The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) introduced the Public Order (Additional Temporary Measures) Bill for the first time at the Parliament Sitting on January 20, 2014. Challenge sits down with Mr Roy Quek, Deputy Secretary (Operations & Development), to find out more about this Bill. The conversation below has been edited for clarity and flow.
He was home, watching a TV show with his wife on December 8, a Sunday night, when his mobile phone rang. Mr Roy Quek, who handles the Home Team’s operations, was informed of an unfolding crisis at Race Course Road. In the ensuing minutes, he broke the news to Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Law Minister K Shanmugam. Within the hour, he was managing the worsening situation from the Ministry’s central operations room. This marked the start of a sleepless week for Mr Quek and colleagues at MHA.
Challenge: At the Parliament Sitting and even after, there has been a lot of emphasis that the new bill (or [PO (ATM)] is more “tightly scoped” than the Public Order (Preservation) Act or POPA. The bill reading itself describes it as giving “additional powers” to Police and other agencies for a year. Yet Law Minister Shanmugam emphasised on Vasantham that there are no “extra powers”. Can you explain how the PO (ATM) is more tightly scoped than POPA?
R: When we first introduced POPA after the riot, it was because POPA is an emergency-type law enacted in the late 50s, which was then applied to Singapore when we were first part of and then separated from Malaysia in the 60s. Emergency situations back then were quite common with demonstrations and riots.
We were very mindful that POPA was not a long-term solution. [At] that time, POPA was necessary because that was what we could use immediately... Interestingly, in our current legal structure, aside from POPA, there wasn't anything else we could use, short of declaring a state of emergency.
If people were to look at POPA in its entirety … you will see that POPA has, among other things, the right to impose a curfew, the right to use lethal force to put down any public order incident, [and] to cut off telecommunications and other facilities –very strong measures to put down an emergency situation.
The use of POPA has been helpful. It calmed the situation down … we want to continue to have peace, calm, stability and allow the area to recover … so how do we do it?
The new bill does it in an innovative way. It draws from POPA certain levers that we need, such as the ability to proclaim an area a special zone and to limit the consumption of alcohol on certain days). It also draws from other existing laws that allow us, for example, to impose suspension on liquor license holders. That comes from existing laws [such as] the [Customs (Liquors Licensing) Regulations], which allows us to restrict retail hours for alcohol sales.
So instead of [imposing] POPA and then drawing on various other things, we decided to bring all the necessary levers to help us achieve the outcome we want in a new set of provisions. This single receptacle (the PO [ATM]) is therefore defined and limited, and not broad like POPA. And it has a shelf life of a year, enough time for us to let the Committee of Inquiry (COI) run its course and for MHA to consider and implement its recommendations.
When the riot happened, it was a shock... no different from when you’re hit by a very sudden and serious illness. You need immediate response so you go in for emergency surgery. It's a very intensive care regime to deal with something so sudden and intense. Subsequent to that, you need to come out of [intensive care] into general recovery mode. That requires a different care regime.
Subsequent to that recovery, there is rehabilitation... and when you go home... you may actually change certain habits of your lifestyle, your eating habits, depending on what the cause of the illness was.
It's analogous to what we're doing now – there's POPA, there's the new bill, and the COI going on. And the COI will eventually come out with recommendations no different from a new recommendation for a patient who's undergone rehabilitation.
At each stage, there will be a need [to] define the medical situation or care regime; for a case like Little India – the measures and legislative authority to suit the needs of the community at that time.
*Read more about the PO (ATM).
Challenge: So the PO (ATM) is simply made up of existing laws pulled from different ministries?
R: There is one thing in this new bill that is truly new. This came from the experience post-riot when we were actually putting in place all these measures.
Today, if somebody has a liquor license and proceeds to sell or allow consumption beyond the licensing conditions, we can suspend the license and charge the licensee in court. However, we found out that if somebody does not have a liquor license but proceeds to sell liquor illegally, we cannot suspend the liquor license because there is no liquor license to begin with. We can only charge this person in court for illegal sales but his other business – say, a restaurant – will be unaffected. So we realised that there was a lacuna, this gap, and it was very unfair. We wanted parity so this is the only thing that's new because today it allows us to do this.
