PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

10.26 a.m.

Mr David: Sir, I have His Excellency's consent to proceed with this Bill.

The Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary (Mr M. P. D. Nair): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Committee on Local Government appointed in July 1955 recommended amongst other things that the safety and amenity aspects of the control of places of public entertainment, both temporary and permanent, should be administered by the local authorities, the moral aspect by the police and the welfare aspect by the Social Welfare Department. The Government agreed with these recommendations in the White Paper on Government policy relating to local government.

The Local Government Bill, 1957, which has been passed by the Legislative Assembly, makes enabling provision for local authorities to make bylaws now for the control, regulation and supervision by registration, licensing or otherwise of places used for real performances, theatres, wayangs, concerts and other public exhibitions and enter tainments.

A considerable part of the Theatres Ordinance (Cap. 229) which assigned some of this responsibility to the police consequently becomes obsolete and fit for repeal. In addition, other provisions of the same Ordinance have become out of date through changes in the social life of the community since it was enacted in 1909. It is timely therefore to repeal the whole of the Theatres Ordinance and to replace it by a new Ordinance directed to the regulation of public entertainments in general. This Bill has accordingly been framed so as to require that the Licensing Authority constituted under it should have regard primarily to the nature of public entertainments for which licences are sought; while also concerned that these are held only in places suitable to their nature, the Licensing Authority is permitted to presume the suitability of buildings and other premises to the extent to which this has been certified by a local government authority.

This Bill, Sir, which repeals the present Theatres Ordinance and the Billiards Ordinance which is equally out of date and will no longer be necessary if this Bill is enacted, is based on the following considerations and requirements: the interest of the State in controlling entertainments to which the public has access is fourfold - to preserve peace and good order: to prevent moral, social and political degeneracy: to prevent physical injury and suffering whether to performers or to audiences: to secure revenue sufficient at least to offset the expense of control; the definition of "public entertainment" which should be as clear as possible and comprehensive enough to take account of the much greater range of popular amusements available nowadays so that loopholes in the system of control could be prevented as much as possible; the statutory exemptions of some kinds of public entertainment because their sponsorship and circumstances adequately guarantee the State's interest being safeguarded; the exemption from control either wholly or in part of other kinds of "public entertainment" the nature of which cannot readily be perverted to ends contrary to the State's interest; the introduction of a system of licensing of "public entertainment" which provides for the identification of all persons on whom lies the onus of compliance with the conditions of licences; the declaration in advance of the precise nature of the entertainment; approval of the place in which it is intended to provide entertainment; the refusal and cancellation of licences; the suspension of licences on reasonable suspicion that they will be abused or will result in breaches of the peace or injury or suffering to animals or performers or members of the audience; recourse to expert opinion in cases of doubt whether an entertainment should be licensed or not; the collection of fees.

Sir, it is the intention of the Government that after the Second Reading of this important Bill, it should be committed to a Select Committee. I do not propose therefore to go into great detail at this juncture. Hon. Members will also have read the explanatory statement at the end of the Bill. I would like however to dwell at this stage on some of the more important clauses and implications of this Bill.

The definition of "public entertainment" under the 14 headings is intended to be absolutely comprehensive of all existing and all probable forms of public entertainment, without any implication as to the inherent desirability or otherwise of the particular types of public entertainment mentioned. The final part of the definition excludes absolutely from the operation of the Ordinance certain categories of public entertainment associated with the State, official, religious, business and political occasions, it is considered not only necessary for the avoidance of embarrassment and administrative congestion, but also essential to preserve freedom of association for those categories to be statutorily exempted from the application of this Bill. As I have already indicated above, it is contemplated that other exemptions will also be granted and clause 15 of the Bill gives the Minister unfettered discretion to make orders for this purpose.

