexus between public acts of disorder and alcohol-fuelled law and order problems, including the scale of the problem nation-wide, so that the public can appreciate the Ministry’s perspective and policy-making considerations in tabling this Bill.
I understand the Minister has shared some information in this regard identifying 47 cases of rioting, 100 cases of affray and 150 cases of serious hurt last year and that one-fifth of these occurred in Little India and Geylang. Can the Minister provide more resolution on the other areas in Singapore where such liquor-related law and order incidents take place? In addition, the Minister stated that 9/10 of these incidents occurred after 10.30pm. This statistic could do with more resolution as well. Does this cut-off time of 10.30pm dovetail naturally with liquor-related law and order problems identified by the Minister, or do some areas come alive so to speak well after midnight for example. Additional clarity in this regard would be appreciated.
Strong Support for the Bill?
Madam Speaker, the public feedback to this Bill has been inconsistent and somewhat contradictory. For example, the Ministry’s feedback and public consultation exercise on the Bill garnered strong support for measures to reduce threats to public safety and order, and to mitigate the disamenities associated with the sale and consumption of alcohol in public places. As informed by the Ministry of Home Affairs press release dated 7 Nov 2014, this support came through from 395 pieces of written feedback and the participation of 624 members of the public in the Electronic Poll (e-poll), including the Ministry’s discussions with 200 stakeholders. This officially strong support contrasted markedly against an informal Straits Times poll, which evinced an opposite response. One day after the first reading of this Bill in parliament, 78% of 9000 ST readers who participated in the poll disagreed with the proposed Bill. Ostensibly in response to this poll, a telephone survey conducted by the government feedback unit swung the pendulum back the other way with strong support for the Bill from over 1000 residents through a telephone poll.
This oscillating difference of opinion suggests that certain operational aspects of the Bill may need to be looked at, and fine-tuned to achieve a calibrated application of the law in practice. I seek the Minister’s reconsideration of two specific regulations that this Bill will introduce into law, in tandem with the wide ranging public feedback which differs in some cases even amongst those that agree with the Bill, and I hope these can be accordingly considered.
More flexibility for liquor consumption in non-residential public places
Firstly, the proposal to restrict drinking of liquor to 10.30pm at residential areas such as void decks is welcomed. This is also born out of the lived experience of many residents in various HDB estates. However, greater policy clarity is required for certain public areas like hawker centres, which may not be situated in residential areas and where the liquor consumption rules can be made subject to greater flexibility. For example, it is understood that liquor sale and consumption in places like coffee shops will be subject to the liquor licensing conditions and customers will be allowed to consume alcohol within these premises beyond the 10.30pm guidelines, depending on the conditions of the respective licence. However, it is unclear whether a similar licensing philosophy can be extended to hawker centres where customers drink liquor purchased from stalls within its premises, where patrons could, for example, be allowed to continue consuming liquor until 12 am with 1 hour to finish their drinks and calibrated accordingly. In this context, I ask if the Ministry can consider allowing the consumption of liquor in hawker centres, akin to a licensing framework similar to that applied in the case of coffee shops.
Similarly, a more liberal liquor consumption regime should also be considered at places away from residential enclaves like East Coast Park. Such a regime would also address the real concern of an unnecessary atmosphere of control prejudicing and targeting the majority of Singaporeans who drink responsibly. It would also obviate the need for permits that add an administrative burden not just for the police but the public as well.
No compelling reason to ban retail liquor sales?
Secondly, the WP is of the view that the blanket ban covering the retail sale of alcohol up to 10.30pm may be too interventionist and too strong a measure, one that operates to underestimate and even undermine the capacity of Singaporeans to engage in responsible behaviour as alluded to earlier. The WP proposes that the retail sale of alcohol be allowed to continue as long as an individual does not consume the purchased alcohol in a prospectively disallowed public area, as it is foreseeable that such purchases may be for private consumption rather than at bars and clubs where alcohol is usually more expensive to purchase.
It follows that the operational implementation of the new liquor control measures should not be applied bluntly, painting every liquor retailer with the same brush. A flexible licensing regime can be accommodated as licensing officers are empowered with extensive powers to add or remove conditions from liquor licences. This is conceivable in cases where community feedback for example determines that a certain retail outlet should stop the retail sale of liquor after a certain point, and depending on the individual case, even before 10.30pm if necessary. Such a regime puts self-regulation and community engagement in as a first step before regulation kicks in. It is also likely to fairer in principle and more calibrated in application.
Conclusion
Madam Speaker, my colleagues will share with the House perspectives on the police enforcement of the measures proposed, amongst other points, relevant to the Bill. To recap, while the Workers’ Party agrees with the principle of the Bill, we are of the view that the regulations proposed by the Bill need to be scoped more finely to better balance and reflect the public interest.
Thank you.