Challenge: There are criticisms that the PO (ATM) gives the Police extensive powers...
R: The ability that the Police have to conduct a search on an individual or any premise or a vehicle, it's already in the existing laws. It's nothing new.
Some people talked about strip searches. We're not about to go into Little India and start taking off everyone's clothes. That's clearly not the intention. But if someone is hiding something, whether it's a drink or whether it's a weapon, how else would you know if you do not search the person?
Let me clarify: when we say for a policeman to be able to search your articles of clothing, it means, for example, you're wearing a jacket, I say, “Can I have a look at your jacket?” and you give me your jacket, as opposed to my patting you down and frisking you.
Most of us generally do not go into any area, whether it's Orchard Road or Little India, carrying arms, knives, explosives, and this should not matter to us. It should matter to us that if somebody was carrying these things, the Police can stop and search the person.
Challenge: If there isn’t the PO (ATM) or POPA, can a police officer still stop and search someone?
R: When the officer has reasonable grounds to suspect someone is up to mischief. For example, the officer gets the notification that there has been an assault in this area. He goes there; he sees someone running away from that scene, he's empowered to stop the person, ask questions and to see whether he's carrying any weapon relevant to the assault. We [also] have what we call the Public Order Act, Special Events. So during special events – National Day Parade or F1 – and within special event zones, certain laws are applicable to ensure safety and security in the event zone. So we just ported them over to the special zone that is now Little India. So it's no different from what we already have.
Challenge: There’ve been criticisms that the PO (ATM) could result in racial profiling of South Asians. What is your response to that?
R: Why is it Little India? It's Little India because a riot happened there. It [would be] the same if the riot happened at Geylang, or Holland Village. And then we would impose the measures on that area. [It has] nothing to do with the profile of the community there … If I were to try to drink in public, I would similarly be running afoul of the law, no differently from anyone else. It could be a Singaporean Indian … or a tourist, an American, anyone else. So it's a law that we're putting in place in Little India because the riot happened there, not because we're targeting any particular group of people. If we did, then what we would do is [to impose the law] anywhere you find South Asians … which includes, for example, their dorms, and in the recreation centres. This is clearly not what we want to do.
Once you put it out there, you must expect views and ideas, suggestions, to come in. I think that's actually good for us because it fulfils what we've been hoping to achieve with this new bill, which is for people to know what it is all about as opposed to the case of POPA where, by my own reckoning, people don't know the full extent of POPA's authority and powers.
Challenge: The government seems to have determined that alcohol was a factor in the riot. How did you come to this conclusion?
R: Even before the incident, there had been feedback, concerns and continual complaints about alcohol sale and consumption in the area. In fact, there is a parallel track – [it started] before the riot – of a public consultation to review the sale and public consumption of alcohol. That was not just the Little India area, but nation-wide (including Robertson Quay) because there were a lot of [public disamenity] concerns.
The riot happened because there was a traffic accident, a fatal traffic accident. The unfortunate thing was the person who was killed in the traffic accident, based on all accounts that we have, was inebriated. From all the discussions we had with the shopkeepers, the onlookers, the residents, the police officers, emergency responders and all, including some of the other people who were involved or were at the scene of the riot, they indicated that a fair number had been drinking. You can see from among other things, beer bottles being thrown at the Police and emergency vehicles. People could smell each other's breath and they could obviously smell the alcohol consumption on many of them. So it seems to us that (based on the past incidents and the current evidence) alcohol was certainly a factor.
Challenge: So when did these public consultations on the review of alcohol sale and consumption begin?
R: It started in October, with early pre-consultations, and … the last two months of 2013 were public consultations. We wanted to get a sense of whether the majority of the public believed that it's a good idea. [Should the restrictions on sale and consumption be] across the board, meaning everywhere? [Or should it be] all day, certain hours only, some days, weekends for example? Is it only in certain areas and which areas?
Challenge: Now with POPA and then with PO (ATM), you cannot consume alcohol in public in Little India. Since this has happened, why not accelerate it to other areas like Robertson Quay or Boat Quay where similar disturbances have happened?