Hon. Members will wish to be made aware of the provisions of clause 10 (2) of the Bill which will enable the Licensing Officer to prohibit at his discretion the admission of children under the age of sixteen years to the licensed public entertainment. There is ample occasion in Singapore today for the use of every available means of protecting the younger generation from bad influence in the field of public entertainment. The onus of responsibility for seeing that this prohibition is carried out will fall on the licensee of the public entertainment. This would apply even to cinemas. If this Bill is passed, classification of films as suitable or unsuitable for children to see could be made under the Cinematograph Films Ordinance. The Licensing Officer under this Bill could then impose on the licensees of cinemas that one of the conditions of a licence should be that no children under the age of sixteen years should be admitted to see films classified as unsuitable for children by the Film Censor. This provision, Sir, is a very important one and it is my intention to ask the Select Committee to examine the implications of this provision in particular.

Clauses 13 and 14 deal, as the explanatory statement shows, with the refusal, cancellation and suspension of licences. The clauses are straightforward and are in keeping with the main considerations and requirements on which, as I stated earlier, the Bill is based.

Clause 19 is for the resolution of doubt whether any entertainment was "public" or not. Attempts to rebut changes under the Bill on the grounds that entertainments were not "public" must be anticipated. In placing the onus of proof on the person alleging that the entertainment is not "public", regard has been given to the circumstance that such doubt will be material only when an offence under the Ordinance has prima facie been committed, and to the extensive exemptions allowed for statutorily and expected to be conferred by the Minister under the Bill.

Sir, another important clause is clause 22 which introduces a provision long sought by the Licensing Authority under the Theatres Ordinance to allow effective recourse to the best available expert advice in determining whether a particular public entertainment, especially if of the nature of a professional sporting contest, for example, boxing or wrestling contests, should be licensed or not. The clause provides that "it shall be sufficient reason for refusing" to license such an entertainment if the expert advice given is that it should be refused but final discretion is given to the Licensing Officer whether he wishes to act in accordance with the advice he has received.

Sir, as I have indicated earlier, I do not propose to go into matters of detail which could of course be dealt with in the ordinary way in Committee but it is the Government's intention after its Second Reading to have the Bill committed to a Select Committee. I am confident, Sir, that the purpose of this Bill and the principles on which it is based will commend itself to hon. Members and that they will give it its Second Reading.

Question proposed.

10.37 a.m.

Mr John Ede: Mr Speaker, Sir, we welcome this Bill as a reasonable and sensible measure to improve on an outdated Theatres Ordinance enacted nearly 40 years ago. We also welcome the decision to send the Bill to a Select Committee.

Now that all entertainments from tiddly-winks to coconut-shies in a fun-fair are brought within its scope, it is clearly necessary to give it closer examination before it becomes law and I hope very much that the proprietors and sponsors of all the multifarious forms of entertainment available in this modern age in Singapore will come forward before the Select Committee to give evidence so that this Bill is not only comprehensive but as fair as possible to all concerned. Speaking for myself, I am acquainted with some forms of entertainment - some professional and some amateur - and I would therefore like to touch on a few points which will require careful consideration.

