By MP for Aljunied GRC, Chen Show Mao
[Delivered in Parliament on 18 Feb 2014]
Madam speaker,
In Singapore, we have enjoyed many years of relative order and stability. The Race Course Road riot in December last year came as a shock to most of us, and the news also rippled beyond our island. Some worry about how the riot affected Singapore’s reputation and our standing in the world.
We must not forget that how we respond to the riot, the measures that we take after the disturbance, including passing this bill into law, also say a great deal about the kind of people we are.
We must resist the urge to come up with a reflexive reaction and should try to ensure that our responses remain proportionate and balanced, that any proposed powers and their limitations on our constitutional rights are strictly necessitated and fully justified by the clear requirements of maintaining public order and security.
The Bill before us has as its stated intention to “provide Police with powers to continue to take calibrated measures to maintain public order and calm in Little India post-riot.”
By all accounts from the Government to date, we understand that following the riot, measures have been taken by the Government pursuant to powers they have under existing laws, to restore and maintain public order and calm. Second Minister Iswaran suggested that existing laws may be among other things too blunt an instrument for our current needs, But by all Government accounts to date, measures taken have been calibrated and effective for the last two months.
Please could the Minister clarify: how many instances have there been where the security forces have found that they do not have adequate tools to deal with threats to public order and calm within Little India, the proposed special zone. If any, what were the nature of the threats to public order? Could he please explain how existing powers have proved lacking in the time from the riot to today, so that this new set of powers to the security forces must be rushed into law before the Committee of Inquiry completes its work?
We are told that the powers contained in this Bill are of a temporary nature, to be in force for only 12 months. But, as was said earlier, If not strictly necessary and fully justified, even 12 months would be too long.
Even compared to the Public Order (Preservation) Act mentioned by Second Minister Iswaran, the scope of government powers in this Bill is “extensive” in several ways. For example, under the Public Order (Preservation) Act, each proclamation of a state of danger to public order in an area in Singapore expires after one month, requiring the Minister to renew it for up to one month at a time , if he is of the opinion that “public order in [that] area in Singapore is seriously disturbed or is seriously threatened”.
This Bill in contrast expires after one year, during which the Minister may declare an area part of the special zone if he is satisfied that it is “needed for the well-being of the communities … or … otherwise in the public interest”.
Also, this Bill confers powers not just on police officers, but also approved persons who are auxiliary police officers. These include powers to inspect personal belongings and garments, conduct strip search and car search, refuse someone entry to the special zone for up to 24 hours, and remove someone from the special zone, all if the approved person reasonably considers it necessary to do so. Just to put things in context, in response to a question filed by Miss Sylvia Lim, Member for Aljunied, the Minister for Home Affairs replied, “The current total strength of the auxiliary police forces is about 6000 officers. The majority of the officers are Singaporeans, while the others are Malaysians.”
Also, this Bill confers powers that extend beyond the Special Zone, such as powers of search outside the special zone.
Also, this Bill contains an immunity clause. It states that the Government will be protected from liability for anything which is intended to be done in good faith and with reasonable care, in exercising the powers under the Bill.
Given the wide-ranging nature of the powers being proposed in this Bill, along with the effects on residents and businesses in Little India, and in view of the fact that powers under existing laws have proved effective in maintaining law and order, and that the committee of inquiry has yet to complete its work, Madam, I oppose the Bill.