R: We're not saying that we won't do anything because there is a parallel process going on. We've finished with the public consultation exercise. The public has come back with a lot of interesting suggestions. A fair number support a ban on public consumption, particularly in what they call hotspot areas. But we need to give it more time. We need to look at the statistics. We don't have the same degree of urgency compared to a post-riot situation.
Challenge: How soon after the riot did MHA start thinking about the new bill?
R: I think, by the end of the first week after the riot, we already started to think about when do we transit [from POPA to something else]. [We asked ourselves:] what were the key milestones and the indicators that we were looking for that help us make that transition? And if we transit, what do we transit to? At that time, we didn't have a law to provide for all these things other than POPA.
Challenge: Tell us what went on behind-the-scenes to get this new bill drafted.
R: This was a multi-agency effort. We organised a series of inter-agency meetings. So, the [Ministry of] Transport and LTA [Land Transport Authority], for example, came in to talk about bussing arrangements; the NEA [National Environment Agency] talked about their licensing and, in general, how they deal with disamenities. We brought in [Ministry of] Manpower because they look at the foreign worker situation and MTI [Ministry of Trade & Industry] to look at the situation affecting businesses and all. So various agencies came in and all gave their inputs. We [asked] agencies what else do we need, where are the existing levers that will allow us to do all these things and then basically from there, we began to pull things together and fed into what is now the new bill.
It wasn't just the government because we relied a lot on feedback from the ground – from the residents, from the grassroots organisations, from the stallholders, from various other stakeholder associations and all. Everyone had their views on certain things and so we put it all together.
We had to bring in the AGC [Attorney General’s Chambers] and Ministry of Law to [advise] on the legal dimensions. I'm not trained to draft legislation … I'm an economist by training! I needed the experts and this is where AGC came in and I'm very grateful to them because they did this very quickly.
Challenge: In a matter of?
R: It took us a few weeks (of discussions) but the actual drafting – I think the team at AGC, they managed to do it within a week. [There were] a lot of iterations … with us working through the night. When the riot first happened, for the first week and a bit more, I hardly slept. So we were very grateful that, aside from ourselves, our colleagues from other agencies were willing to put in the same kind of hours and effort when we were in need of their support and help. It was a very compressed timeline because we wanted to make sure we only had the appropriate levers for the appropriate amount of time. And we had to coincide with Parliament sitting (so that the new bill could be read as early as possible)
Challenge: There is a sense that the new bill wasn’t well understood by the public because it wasn’t well communicated. Was this a public communications issue?
R: I think so. It’s partly because a lot of these things had to be done fairly quickly. We were very clear that we didn't want to continue with POPA indefinitely. The sooner we transit from POPA to something less extensive – the better. So that's one of the reasons why I think in terms of public communications we could have done better.
At the same time, we were prepared to have this public discussion. Hence we take it through the normal route, through (Parliamentary) readings and basically give people enough time to understand what it's all about. I think that's helpful and I actually do not see the responses so far as criticism. I see it as part and parcel of that process.
Once you put it out there, you must expect views and ideas, suggestions, to come in. I think that's actually good for us because it fulfils what we've been hoping to achieve with this new bill, which is for people to know what it is all about as opposed to the case of POPA where, by my own reckoning, people don't know the full extent of POPA's authority and powers.
Challenge: Any other public communications insights?
R: Some quarters of the media complained that we sent out the first alerts a bit late … [on the night of the crisis]. [They] asked why we didn't send out information earlier. The first formal statement came out around 11.30pm. We agree [that] we could have been a lot faster. I think the balance was between sending out [information] quickly and getting more facts. In a situation when things were unfolding – obviously the priority was to contain the riot – but ... we have seen that the public needs to be kept informed because, among other things, there may [have been] people who [were] coming home, people who [were] having their dinners … and caught in the situation. They [would be] trying to reach their families or their families were trying to call them and no one knew what's going on. So I think this is one area we could do a lot better. We must be open to say that, “Yes, this is one area we can do a lot better in.” Let's make sure, hopefully we don’t ever need to do it again, but if indeed we have to, we know better.
Related posts:
