MINOR OFFENCES (AMENDMENT) BILL

2.45 pm

Order for Second Reading read.

The Senior Minister of State for Home Affairs (Dr Lee Boon Yang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, this Bill seeks to amend the Minor Offences Act mainly to deal with the problem of touting. The opportunity is taken also to amend certain provisions concerning noise pollution, assemblies and processions and to revise the penalties prescribed for the offences covered by the Act.

The problem of touting has existed in Singapore for many years. It is not a new problem. However, it has recently escalated and become a serious problem especially in areas frequented by tourists, such as along Orchard Road. The main reason for this upsurge is due to the sale of counterfeit goods by some shopkeepers. These shopkeepers employ touts to solicit and importune tourists to buy their goods. To counter this problem, Police has been conducting regular enforcement actions against touts. From July to December 1988, 157 touts were arrested and charged in court. For the month of January 1989, 76 persons have been arrested and charged in court. Those arrested have been dealt with under the existing provisions of the law. Presently, the Minor Offences Act defines the offence of touting only in relation to activities connected with the court and government departments. Touting, unconnected with such public offices, is not an offence at present. Those arrested can only be charged under the Penal Code for causing a public nuisance for which the maximum penalty is only a fine of $200. Our experience has shown clearly that existing laws are inadequate in controlling the problem.

When the profits from the sale of counterfeit goods are high, such small fines as $200 under the Penal Code obviously can- not act as effective deterrents. In fact, touts are becoming bolder, more brazen and even openly resorting to lawlessness. Sir, I have here a collection of letters that were written by tourists and Singaporeans to complain against the activities of touts. I would like, with your permission, just to read some extracts from three of these letters to put into proper perspective this problem of touting.

The first letter is from a Swiss tourist to Singapore. It starts off by saying that he was very impressed with the friendliness, efficiency and the economic development in Singapore. Then he went on, and here I quote, Sir:

'From the tourist point of view, there is however a black spot which may eventually impair your country still excellent reputation.' He then went on to describe his encounters with touts. And here I quote again:

'It was even sometimes difficult to keep these gangs at bay as we were almost physically assaulted by them.'

Sir, the second letter came from an English tourist. This was addressed to the Minister of Tourism Government of Singapore. And here I quote, Sir:

'However, I believe I have a valid criticism to put forward. My bride and myself [the tourist was here on his honeymoon] enjoyed our 7 days in Singapore. It was spoilt every time we ventured out in and around Orchard Road to be accosted every 20 yards by a young gentleman saying, "Do you want a copy watch?"

And now, Sir, I wish to quote an extract from a letter written by a Singaporean who had a close encounter of a "tout" kind. This young Singaporean had brought some Japanese business friends to a popular food centre. And I quote:

'We encountered imitation watch touts. Two of them harassed my friend and me. And when I told my friend not to buy from them, they threatened to beat me and threw cigarette butts at me.'

Sir, more recently the Police arrested three touts for causing a public nuisance. They were charged in court and convicted. After their conviction, on the way out of the court house, they chased a press photographer around the premises of the Subordinate Courts. They intimidated the press photographer wanting to get hold of the roll of film. The press photographer had taken some pictures of these touts. Of course, these three touts were promptly rearrested by the Police and they were charged for criminal intimidation. They were found guilty and fined $2,000 each. Despite the fine, one of them resumed his touting activity the very same day. Sir, these examples show that touts have no respect for the law and are totally unrepentant about their unlawful activities.

Why is it that we must take action against the touts? Why not just let them be? The answer lies in the kind of letters that the Tourist Promotion Board and Police have been receiving from tourists and from Singaporeans. Touts give Singapore a bad name. And if the problem is not checked, tourists will eventually avoid Singapore. Secondly, even Singaporeans find them a nuisance, not only Singaporeans who are accompanying foreign visitors. Many of our Singapore Indians walking along Orchard Road have been mistaken to be well-heeled tourists from Delhi and are accosted by touts; similarly, Chinese and Malay Singaporeans who have the slightest resemblance to tourists are fair targets for harassment by the touts. Thirdly, their tactics are a clear breach of the law, not only because they sell counterfeit goods but in their persistent harassing, including physical manhandling of pedestrians and shoppers. Fourthly, their tactics put nearby law-abiding shopkeepers who are conducting their business properly in a serious disadvantage - tourists who might have been customers of these law-abiding shopkeepers are scared off by the aggressive, abusive and almost threatening tactics used by the touts.

It is therefore necessary to make touting in any public road, public place or place of public resort an offence. More deterrent penalties are also needed for Police to act effectively against the touts. With this amendment, the penalties for offenders will be brought up to a fine ranging from $1,000 to $5,000 or imprisonment of up to six months or both fine and imprisonment. In the case of a second or subsequent conviction, the offence will carry a fine ranging from $2,000 to $10,000 or imprisonment which may extend to one year or both fine and imprisonment. Sir, I believe that these penalties will make persons involved in touting stop their activities.

Sir, I now turn to the provisions relating to noise pollution. The provisions in the Minor Offences Act are outdated for today's circumstances. They are also inadequate to deter people from making excessive noise. I need not elaborate on the problem of noise pollution as Members have raised the issue in Parliament on a number of occasions in the past. Most of us, as Members of Parliament, have at one time or another been asked by our constituents to intervene in cases of noise nuisance caused by inconsiderate people in the HDB estates. This Bill therefore seeks to enhance the penalty for noise pollution to a fine of up to $1,000 and to allow victims of such nuisance to complain directly to a Magistrate's Court about noise nuisance. The Bill also empowers the Magistrate to issue an Order against the person responsible for the nuisance. Such Order will require the offender to abate the nuisance or prohibit him from repeating the offence. Any contravention of the Order will result in a fine of up to $2,000.

Sir, I now turn to the amendments relating to provisions covering assemblies and processions. Let me stress that most (nearly all) of these provisions can be found in the existing Act. Police have to regulate assemblies and processions because we live in a densely populated country. Our streets are crowded with people and vehicular traffic. Regulation is solely to ensure that public order is maintained and to prevent congestion and annoyance caused by assemblies and processions held by all kinds of groups and organizations.

Sir, in 1986 there were only seven illegal processions. In 1987 the number rose to 16 illegal processions. And last year 1988, there were 32 illegal processions. This situation cannot be allowed to deteriorate further. Under the existing Act, only the organizers or those assisting in any illegal assembly or procession are liable for prosecution. This Bill only enhances the penalties for those who organize any illegal assembly or procession. It also pro- vides for a new offence for those who knowingly participate in such illegal assemblies or processions. Participants will now also be liable to prosecution. The enhanced penalties and new provision are necessary to curb the increase in illegal assemblies and processions.

Sir, the Bill also seeks to raise the penalties for all offences in the Act. Most of the penalties which range from $20 to $2,000 have not been revised for more than a quarter century. It is necessary to revise these penalties upward to ensure that they continue to deter would-be offenders.

The Bill also seeks to update certain obsolete terms and repealed some obsolete provisions in the existing Act.

Lastly, Sir, the short title of the Act will be changed to the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Encik Zulkifli bin Mohammed (Eunos GRC): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support the Bill and welcome the amendment to provide the enforcement authorities with more teeth in dealing with the touting problem which, if not checked, will certainly mar the international reputation of Singapore as a popular tourist destination.

Sir, although the statistics just disclosed by the Hon. Senior Minister of State may not appear to be alarming, the trend is obvious. Because of the inadequacy of existing penalties, touting in public places is now a growing menace and that an increasing number of touts are those with secret society connections. It is thus appropriate for stiffer penalties to be introduced to arrest this problem.

Sir, I note the proposed amendments, inter alia, spell out more specifically of what could constitute to be "minor offences" and "public places" and also give wider powers to the enforcement agencies. As such, some clarifications are needed as I foresee the proposed measures will cause anxiety to those in the sales industry who fear that their rice bowl may be affected.

In this connection, Mr Speaker, Sir, I would like to ask the Hon. Senior Minister of State the following questions:

(1) Whether activities conducted by sales promoters and sales personnel in authorized public places (for example, departmental stores) are considered as touting since it involves approaching members of the public in order to solicit sales of their company's products?

(2) whether door-to-door salesmen, some of whom adopt what may be regarded as aggressive sales tactics, will not be allowed to engage in this trade with the passage of the Bill; and

(3) whether the enhanced enforcement measures incorporated in the Bill are sufficient to tackle the touting menace, in that it will effectively curb the number of repeat offenders.