First of all, there is the question as to whether public entertainment should be controlled by a Licensing Officer and assistants as provided by the Bill or by a Licensing Board. The advantages of a Licensing Board would be that the approval of entertainments or their disapproval could be carried out according to reliably and reasonably fixed standards which would vary very little from place to place in the island. The system at present is that an entertainment has to be approved by the officer in charge of the police station in the area in which the entertainment is to be held. The result is that a more liberal interpretation of what may be shown can differ in one district than in another. Let me take perhaps the somewhat obvious example - striptease acts and shows of that nature. I know of establishments where the police definitely do not permit any form of striptease - in our opinion, on this side of the House, quite rightly too. I also know of one or two establishments operating in the city at present where striptease acts are being presented night after night. In other words, Sir, different standards are being followed in different areas by different police stations. I sometimes look at the Chinese newspapers. I cannot read Chinese unfortunately, but I do not have to know the language to understand the pictures advertising places of entertainment and some of these leave nothing to the imagination. The question today arises as to whether Government permits or does not permit striptease acts. In theory, it claims that it does not, but in practice, it winks the other eye. In this very youthful community which is Singapore today, striptease acts and nude shows should surely not be permitted. There are plenty of other forms of entertainment for our population and for our tourists. I would like the Government to come out with a definite declaration as to where they stand in this matter and what their policy is. It is not for them to say that it is a police matter; the Government control the police. I hope that the Hon. the Assistant Minister to the Chief Secretary will make the position clear during his reply. My argument therefore is, Sir, that a Licensing Board would have an advantage over Licensing Officers as they would be in a better position to maintain consistent standards of what should or should not constitute "public" entertainment and to interpret regulations laid down by the Government. On the other hand, a Board, it is true, would present disadvantages: the main one being the speed with which licences could be obtained. A Board cannot remain in continual session whereas a Licensing Officer is or should be permanently available. Often, licences are needed at a moment's notice nor should they be denied a promoter at a moment's notice if reasonably possible. The possibilities of combining the system of both a Board and Licensing Officers are worth considering: a Board to see that consistent standards of licensing are carried out in the more difficult categories of entertainment and Licensing Officers empowered to authorise at short notice the routine forms of entertainment.

I next come to clause 14 regarding the cancellation or suspension of a licence. Clause 11, in certain circumstances, goes with it. An aggrieved person whose licence is cancelled or suspended

"may, within fourteen days of the service on him of the grounds of such cancellation or suspension, appeal in writing to the Minister, whose decision thereon shall be final. Where the Minister decides to restore a licence, he may impose such conditions as he thinks fit."

Sir, I think the procedure laid down here needs to be examined extremely carefully. Cancellation of a licence in certain cases may involve forfeiture of security under clause 11. If the Minister is to hear the appeal, I feel the aggrieved party should be given the opportunity to appear in person or with his lawyer and witnesses and evidence on oath should be taken, the Licensing Officer and his witnesses to support the cancellation of the licence and the forfeiture of the security, the licensee and his witnesses to show cause why the licence should not be cancelled and the security forfeited. Unless evidence is given on oath, I fear witnesses may take advantage and issue false reports or statements to the Licensing Officer or to the Minister. The licensee should also be given the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses who give evidence for the Licensing Officer.

I would be inclined to go even further. I would question whether, in fact, it is right for the Minister to hear appeals against the cancellation of licences. Why not appoint a district judge, civil or criminal, to hear such appeals? To compare sections 416 and 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code, there is, for example, sub-section (1) which reads:

"Whenever it is proved to the satisfaction of a court that any bond taken under this Code has been forfeited, the court shall record the grounds of such proof and may summon before it any person bound by such bond and call upon him to pay the penaliy thereof or to show cause why it should not be paid."

Section 417 reads:

"All orders made under section 416 by any Magistrate's Court or District Court shall be appealable."

Either some such procedure should be followed or it should be made much clearer in the Bill or in Rules published under the Bill as to what procedure the Minister will adopt when considering the appeal of an aggrieved person.

My next point is this. Under clause 8 of the existing Ordinance, police officers not under the rank of sergeants may enter premises to see that the conditions of a licence are being observed. In the Bill before us, clause 16 reads:

"Any Licensing Officer or police officer may enter any place where a licensed public entertainment is being provided with a view to ascertaining whether the conditions of the licence and the provisions of this Ordinance are being complied with."

This, in our opinion, is going too far. We think that the qualification not below the rank of inspector would be reasonable.

Lastly, I would refer to the very difficult point already touched on by my hon. Friend opposite which will need careful consideration in Select Committee, that is, the proposal under clause 10 (2) which prescribes that children under the age of sixteen years shall not be admitted to certain forms of entertainment. The theory of it is an admirable one and I would not quarrel with it, but the practical application of it is quite another matter. On whom is the onus to be placed of preventing admission: the promoter of the entertainment whose only recourse will be to demand the production of identity cards from the majority of his would-be patrons - if identity cards can be accepted as evidence of age; or the parents or guardians who should in fact be responsible? "X" films for adults only are approved in the United Kingdom and I know cinema proprietors have great difficulty in deciding whether a child is above or below the prescribed age. In this multi-racial community, I would challenge the Hon. the Assistant Minister, if 100 children aged either 15 or 16 years were ranged up in front of him, to place them in the right category from looking at them. And should the dividing line be 16? Why not 15 or 17? How did the Government arrive at this figure? These are some of the questions which, we will agree in this House I think, need further and very careful consideration and I would say, in all honesty, that on most of them, I have an open mind. But the basis of a Bill of this kind is not in the clauses of the Bill itself but in the machinery and the rules which the Government advances to make them work. That is the vital responsibility of the Government of the day rather than of this Assembly.

10.50 a.m.

Mr Lee Choon Eng (Queenstown): Mr Speaker, Sir, the introduction of this Bill is most welcome. As a matter of fact, in my opinion, I think that this Bill seeks to control the "Funland" operators of juke-boxes and pin-tables. This is far long overdue and it has taken the Government six years to consider the introduction of this Bill. However, it is better late than never. The shops in which these pin-tables or juke-boxes are operated do not only disturb or annoy the neighbours but they also at the same time encourage the proper trading shops to change their businesses and set themselves up as "Funland" operators. Most of the shops which find that business is slackening nowadays prefer to close down their businesses and set themselves up as "Funland" or "Gayland" operators. Some of these Funland operators of "games", as they are called, are in fact encouraging gambling within their premises, like a certain case that was decided in court recently.

In principle, the Bill is good but there are some clauses in this Bill which can be subject to abuse, for example, the clause which gives powers to only one single man - a Licensing Officer. The discretion of one single man is apt to be abused by either the Licensing Officer himself or any of his junior officers who investigate before a licence is considered. I also know that there is another clause in this Bill which allows appeals to the Minister but whatever appeals are made to the Minister, they are always considered on the recommendation of the Licensing Officer. When an application for a licence is made to the Licensing Officer, he sends out his investigators or junior officers to investigate and make a report. The report is submitted to the Licensing Officer and he makes his decision. Should the appeal against the refusal of granting a licence come before the Minister, the Minister has to base his discretion on the report from the Licensing Officer and his junior officers. So it is rather difficult for the Minister to decide favourably and he will then have to stand by his Licensing Officer. Furthermore, Sir, the powers vested in one single man will also encourage corruption. Members of this Assembly and the City Council have promised that they will wipe out corruption. The passing of this Bill at any time today or after its Second Reading will certainly make us a party to the encouragement of corruption. What is there, Sir, to prevent the Licensing Officer from being tempted into corruption? He can try his very best to make the granting of an application for a licence as difficult as possible. Naturally, when an applicant submits an application, he wants it to be approved and if difficulties arise, there is no other alternative than to seek the backdoor source - and I am quite sure that the Government know what that backdoor source is. On the other hand, Sir, if the Licensing Officer is a friend of one applicant and is not friendly to another applicant he could certainly show more favours to his friend than to the other man. Is this fair, Sir? I will quote an instance. Mr A is the Licensing Officer and Mr B is friendly to him. Mr B submits his application and it is approved but Mr C may have his application turned down by Mr A through the influence of Mr B, although his shop may be very near to that of Mr B. Is this fair to one and all? I do not think that this is so.

Sir, in the case of licences for hotels and bars, I understand that the authority is vested in a Board of Licensing Justices comprising a Chairman and a few members of the Justices of the Peace. Even restaurants or eating-houses, which is a matter for the City Council, are also considered by the Health Committee of the City Council. Though the Health Officer has a good say in it, he has got to submit his report to the Health Committee and the Health Committee after deciding on the application has to submit it to the full Board or Council for confirmation. So you can see very well in this case that it is not one man who makes his decision but a number of persons forming a Board or a Committee.

