Debate on Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Bill – MP Sylvia Lim

By MP for Aljunied GRC, Sylvia Lim
[Delivered in Parliament on 30 Jan 2015]

As mentioned by my party colleagues before me, the Workers’ Party agrees that there is a need to strengthen liquor controls and, in particular, the consumption of alcohol in public. While we support the Bill, we believe the Bill may cover too much and ask for particular areas to be relooked. For my speech, I will touch on protecting the quality of life in neighbourhoods, takeaway sales of alcohol, and the policing approach to the Bill.

Protecting Quality of Life in Neighbourhoods

The need to have tighter alcohol controls stems largely from the density of human activity in Singapore. The scarcity of land has led to intensified and mixed land use, where residential and commercial spaces co-exist side by side. Over the last few years, the increased density of population has seen alcohol-related public nuisances and disorder spill over into residential spaces, affecting the quality of life in neighbourhoods. While it is true that many drinkers are responsible and do not disturb anyone, others camp at HDB void deck tables, merry-making into the wee hours and leaving broken bottles and unfinished food in their wake. In private residential estates too, spillovers can happen, especially in areas where there are nearby nightspots and liquor sale points. Thus, having a prohibition on alcohol consumption in public places after 10.30 pm will be welcome.

Nevertheless, I am of the view that the status quo need not change for public places such as hawker centres, where retailers sell alcohol till midnight and patrons consume the drinks purchased within the hawker centres. Can we not preserve this, which is a self-contained space and an important outlet for Singaporeans of all income levels?

Another concern is community events where alcohol is served, such as Seven Month Dinners, a point brought up by Mr Baey Yam Keng earlier. While the permits or permission for such events require the events to stop at 10.30 pm, it is common in these social gatherings for bottles of alcohol to be shared in the course of the evening. Even after the events formally end, it is common for attendees to stay back to quietly finish up their drinks together after 10.30 pm. To now say that it is illegal to drink after 10.30 pm would mean everyone would have to either waste their drinks or drink up to meet the timeline, which would be harmful, and an overkill. Can the government not accommodate this innocuous activity?

There are also other aspects of the Bill that I am concerned about.

Takeaway Sales

Let me first touch on the proposed prohibition against sales after 10.30 pm for takeaway consumption. This will be stipulated by police as a licensing condition for alcohol retailers.

Currently, most retailers of alcohol for off-premise consumption are able to sell alcohol until midnight e.g. convenience stores, supermarkets and petrol stations. I am not convinced that this should change.

Many consumers purchase alcohol for takeaway between 10.30 pm to 12 midnight, to drink at home, or at bring along to social gatherings at the homes of relatives and friends. Since alcohol consumption in public after 10.30 pm will soon be outlawed, one will no longer be permitted to hang around a public place to consume alcohol after 10.30 pm. Therefore, the main concern about disamenities caused by public drinking late at night would have been significantly addressed. On the other hand, by prohibiting takeaway sales between 10.30 pm and midnight, a person who wants some drinks, say after working late, can no longer purchase takeaway alcohol for consumption at home; he or she but will have to go to a licensed premise to consume the alcohol there before the journey back. This may inadvertently lead to a higher incidence of persons riding or driving under the influence of alcohol.

Since the Bill will already curtail consumption at public places after 10.30 pm, I do not see the need to have a general prohibition on takeaway sales between 10.30 pm and midnight, for private consumption.

Policing Approach

Let me move to some questions about the intended policing approach.

First: For public places in general that are not Liquor Control Zones, will the 10.30 pm rule against consumption be actively policed, e.g. do we expect to have foot patrols searching for violators, or will the police only act on complaints?

Secondly, what will be the approach to persons found drinking in public after 10.30 pm but do not appear drunk and are not creating any annoyance to anyone? Under Clause 12 (4), such an individual commits an offence of prohibited consumption. How will the police handle this? Will the police just ask the persons to leave, with no questions asked, or will records be kept? As for persons found drunk and incapable or drunk and causing annoyance, Clause 14 (3) seems to favour an approach of just directing the person to go away and pouring away the alcohol. Are there expected to be further follow-up steps after these? Or will the authorities prosecute only when persons do not comply with directions of the police to leave the place?

Another matter of interest is the division of work between the police and the auxiliary police. The Act distinguishes between police officers and auxiliary police, the latter of whom are termed “approved persons” under Clause 3 of Bill. While there are some powers under the Bill that can be used by both police and auxiliary police, under Clause 30 of the Bill, only a police officer may arrest without warrant a person committing an offence in the police officer’s line of sight. Thus, if an offence of drunken trespass under Clause 14 is committed in front of auxiliary police officers, it would seem that these auxiliary officers cannot arrest the suspect but can only direct the person to leave the place; if he does not, it is not clear what, if anything, the auxiliary police officers can do at the scene. Accordingly, I would like to ask if the proposed mode of operation is to team up both police and auxiliary police officers in joint patrols, or to respond to cases jointly? If they are to be working separately, there could be some awkward situations where auxiliary police may have to wait for police to arrive to take certain actions, by which time harm may already have been caused.

Finally, I would make a general observation about the approach to enforcement. During the Committee of Inquiry into the Little India riot, the then Commissioner of Police spoke about the policing challenges in Geylang and noted that there was open hostility and antagonism towards the police in Geylang. He called Geylang a “potential powder keg”. Have the police thought about how the open hostility and antagonism can be ameliorated?

Force-wide, the Police have embraced community-oriented policing as a model. This model requires relationship building and partnerships, and removing distrust. It is important that the public, whether local or foreign, understand the need for enforcement measures and believe the enforcement approach is fair and also reasonable. To this end, I was glad to note that just five days ago (on 25 January), the police launched “Project Transient Workers Outreach”, an initiative aimed at promoting mutual understanding and creating awareness of Singapore’s laws among foreign workers. While various government agencies were reportedly involved in the project such as the Civil Defence Force and the Central Narcotics Bureau, it was not mentioned whether the auxiliary police are in any way involved in such outreach.

As auxiliary police will be at the forefront of enforcing this Act, I am concerned that they are traditionally not trained in community policing and relationship building. Their historical focus was to protect the property of their clients and guard installations, though in recent years their roles expanded to include policing migrant workers in public places. I believe it is critical to look at how to involve the auxiliary police in building bridges with the community, otherwise all the outreaches by the police may be undermined.

Furthermore, if we expect the auxiliary police to engage the public and manage potentially hostile situations, they must be given the training and support to enable them to enforce the law purposefully and to exercise discretion. I note that in the Police Force Amendment Bill tabled for first reading yesterday, there is a provision (Clause 32) to formally expand the role of auxiliary forces to include assisting the police in detaining and arresting offenders. This further underscores the need for the training and mindsets of our auxiliary police forces to be raised closer to the level of the state police.

Conclusion

To summarise, I support in general the Bill’s purpose of restricting the public consumption of alcohol after 10.30 pm for the greater good of all. However, once this is done, I believe that we can retain the status quo for takeaway sales. We also need to ensure that those who are enforcing the provisions of the Bill act with reason and discretion, and that auxiliary police are adequately trained.