Sir, on that note, I once again support the Bill.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Mr Speaker, Sir, much publicity has been given to offences of touting in the press. And the Minister has taken almost a full speech to tell us what a serious offence touting is. He even brought up letters from tourists to buttress his arguments. Let me say that all these are red herrings. He wants to turn us into a fish market so that we can see only red herrings.

Touting is a comparatively unimportant and minor offence. There are other provisions which he just glossed over, provisions which the Government has intended to smuggle in together with other offences. These provisions are of an entirely different nature. They are political and have to be read together with the recent amendments to the ISA and to the Constitution which have been passed by the House and also with the proposed Legal Profession (Amendment) Bill yet to be passed. All these amendments, Sir, together form a general tightening of control of dissenting views and of the Opposition. It would appear that the new style of government of the PAP is but a refurbished version of the old style, a mere instance of putting new wine into old bottles. Big brother here wants tighter and more absolute control in this more and more brazen police state of Singapore.

The provisions of this Bill fly in the face of the provisions in Part IV of the Constitution. Article 14(1)(b) of the Constitution states:

'all citizens ... have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;' This is a constitutional right. Article 14(2)(b) states that this right can only be taken away if such assembly threatens the security of Singapore. The Bill now before the House, however, proposes to give blanket powers to the Government to restrain the exercise of that constitutional right by the people, a right given to them by Article 14 of the Constitution.

Clause 6 of the Bill gives the Minister power to prohibit any assembly or procession. Therefore, Parliament is now being asked to enact a law which conflicts with specific provisions of the Constitution. Again, under section 5 of the present Act, it is the police who make rules to regulate and prohibit assemblies or processions. The present Bill proposes to give this power to the Minister. Why? Under the old Act, powers were given to the police so that they would only exercise it, if necessary, for the purpose of facilitating traffic flow, ensuring no obstruction or annoyance to other people. Now the Minister is being charged with this function. Why? Is the Minister going to look into matters which are essentially matters for the police just free flow of traffic, obstruction, etc? Has the Minister not got enough work to do that he should take on what are essentially police functions?

The reason, Sir, for these provisions is not because they are outdated as stated by the Minister. The reason, to us, is quite obvious. The proposed amendments are directed against political opposition and others who may wish to show their disagreement with Government policies by the holding of peaceful demonstrations and assemblies. The law that was meant to regulate traffic and to prevent obstruction on the road is now being used blatantly for political purposes, to control not traffic but political opposition.

To quote an example, I understand from the Secretary-General of the Workers' Party that every application of the party for a licence under the Public Entertainments Licensing Act to hold a rally has been sent to the Minister for a decision, when under the Act, the decision should be made by a civil servant. The power now given for the purpose of regulating meetings is being misused by the Government for the harassment and oppression of political parties that are in the Opposition.

Another instance, Sir, three members of the Workers' Party were arrested outside the Istana at the end of May 1987 for peacefully demonstrating against the arrest of detainees. They were arrested, roughly handled and kept in the police station for six hours before they were released. And then they were charged with promoting an unlawful assembly. The members were however acquitted when the court saw on the evidence that there were only three members and the law requires five members before it can become an unlawful assembly. The law was used in that case quite purposely to harass and even to intimidate the opposition party.

What are the real reasons for the transference of power from the police to the Minister? Is it that the Commissioner of Police has refused to allow himself to be used as an instrument of oppression against political parties and others who may wish to protest peacefully against Government decisions? In Singapore, the police are under the Government Ministers whereas in other countries that practise parliamentary democracy, the police act independently under the powers given to them by the law. I would remind the House of what the British Prime Minister said not so very long ago. She said that it would be a sad day for the whole of Britain if the government were to give orders to the police.

In Singapore, we have sad days and sad days. The PAP calls this political stability. What an irony of the use of words. In Britain, for a long time, the police act quite independently of the government under the powers given to them by the law. And they are unanswerable in court for wrongful exercise of their powers. But Singapore has long been a police state, although they may want to deny it, with the Government misusing the police as an instrument of oppression against critics, political opponents and other people. Such is political stability in Singapore.

And look at clause 11, Sir. After this Bill becomes law, in spite of the explanation given by the Minister, any police officer however junior he may be can enter into the house of any of our people on the ground that someone had complained to him that some noise or other in the house has caused a nuisance. So if an occupier of a house plays, for example, the Workers' Party's song, "Make It Right for Singapore", and either a Minister or a PAP sympathizer should hear the song and complains to a policeman that the song is annoying him, the policeman can enter the house and remove the cassette player and the tape. Is this not evidence of a police state in Singapore? Why is the Government doing all this? Is the Government really so frightened of the people that it must terrorize them by giving these powers to the police force?

Then there is the inordinately gross increase in the fines provided. The Minister has said that he has changed the name of the Bill. Anyway, it is a misnomer. It is not a Minor Offences Bill. It is a major offences Bill as far as I can see! Under section 5 of the present law, the fine is just $200. The proposed Bill increases it to $5,000 and $10,000 whereas builders who cause the death of many many people are fined only $50,000. And any person who organizes or assists in any assembly is fined $5,000 and $10,000. It is 25-50 times the original sum. This is not updating. Updating means at the most twice the sum.

Why is the Government doing all this I must ask? Why is the Government so afraid of the people, in spite of all the powers that they have in their hands? They can arrest people any time they like, put them in chinks and forget about them, for 22 years. We would like to get a very clear answer from the Prime Minister since he is here.

Why does the Government have to use threats instead of persuasion to rule in Singapore? Is it also intended to disqualify Opposition leaders as election candidates or MPs if they should infringe any of the regulations in the what is the name of the new Bill? It is not the Minor Offences Bill any more.

The Prime Minister: You have given up---

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: May I remind the House, Sir, that in spite of what the Prime Minister has just said that dictators who have ruled by the gun and by force have all gone away one after another. And the day may not be that distant when the same will happen in Singapore. Therefore, Sir, if the Government really want to tell us that they are only putting in a Bill for touting, we ask them to tell that to the marines. 3.15 pm

Dr Wong Kwei Cheong (Cairnhill): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill.

Touting in the sale of counterfeit goods used to be a very popular occupation. Right in the centre of the Orchard Road tourist belt, as mentioned by the Minister just now, many touts used to brandish their copy goods, copy watches, copy bags, and copy T-shirts for sale by the side walks, in hotel lobbies and at shopping centres. They will harass the tourists and jostle them to buy some of the fake products.

However, ever since the First Reading of this Minor Offences Bill in Parliament on 19th January 1989, touting has dropped substantially. I have checked with members of the Singapore Retail Merchant Association and was told that touting activities in places like Lucky Plaza, Far East Plaza and C.K. Tang have dropped by more than 50%. Perhaps if the NCMP were to take a walk along Orchard Road today and dress himself as a tourist, he will be less accosted by touts and will agree that the added fine of $5,000 is certainly a bigger deterrent to touts than the original fine of $200. It shows that the tough action by the Government as specified in clauses 17 and 18 of this Bill is effective and will be effective in curtailing illegal activities in Singapore.

However, in order to reduce touting and sales of counterfeit goods to a minimum, I hope the Government will also amend the Trademarks Act as the current penalties under this Act are insufficient to deter countfeiters from faking branded products.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Teo Chong Tee (Changi): Mr Speaker, Sir, I support the Bill. In particular, I would like to speak briefly on Part VI of the Bill, ie, touting.

Touting has been going on in Singapore for a long time. The so-called pimps who prey on the tourists are touts of the worst kind. I think most of them are gangsters. Enhancing the fines and jail sentences for touting is most welcome. Unscrupulous touts do not take no for an answer from the tourists. They are so persistent that some of them go to the extreme of being abusive to the tourists. If touting in the tourist belt, especially along the Orchard Road shopping complexes, is not eradicated, Singapore's image as a shopping paradise will surely be badly tarnished. The touts often harass the tourists into buying from them counterfeit watches and other imitation goods. They will try every trick to fleece the unwary tourists.

Sir, a great part of our earnings is derived from tourism and many people in Singapore are depending on the industry for their livelihood. We must not let the touts or any others to undermine the STPB's efforts to attract more tourists into our country.

Mr Speaker, Sir, some days ago it was reported in the New Paper that touting has now spread to Changi Airport but in a different form. Sir, the illegal touting activities pose a threat to the security and safety of aircraft and passengers. Changi Airport with a reputation of being the best airport in the world must not allow the presence of touts within its premises. Hence the passing of this Amendment Bill is timely to deter the touts from pursuing their illegal activities. I hope more police enforcement action will be taken against these touts.

Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I would have supported this Bill if it had been two separate Bills.

Sir, if the problem is touting, there should be a different Bill. Perhaps if we can call it the Anti-Touting Bill, I would support it all the way.

Sir, Singapore has seen beggars on the streets which are not very flattering of Singapore. They have been removed and it is a good thing. At this stage, the problem is touting. I am all for removing the touts from our streets. Sir, of course, we want more tourists to come because tourism is a big foreign exchange earner for Singapore. So not only the authorities should make Singapore a most welcome place for our visitors but I think every citizen has a role to play. In fact, in certain countries private citizens welcome visitors to their homes. I hope the Singapore people will start such a precedent, inviting visitors to their homes to see our Asian way of life.

Sir, to increase the penalties for offences of so-called unlawful assemblies and processions, I think we in the Opposition are very apprehensive. How do you define an assembly, and how do you define a procession? Sir, I have personal experience of this. Whenever we have a function in our Constituency, whether it is a variety show or whether it is a dinner or any social function, sometimes we get a spontaneous support from the ground in the form of "kompang" groups. They say, "We will welcome you". They start at 50 metres from the point of assembly to welcome you. Strictly, in law, it can be defined as a procession to welcome an MP towards the place where they are having dinner or whether they are having some kind of a variety show. So do we need to get a licence for this kind of a function? Or even in a big field, in a stadium, sometimes we get welcoming groups at the entrance to lead us in. Technically it is an assembly. If the authorities want to be nasty they could arrest us and put us in the police station for questioning, and detain us there for two to three hours, and at the end of the day they will say, "All right, we will let you off." But the damage has already been done.

Mr S. Chandra Das: Have you been arrested?

Mr Chiam See Tong: Well, I am speaking from experience. Unfortunately you were not at the receiving end.

So, like the previous Bill, I would say that there should be a schedule to exempt certain types of so-called assemblies from this Act. For example, at a dinner or a social function, where the main guest is received 20 yards away from the main function, it should not be necessary for them to get a permit for that.

Sir, again, I think the penalties are really too harsh. The Government knows that and so they quietly change the name from the Minor Offences Act to a different name. Because once you slap a fine of $2,000 and above, it is no longer a minor offence.

Sir, I am all for order, especially we in Singapore are living in a crowded place. In fact, in Japan one of the objects of the education system is to teach their citizens to live in crowded places. They always have to think of their neighbours. I have had two Japanese families who were my neighbours, and I can verify that. They were most considerate. I do not know whether it was out of thrift or out of consideration for their neighbours but I notice that their air-conditioning unit which was close to our premises was always switched off at an early hour. It could be in consideration of their neighbours.

An hon. Member: Too Cold.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I think Singaporeans should be taught to be aware that there are neighbours, people around them. They must be constantly made aware of that fact. Therefore, I am all for reducing noise. Especially in private estates where one prevalent noise nuisance is from uncontrolled dogs. They bark at every movement. Therefore, if the section on assembly were to be removed from the Bill, I would support all the provisions in respect of anti-touting. But in respect of assembly and in respect of procession, I think we in the Opposition are certainly very apprehensive. Therefore, regrettably, Sir, I am unable to support this Bill.

Mr Philip Tan Tee Yong (Paya Lebar): Sir, I rise to support this amendment and I want to speak particularly on one or two points with regard to touting.

From feedback and personal observations, touting along the shopping belt has become, first, a public nuisance. Whether you are a tourist or Singaporean, such pesterings by touts are very disturbing to your otherwise pleasant walk. Second, touting has become a danger to personal safety. Touts are usually well organized and as an individual there is no way you can fight them on your own. Shopping should be free from fears of such dangers. The third point is that touting has a negative aspect to the tourist trade. I have always reminded myself and I think I want to remind Singaporeans as well that we do not have exotic beaches and undulating and pleasant countryside that can attract tourists. Shopping is one of the main attractions. Shopping is an artificial yet fragile creation of our economic imagination. We have done well in the tourist trade and it took us years to build up to this lucrative stage. It would only take us a short time to destroy it. Touting is one element which can destroy it. I am convinced that this amendment is a wise move in the right direction.

Dr Arthur Beng Kian Lam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support this Bill. Sir, there are three main aspects to this Bill. Firstly, touting; secondly, assembly and, thirdly, that of noise pollution.

Sir, much has been said about touting and the figures just go to show how important it is that we maintain Singapore as a safe tourist destination. Tourism contributes about 15% to our gross domestic product. That goes to say a lot.

Sir, I next turn to the right of assembly. Much has been said about this. The Senior Minister of State has given us statistics to show the seriousness of the problem arising from seven in 1986, to 16 in 1987 and to 22 in 1988. What is important for us to realize is the tential for mus to realize is the potential for mischief in an assembly. So it is perfectly correct that the Minister should be vested with this authority. No one is prevented from having assemblies. All he needs to do is to apply for a permit and it will be duly processed.

Sir, I would next like to turn to the problem of noise pollution. Sir, in a densely populated country like Singapore, it is important that we learn to live considerately. Noise pollution is now becoming an increasing nuisance. Inconsiderate noise, whether from expensive hi-fi sets or construction sites, is equally disturbing. It affects our children's study and, of course, rest for all of us. Section 13(b) now provides for an additional recourse for the person who is suffering from noise nuisance. He can take out a Magistrate's Court order to make sure that he does not have to repeatedly suffer this offence.

Sir, I support this motion.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, may I be allowed to ask some questions of the Minister? These statistics have been repeated by the Member for Fengshan. I believe he says that there were seven illegal processions in 1986, in 1987 there were 16, and in 1988 there were 22. I want to know from the Minister how many permits for procession or assembly had been applied during these three years. He has given us arbitrary figures of seven, 16, 22. But we actually want to know the percentage out of the total number of applications.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I must, first of all, thank all the Members who rose in support, unqualified support, of this Bill. Some of them have raised questions. I will try to answer these questions.

Mr Zulkifli asked whether the Bill will affect sales promoters in department stores and door-to-door salesmen. It is not the intention of this amendment to act against door-to-door salesmen or in-store promoters. The offence of touting only relates to soliciting in a public road, public place or place of public resort, as spelt out in the Act. It would not affect legitimate bona fide businessman or salesman carrying out his business in his own private premises, making sales approaches to his customers in his premises. It will certainly not affect promoters in department stores. Will it affect door-to-door salesmen? It is also not the intention to deal with door-to-door salesmen. Because in most instances if a householder feels that a door-to-door salesman is getting too aggressive, he can easily close the door and therein the matter ends. But, of course, if you come across one of those cartoon strip-type of salesman who is indeed very nasty and persistent and is carrying out his activities on a public road, then the law can be applied. But I should say that this will be very rare.

Mr Zulkifli also asked whether enhanced penalties are sufficient. I think, to a large extent, Dr Wong Kwei Cheong has provided the answer in the sense that since the Bill was first read in Parliament on the 19th January and publicized the following day, there has been a significant decline in the number of touting incidents along Orchard Road, in particular. Police have told me that between 1st and the 19th January, there were 80 touts arrested. But from 20th January to 7th February, that is after the Bill was first read in Parliament and then publicized, the number dropped to 10 only. So it would seem that this enhanced penalty has a deterrent effect.

Dr Wong asked whether Government will amend the Trade Marks Act to deter vendors of counterfeit goods. In my reply to his question for oral answer, I assured him that this matter is indeed being looked into. The Ministry of Law is indeed looking into amending the Trade Marks Act to enhance the penalty for people who sell counterfeit goods or make these counterfeit goods.

Sir, I now turn to the Non-Constituency Member, Dr Lee Siew-Choh. I am afraid Dr Lee Siew-Choh has spent the better part of his speech touting counterfeit ideas. And indeed if he is not careful about his practice of touting such counterfeit ideas, he may well end up facing heavier penalties out there on the street, instead of in this Chamber. Why is he touting counterfeit ideas? He says that the Government is trying to smuggle in provisions to restrict, to suppress Opposition political parties. I have already said in my Second Reading speech that nearly all the provisions in this amendment Bill concerning assemblies and provisions are not new. They are all in the existing Minor Offences Act. The only new provision is the creation of an offence for people who knowingly participate in an illegal assembly or procession. So there is no question of trying to smuggle in something under the guise of taking action against touts. It is merely to update the provisions.

He says that this Bill is against the Constitution, citing Article 14 of the Constitution - the rights of Singaporeans to participate in an assembly. I think Dr Lee is being unfair to Members of this House. He has not read out the entire Article 14 for the Members of this House. He did say, yes, restriction only for matters of national security. But if he had only read further down the particular Article, he would have discovered what I have said in my Second Reading speech as the reason for acting against organizers and participants of illegal assemblies and processions.

Sir, I would like now to refer Members to Article 14 of the Constitution. Article 14(1)(b) says:

'all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms;' But Article 14(2)(a) says very clearly, unambiguously:

'(2) Parliament may by law impose

(a) on the rights conferred by paragraph (a) of clause (1), such restrictions as it deems necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament ...'.

So the Constitution has clearly stated that Parliament may impose restriction on this right to assemble taking into account the necessity to maintain public order. So where is this contradiction with the Constitution? I think Dr Lee should apologize for saying that the Government is trying to enact a law which is unconstitutional. It is clearly not the case.

Next, he went on to say that under the existing Minor Offences Act, the Police have the power to make rules and regulations regarding assemblies and processions, and now the power is given to the Minister and there is a political intention behind it. It is another example of how he is trying to mislead Members in this House. Because if he reads the appropriate section of the existing Minor Offences Act, he would have seen very clearly that Part II governing general rules for assemblies and processions states very clearly, Sir, and I quote section 5(1):

'The Commissioner of Police may, subject to the approval of the Minister, make general rules ... [governing assemblies and processions]' The Commissioner of Police does not make rules in isolation, on his own. He does not have the absolute discretion that Dr Lee is talking about. All along, since this Act was enacted more than 30 years ago, the Minister has the power to make rules. It was only delegated to the Commissioner of Police to make the rules with the approval of the Minister. So there is no additional powers being given to the Minister and there are no additional powers being smuggled into our legal system under the guise of acting against touts.

He gave another example of Singapore as a police state by saying that with the amendment, any police officer, including a junior police officer, can enter into premises to remove equipment causing noise nuisance. I would like to ask Dr Lee whether he has read the existing Minor Offences Act. Because this is nothing new. It has been all along in the Minor Offences Act that any police officer has this power; nothing new. We are not giving the police any more powers than they already have under the current Act.

Both Dr Lee and Mr Chiam have said that the penalties are too harsh. Penalties have been arrived at with the idea of trying to deter would-be offenders. You must have penalties that are sufficiently severe to deter people. You look at the numbers of illegal processions that had been carried out in the last three years. Obviously, existing penalties are inadequate. So we have to revise these penalties. Penalties are fixed to deter offenders. You cannot just fix penalties on the basis of cost of living and adjust it accordingly.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, may I be allowed to clarify my question. I am not talking about reduction of the value of money. You have quoted us certain figures and I want to know what is the percentage of the actual applications. It may be only 2% or even 0.1%. So where is the nuisance? There is hardly any nuisance at all. You cannot give an arbitrary figure of just 22 out of nowhere. You must have a comparison, isn't it?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, I have given the House the number of illegal processions. There had been a lot of other processions or assemblies including rallies, some of which were organized by the Member for Potong Pasir's political party. All these would have been approved. What is the percentage, I do not have the figures on the number of approval in the last three years. But let me say, Sir, that it is not important what this percentage is today. What is important is that any illegal assembly or procession results in unnecessary congestion, annoyance and disruption to the life of the community. Is the Member for Potong Pasir suggesting that we do nothing about the penalties, We do nothing about these rules and wait until a situation where our roads are completely choked and the normal community life cannot proceed as a result of all these illegal assemblies and processions before we do anything? I do not subscribe to that idea. I think we have to act before the situation deteriorates.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Can I be allowed to clarify?

Mr Speaker: Can you sit down, please. The Minister is not giving way.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, I would like to take up this point made by both Dr Lee and Mr Chiam. Why do you want to regulate assemblies and processions? Mr Chiam says that there is no harm done. A spontaneous procession was organized to welcome him. A kompang group arrived from some distant place by a lorry spontaneously to welcome him and lead him in a procession of 40-50 metres. If it is a procession, it is a procession. Whether it is spontaneous or planned in advance is irrelevant. All the law requires is that if you want to have a procession, put in an application. The police will consider. If indeed your procession is going to be 50 metres into a stadium entrance and is not going to result in any inconvenience or annoyance to the public, the police can consider. All it requires is that you apply. Is that so onerous?

Opposition political parties have held many processions, rallies and forums with the approval of the police. And at some of these forums and rallies, speakers have spoken up in strong criticism against the Government, sometimes using rather vitriolic language. This has not stopped the police from approving such applications. The Member says that this is a measure to suppress Opposition political activities. But let me remind Members of this House that these rules on assemblies and processions are applied equally to both Government MPs and also Opposition MPs. There have been cases in the past where organizations supported by the PAP MPs have applied for permits to hold processions and these applications have been rejected. If the Member for Potong Pasir doubts my word, he has only to consult Mr Chandra Das, the Member for Cheng San GRC. Mr Das can tell him his experience of having had some of his applications rejected. If Mr Chiam still has any doubts, he may want to consult Dr Richard Hu, the Minister for Finance. He also has had experience when some applications of his grassroots organizations were rejected. So there is nothing in the Bill which says that the police will only grant permits to Government MPs. They are all treated fairly.

As for the rules that they have formulated, may I remind the Member that these rules were formulated since the 1960s. They will use these rules to assess the merits of the application. And if it complies with the police requirements, permits can be given.

Sir, in summary, I would say that this Bill, despite what Dr Lee has said, is directed at this problem of touting. The other changes are updating changes and there are no new powers given to the Minister or to the Government.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, may I point out to the Minister the misinformation he has given to the House? He says that there is nothing new in the provisions. I just want to remind him, in clause 6, what was previously written down as "Commissioner of Police and the Deputy Commissioner of Police", the word is now "Minister". Therefore, there is a big difference. A Minister deals with political affairs whereas the Commissioner and the Deputy Commissioner of Police deal with ordinary administrative affairs.

The other thing is that he says I must apologize for the interpretation of Article 4. Who is he to say that. Is he a judge? These kinds of things can only be interpreted by a judge. I say there is a violation. He says no. Let it be. Let the judge decide.

And again he says there is no change. The whole of this old section has been deleted and they have put in a new section. Previously, the section says "Deputy Commissioner of Police" who could make an order. Now it says "any police officer". Therefore, all these are new things which are different from what they were before. And he has not been giving us the correct information. I just want to point that out.

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Mr Speaker, Sir, if Dr Lee has any doubt as to the constitutionality of this Bill, he can always test it. If he wants a judge to judge it, he can always bring it to a test and he knows how to bring it to a test.

As I said before, the existing Act is very clear. All the rules governing assemblies and processions are made by the Commissioner of Police with the approval of the Minister. And this, I hope Dr Lee will read this in the proper context, must mean that everything else has to meet with the approval of the Minister. Therefore, nothing is new in this Bill except for those areas where I have touched on creation of new offences, replacement of an entire section with a new section to create this offence of touting.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. [Dr Lee Boon Yang].

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Clauses 1 to 26 -

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: May I say something, Sir, concerning these clauses?

The Chairman: Yes.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: There is this new definition of "public place" in clause 4. What is a public place? Could it be a party headquarters, branches, offices, where someone from the public goes on? Would that be called a public place? And who knows, we have had a lot of experience of police agents going into Opposition offices to cause disturbances. They are all agent provocateurs, all ready to provide the excuse for the Government to take action. Could the Minister explain, please?

Dr Lee Boon Yang: Sir, "public place" as defined in this Bill is quite clearly stated. If Dr Lee has any doubts, he should read the definition. If his party branch or his party headquarters is open to free access to the members of the public at any time, then of course it is a public place. But if members of the public do not have free access to his party branch or his party HQ, then I would say it does not fall under the ambit of this definition.

Dr Lee Siew-Choh: Sir, he has not explained. He has confused me more!

Clauses 1 to 26 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.