Sir, this is a new piece of legislation and I fully agree with the Member for Tanglin (Mr John Ede) that there are advantages and disadvantages in a Board of Licensing Justices when compared with a Licensing Officer. There may be cases where immediate attention is needed such as small shows, and so on. Well, in those cases, they can then be decided by the Licensing Officer but where these juke-boxes or pin-tables are concerned, there is no necessity for a rush or urgent case-sitting. It can certainly be referred to a Board of Licensing Justices. We should consider the applications in the same way as those for bars, hotels, restaurants, coffee-shops or eating-houses. I think that Government should specify certain categories which can be considered by the Licensing Officer and certain categories by the Board of Licensing Justices because, if you classify or band the whole thing into one, it will be rather difficult for the Licensing Officer or the Board of Justices to make decisions. As the Member for Tanglin rightly pointed out, we should have two separate bodies and I am quite sure that the Government could specify certain categories in this Bill for each body.

I am glad that the Government is going to send this Bill to Select Committee as we have got to take public opinion. The Member for Tanglin him self is a man who is closely connected with entertainment professionally and as an amateur and I am quite sure that he would like to give his views to the Select Committee. There may be juke box or pin-table operators who also want to give their views. We should not be accused of rushing through or forcing upon the people a Bill of this nature. So I welcome the statement that this Bill is to be referred to Select Committee.

10.55 a.m.

The Minister for Commerce and Industry (Mr J. M. Jumabhoy): Mr Speaker, Sir, I did not intend to speak on this Bill and I have not much opinion either way on the matters that were raised by the two Members of the Opposition.

However, there was one matter that was raised by both of them and that was the question of abuse of certain powers given to one man: maybe he is an official or when it comes to an appeal it is the Minister. Sir, the question raises an issue on principle and that is that in the present-day life, there are thousands of matters, Sir, which require to be regulated in order that relations between citizen and citizen of the State and also between the citizen and the State are properly conducted, and also that the obligations of the citizen to the State are properly carried out. Now, in every-day life today, there are hundreds of matters which require approval from some authority or other and therefore the question does arise as to who should be responsible for giving the necessary approval for all these small things, like hawkers' licences - in this case, the licences given by the Licensing Officer - and also who should be responsible for refusal to grant such licences or who should be responsible for revoking such licences and where the appeal should lie. Normally, in a democratic society, Sir, one is very chary of giving away to individuals powers which could be exercised by the individual unfairly and could be abused. In a totalitarian society and in communist countries, of course, there is no question of abuse of powers because all the powers are vested with certain individuals and nobody dares to query as to the rights and wrongs of decisions of those individuals because, if they do, well they get locked up. There are hundreds of matters that arise every day which require approvals and disapprovals, but the question arises: how far should those persons who make the laws of the country go in order to create machinery which would be the machinery responsible for granting such approvals; whether the Legislature should want in every case that approvals and disapprovals and appeals should go to a tribunal or a court or a judge and if that is so, Sir, how far can such machinery be workable when thousands of petty cases are concerned? That is a question that the Legislature has got to think about. If the Legislature thinks that every case should go to a very high authority because injustice or abuse might take place, well then the State will have to set up a very complex judiciary machinery, which means that the State will have to incur heavy expenditure. If the Legislature thinks that these matters are not big enough to go to such a high level and that the official and, in cases of appeal, the Minister, could be competent to decide and could decide, shall we say, in most cases impartially - because after all human nature has got certain failings - well then, I think the Legislature should say, "Right, we draw the limit here and beyond this, we think individuals should be responsible." I think that is a question which Members will have to consider carefully because it means involving the State in a lot of expenditure later.

11 a.m.

Mr Lim Choon Mong (Serangoon): Mr Speaker, Sir, I welcome this Bill being committed to a Select Committee. I am not talking from the point of view of entertainment in the form of strip-tease shows, cinemas or other kinds of shows; but I am drawing the attention of all sports organisations and youth clubs to the definition of "public entertainment" under clause 2 (i). We know that Government intends to control public entertainment for the benefit and protection of the people, to see that what is good is shown to them; but I certainly feel that it is also the duty of the Government not to retard healthy activities which come under this definition. If this Bill should go through, then all forms of activities indulged in by sports organisations, youth clubs, and even cultural associations will have to come under this definition. No matter what they do, they will have to seek permission to get a licence. Under clause 15 the Minister doubtless may by order exempt them from obtaining a licence, but until such promises are incorporated into the law, all organisations which run sporting contests such as boxing matches and football matches to which the public have access will have to come for a licence. The tournaments which the youth clubs run among themselves are, according to this definition, public entertainment, and if we are going to put difficulties in their way, then we will be retarding their healthy growth. I hope that the Select Committee, when they come to consider this Bill, will take this into consideration.

I also hope that the lectures, talks, debates, plays and concerts staged by such organisations solely for the purpose of adding to the knowledge of the members and their friends should also come under the category to be exempted from this provision of the law, or else we may, on the one hand, protect the public from undesirable shows but, on the other hand, retard the growth of healthy and useful activities.

11.02 a.m.

Mr Speaker: Mr Nair, in reply?

Mr Nair: Yes, Sir, I think the main argument against having a Licensing Board is the question of time in coming to a decision. The definition of "public entertainment" is so wide that it is necessary to come to a decision quickly, and the formality and delays incurred by a Licensing Board would, in my opinion, make it unsuitable.

The same argument also applies to an Appeals Board. Here again the argument is that the formality and delays of an Appeals Board would be unsuitable to deal with public entertainment. We did consider having a board for licensing entertainments, but we felt that in the interests of both the Government and the applicants for a licence, the system as suggested in the Bill would be more satisfactory.

Sir, the question of cancellation and the forfeiture of bond has been raised by the Member for Tanglin. It is not desirable in the interests of implementing this Bill that we should invite lawyers, etc, to appear before the Minister when appeals are heard, but there is nothing to stop the Minister from calling the applicant should he require further information to be placed before him before a final decision is taken.

In regard to the standards of shows like strip-tease, as mentioned by the hon. Member, I do not think there will be much difficulty, Sir, because we have to make rules. We could either put something into the rules or the Government could have some sort of policy which could be applied in the case of applications for shows. I do not think we have had many complaints about this in the past and I hope that in the event of this Bill being implemented there will not be many complaints regarding the standardisation of these shows.

Sir, the question of the powers of the police under clauses 16 and 17 has been raised. We gave very careful consideration to this question and we came to the conclusion that it is not right to mention in this Bill that the powers of the police should be restricted to the rank of an inspector. It may well be that at the time of the commission of an offence, namely, the violation of any conditions, a police constable is on duty and therefore no action can be taken until a police inspector arrives; and it is not easy, Sir, to have so many inspectors supervising these shows. But, however, if at any time it is found that a police constable or any other police officer has been so foolish as to act, I can assure the hon. Member that appropriate action will be taken against him for his action.

Sir, the question of admission of children under the age of 16 has been raised and, as I have mentioned earlier in my speech, the specific reason for committing this Bill to a Select Committee is to discuss the matter in more detail.

Sir, the Member for Serangoon has mentioned youth club activities. In my speech earlier on, I have specifically mentioned that exemption from control, either in whole or in part, of other kinds of public entertainment the nature of which cannot be readily perverted to ends contrary to the state interests will be made. It is the Government's policy, Sir, to exempt all normal healthy activities of the community - schools, youth clubs, athletic associations and so on - and I can assure the hon. Member that there will be no restriction at all on any entertainment which is of a healthy nature and beneficial to the community. Here again, under clause 15 the Minister has unfettered discretion, and I am sure he will use it in the best interests of the community.

Sir, I do not think I have anything more to say except to mention that all the main points raised by hon. Members will be duly considered in Select Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Committed to a Select Committee consisting of Mr Speaker as Chairman and seven Members to be nominated by the Committee of Selection. (Mr Nair).