PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENTS (AMENDMENT) BILL

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

Order for Second Reading read.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Introduction

Sir, the Public Entertainments Act plays an important role in maintaining law and order and public safety, as well as safeguarding public morality and decency. The Act regulates the different forms of entertainment to which the public has access, ensuring that the entertainment is not carried out, for example, in places not suitable to its nature, or with little or no regard for public safety, or in a manner that is indecent, immoral, offensive, subversive or improper.

We do not, for instance, allow discos and nightclubs to be set up within residential estates, or game centres to be set up in HDB shophouses. We also ensure that the operators of entertainment outlets and organisers of events, such as rock concerts, take proper and adequate crowd control measures to ensure public safety.

The Act was last amended in 1979 to ensure its relevancy. MHA is now proposing several amendments to the Act to improve the administration of public entertainment licences. Essentially, these amendments will encourage licensees to exercise self-discipline whilst making it easier and more convenient for businesses to apply for and renew their public entertainment licences. Changes are also proposed to update the scope and penalties of the Act.

Demerit Point System

Sir, first, let me touch on the demerit point system. Police will be introducing a demerit point system in the administration of public entertainment licences of permanent establishments such as computer games centres, pubs and discos. Conceptually, the demerit point system will be similar to the Road Traffic Driver Improvement Points System (DIPS). Under this system, Police will adopt a graduated enforcement approach against licensees for infringing any licensing conditions. Licensees would be given demerit points for breaching any licensing conditions. Depending on the number of demerit points accumulated, appropriate action would be taken against the licensee. This can range from curtailing the operating hours of the licensee's business, or requiring the licensee to put up a security deposit. When the licensee accumulates the maximum number of points, which will be prescribed in the rules, the licensing officer can cancel the PE licence and forfeit the security deposit. Details of the demerit point system will be contained in the rules, which will be published in due course.

The new demerit point system improves the administration of licences in that a licensee would know the number of demerit points that he accumulates for breaching any licensing conditions. He also knows that if he were to breach any licensing condition again, he would face tougher actions. Hence, there is greater transparency in the administration of licences compared to the current system. Currently, the licensee does not know with certainty what he would face if he were to breach a licensing condition. He could, for example, receive a warning, have his licence suspended or cancelled, or face court prosecution.

Indeed, the new demerit point system provides early warning for minor breaches and encourages the licensee to exercise self-discipline. Each time the knot is tightened, he would have prior notice that action is contemplated against him. He would then have an opportunity to explain why such action should not be taken. Further, the licensee can appeal to the Minister if his explanation is rejected.

Clauses 8, 9, 11, 12 and 14 of the Bill make the necessary amendments to the Act to put in place the framework for a demerit point system and related procedures.

The licensing officer would still retain the powers, as provided under section 14(1) of the existing Act, to suspend or cancel a licence immediately, if the situation calls for it. An example would be where the public entertainment is wholly or in part indecent, immoral, offensive, subversive or improper.

The Act would also be amended to give the licensing officer discretion to cancel or suspend a licence if he is satisfied that the licensee is no longer fit and proper to hold the licence. What is contemplated here is where a licensee is convicted of a serious criminal offence during the term of his licence, such as drug-related offences, serious sexual offences and violent criminal offences. This is to safeguard public interest.

Improving the Administration of PE Licences Validity Period of Licences and Renewal of Licences

Sir, this Bill also introduces changes to the validity period of public entertainment licences to make it easier and more convenient for businesses. Clause 6 of the Bill amends section 8 to remove the maximum validity period of 12 months for a licence. Clause 7 amends section 9 to remove the requirement for the renewal of a licence to be treated as a fresh licence application. Hence, the new approach will allow the licensing officer to issue licences with longer validity periods exceeding 12 months, as well as renew licences without the need for licensees to submit fresh applications. These changes will not only simplify the administration of public entertainment licences but also reduce business costs for licensees.

Consequently, clause 10 of the Bill amends section 13 to allow the licensing officer to refuse the renewal of a licence. It also provides an avenue for the licensee to appeal to the Minister against the refusal of the licensing officer to renew his licence.

Sir, let me now move on to the other amendments in the Bill.

Composition of Offences

Currently all offenders under the Act or rules either receive a police warning or are prosecuted in court even if the licence is cancelled or suspended. This rigid approach is not satisfactory. Why? Because some cases are not serious enough for Police to charge the offender in Court but letting the offender off with just a warning is inadequate. To deal with minor breaches more effectively and expediently, clause 14 inserts a new section 18B to empower the licensing officer to compound offences under the Act or rules. For example, licensees who fail to display their licence prominently or breach licensing conditions, may be offered composition fines instead of being charged and prosecuted in Court. The amendment gives the licensing officer the flexibility to deal with minor offences quickly. Offences to be made compoundable would be prescribed in the rules.

Updating the Scope of the PE Act

Clauses 4 and 16 of the Bill seek to amend the Act by transferring the definitions of "public entertainment", "film" and "pin table" from section 2 to a new Schedule to the Act. Under the new subsections 2(2) and 2(3), the Minister would be empowered to amend, add to or vary the Schedule by order published in the Gazette, which will be presented to Parliament. This approach provides the necessary flexibility to the Ministry to update the definition of "public entertainment" in the Act to keep up with latest developments in the public entertainment industry.

The definition of "public entertainment" as specified in the Schedule has also been updated. Activities that are already covered in other Acts, for example, the display of fireworks, which is regulated under the Dangerous Fireworks Act, have been removed. Activities that no longer pose a threat to public order, such as charitable distributions, auctions and sales of goods for philanthropic or charitable purposes, garden parties, and trade fairs have also been removed. This will make it more convenient for organisations and businesses to conduct these activities, as they would no longer need to apply for a PE licence.

The revised definition of "public entertainment" will expressly include "computer games centre" and "amusement centre" to remove any doubt that a licence is required under the Act for such forms of public entertainment. On the other hand, obsolete provisions such as "exhibitions of abnormal persons" will be removed. Exempting Statutory Bodies from the PE Act

Paragraph 3(e) of the proposed Schedule to the Act seeks to make it clear that public entertainment provided by or under the auspices of the statutory bodies listed in the Schedule are exempted from applying for a PE licence. There is no need for the licensing officer to license the activities provided by statutory bodies as they are already subject to the supervision of their respective parent Ministries. The Schedule sets out a list drawn up in consultation with the parent Ministries of 38 statutory bodies. These are statutory bodies which provide public entertainment from time to time.

Security Deposit for Ad-Hoc Licences

Currently, the licensing officer is unable to forfeit the security deposits imposed on ad hoc licences for one-off events, for example, rock concerts, even if there is an infringement, as the infringement is usually detected or reported after the event is over and when the licence has already lapsed. To overcome this problem, clause 9 of the Bill inserts a new subsection 11(4)(c) to empower the licensing officer to forfeit the security deposit, even after the licence has lapsed, if the public entertainment was provided in contravention of the Act.

Increase in Penalties

Currently, the maximum fine for offences under the Act is $5,000. This was last revised in 1979. Clause 13 of the Bill amends section 18(1) to increase the maximum fine to $10,000 to ensure that deterrence remains effective. The revision would give the Courts the discretion to impose a higher penalty where appropriate.

Change of Name

Finally, clause 3 of the Bill seeks to amend the title of the Act from "Public Entertainments Act" to "Public Entertainment and Meetings Act". The change in name is to reflect more accurately the scope of the Act, which also includes public meetings like rallies, talks and forums.

Exempting Other Activities via Exemption Orders

Besides these amendments to the Public Entertainments Act, MHA has also reviewed other areas relating to the licensing of public entertainment.

It has decided to exempt from the ambit of the Act, certain activities, such as shows for children, fashion shows, and busking, subject to conditions that safeguard law and order, public morality and safety. Community activities, such as dance performances, karaoke singing and magic shows, organised by or on behalf of the elected Member of Parliament in his constituency, would also be exempted. To safeguard law and order, public morality and safety, these activities will similarly be subject to conditions such as no vulgar or obscene gestures or remarks being made by any of the performers and the performers are not to be indecently attired. These changes will be effected by way of exemption orders and do not require amendments to the Public Entertainments Act. Police will announce the details in due course.

Finally, Sir, the Police is studying the feasibility of setting up a One-Stop Licensing Centre to coordinate the processing of licence applications, so that businesses need to go to only one place to apply for all the licences required to set up an entertainment outlet.

Mr Speaker, Sir, as society evolves, people's aspirations change. MHA will continue to regularly review the Act from time to time to ensure its relevancy.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr Goh Choon Kang: (In Mandarin): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Amendment Bill moved by Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee.

With the passing of this Bill, the existing Public Entertainments Act will become the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act. A notable amendment is in new section 14A, that is, the demerit point system.

This demerit point system is similar to the one applicable to our driving licence. From the social point of view, this can be said to be very special, because under the Bill, there will be an element of self-discipline for those licensees to conduct themselves in accordance with the law. I think this is an indication of the maturity of our society.

I also notice that the amendment to the Bill does not take away the power of the police to revoke any licence whenever necessary. The power still remains. In the case of any performance, which is obscene, vulgar or immoral, or touching on the racial or religious sensitivity in Singapore, the police reserves the right to revoke the licence in keeping with the interest of the public. I think this is right and proper.

The Amendment Bill, in my view, will not have much impact on commercial activities. But I feel that the amendments may affect some of the non-commercial activities. For example, I have in mind some of the customs and traditional practices of the Chinese community, particularly the seventh-moon festival or the Hungry Ghost Festival. This new Amendment Bill may have some impact on them. We know that the Hungry Ghost Festival is a kind of gathering for the Chinese community which incorporates some kind of charitable activities, like the auction of auspicious articles with the proceeds going to charitable causes. Most of these activities would include getai (song performances), puppet shows or even traditional provincial operas. In his Second Reading speech, the Minister of State mentioned that activities such as the auctions at the Hungry Ghost Festival may be exempted from the Act. In other words, the organisers do not need to apply for a licence to conduct auctions. I think it is a piece of good news for the Chinese community. But it is not very clear whether the staging of getai, puppet show or traditional provincial opera in connection with the Hungry Ghost Festival will also be similarly exempted.

According to the Schedule, the so-called "public entertainment" is defined very widely to include performances such as drama, singing, music, dancing. All these come within the definition of "public entertainment" and therefore licences are required. So my question is whether getai, puppet shows, etc, could be exempted. I hope that the Minister of State could clarify on this.

During the Hungry Ghost Festival or Seventh Moon Festival, activities are usually conducted within the densely-populated HDB estates. Generally speaking, the organisers of such activities will have to apply for permission from the town council or the HDB to make use of the car park or the vacant land for the conduct of such activities. In the past, they also had to apply to the police for a public entertainment licence as well. Now, they do not have to do so. So I think it is a good way to help them. If we can consider such activities are traditional in nature and exempt them from having to apply for a public entertainment licence, it will be a great convenience to the organisers. I hope the Minister of State will consider my suggestion.

Mr Simon Tay: Mr Speaker, Sir, I want to start by welcoming some of the changes that the Minister of State has announced and emphasised in reading the Bill.

The demerit point system seems to me to be a good one to enhance self-discipline and transparency for the permanent establishments. When the Minister of State was discussing discos, pubs and entertainment centres, I was more concerned about artistic performances and political and public talks which are also covered under the Act. I think the Public Entertainments Act (PEA) may be covering in that sense too many types of different entertainments of very diverse and different character. For while I am sometimes entertained by public political speeches, sometimes in this House too, it is clearly a very different form of enjoyment from a pub or disco. And I wonder whether the system and the personnel who can administer one are really suitable to administer both and all types of entertainments and meetings.

The amendments then go on to remove some activities from the list that require licensing. It is however widening the title to reflect their work brings in these political meetings under the Schedule (I believe it is paragraph 2(m) "any play-reading, recital, lecture, talk, address, debate or discussion"). I think in that sense, we have probably to consider if the time may have come for us to have separate schemes and personnel to distinguish between entertainments, such as discos and meetings, and these public talks and artistic performances. There has been controversy and change in the administration of the Public Entertainments Act of late concerning these areas.

Allow me to quickly point out four examples of this controversy and change. First, the Government has seen fit to establish a Speakers' Corner. Second, as clarified in the last sitting of Parliament, elected Opposition MPs from now are allowed to speak at community functions in their own constituencies and, I believe if I have heard the Minister of State correctly, that they can now sing at these meetings too without real problems. And both of these measures increase the freedom of people to speak in public. The third and fourth examples go the other direction. Recently, it was reported that a group of gay and lesbian Singaporeans wanted to organise a public forum in Singapore, but was refused. And fourth, and more recently, the performance of the play "Talaq" by the civic group Agni Kootthu was refused. This is despite an initial approval by the National Arts Council. In these latter two examples, the licensing authority had used the PEA to restrict freedom of speech. These trends may seem contradictory to some.

On what basis should we allow or restrict freedom of speech and assembly under this Act? A process should govern the decision making. Article 14 of the Constitution enshrines the right of Singapore citizens to speak freely and to assemble peaceably in public. These rights are not absolute, of course. The right to assembly can be restricted in the interest of security and public order, which the Minister of State has emphasised. But how do we decide when security and public order are at stake? Who decides? The Government, of course, is the primary actor. It should not, however, in my view, be the only one. To balance our freedom to speak, with due concerns of security and public order, we must have a good reading of public opinion. After all, it is not just what somebody might say, but how it is said and, most importantly, how people react to the speech.

The example of the play "Talaq" points to the diversity of opinions among Singaporeans. The play had been performed before. It attracted some controversy and attention. Similarly, in the past, when the licence was permitted for "M Butterfly" with a nude male figure on stage, this also attracted some controversy, perhaps a little curiosity too. But none of these things led to violence or public disorder and disturbance. Instead, we have actually benefited from the discussion of the issues that ensued. Even in the denial of the licence to have a forum on gays and lesbians, there was a spirited debate, both for and against, in the Forum pages of the Straits Times. And I believe such discussion is healthy in a democracy.

It therefore has disturbed some people in Singapore to hear how decisions are made - one moment allowed, another moment disallowed. And it is hard to see, it is hard to be assured that the state's view really reflects the majority view or whether it reflects the objections of really a vocal minority. It should therefore be welcomed to have a one-stop centre for licensing, as the Minister of State says the police will now consider. However, one should guard against a one-stop centre becoming a place to stop one. That is to say, we put such an emphasis on a one-stop centre to ensure that this centre is truly reflective of the broad society and decisions therefore need to be more transparent. They cannot be left to a policeman or bureaucrat sitting by himself in the isolation of his office. Nor can a decision be captured by a particular interest. Otherwise, we risk acting on each and every special sensitivity.

Every one has its sensitivities - every ethnic group, every religious group, political views, animal rights, gay activists, women's groups, whatever. We cannot make our decisions as an accumulation and aggregate of all these prejudices. We have to decide for the broad majority and to allow diversity. Because public debate and artistic performances, in particular, will almost always challenge the ideas that some people will hold. It provokes us to think, and that is good. So long as the line is that we provoke thought rather than violence and disorder. In this sense, my first suggestion is that we must include citizens in the decision-making about public entertainment licences. We should have an advisory panel for the Public Entertainments Act. If we want to cover an even wider array of activities, it is critical to have expertise and a broad and diverse range of opinions, not captured by any minority interest. The Government, of course, in the end will have to make the decision after hearing the different views. But it should do so after hearing all sides and weighing the overall interest of the wider society.

My second suggestion, Sir, is that the Government should use its powers to impose special conditions for the approval wisely. It does this already. But I want to point out that it may continue to have performances in form or even warn the respective audience beforehand of its contents, and then those who may be offended simply need not attend. These suggestions are not new. They are in line with the practice of censorship of films and publications in Singapore. Under the Ministry of Information and the Arts, a panel of citizens gives advice to the bureaucrats on what to censor and gives them a good sense of the pulse of the people of Singapore. And so we have "RA" classification, advisory statement of the content, etc. And in this sense, my suggestions on this Bill are simply to bring it into line with the practices on film and other areas.

My third suggestion, Sir, relates to the Speakers' Corner. This experiment has been running for some months now. There have not been, to my knowledge, any breaches in security or public order and I do not believe there have been any other breaches of law, such as defamation. In this regard, the Speakers' Corner should be seen as a success. People have spoken and nothing has caught fire. Yet, there are also concerns that the success of the Speakers' Corner will be limited, in part this is because of the venue and the means of communication. In our tropical city, both weather and traffic noise work against an open air venue where microphones are not allowed. I therefore ask the Ministry to consider designating an indoor venue for a second Speakers' Corner with a speaker system to support the speakers.

Members of the civic society group, the Roundtable, of which I am one, first proposed free speech venues with a variety of places and types. When the Government took up this idea, it only licensed Hong Lim Park. This is because it is a historical site and I have got nothing against it. But I do hope the Government will review the scheme to add more supportive venues.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to express my distaste for this Bill. But may I make it clear that my objections do not flow from the requirement for proper licensing and regulation of animal circuses and those who operate pin tables and games of chance. My objections to this Bill and, indeed, to the main Act itself, stem from the fact that the main Act and this Bill make a mockery of our Constitution in that, as Mr Simon Tay has pointed out, it seeks to include public meetings and to lump them together with circuses and exhibitions of animals and operations of games of chance, and what else.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I have been asked several times by foreign correspondents and visitors whether I did not think that the Government was liberalising its restrictions on the freedom of speech, and my answer has always been "No", and they then wonder why I take this view.

This Bill confirms my view. One would have thought that the Government might have considered that the time has now come to remove the restrictions on public meetings, talks and lectures. But no, it seeks to include public meetings, lectures and talks in this total control over any form of public expression in this country. It makes, as I have said, a mockery of the constitutional right expressed by Article 14 of our Constitution.

Mr Simon Tay would appear to suggest that there should be a separate scheme for meetings and talks. I do not agree with that. I am saying the time has now come to lift completely, and, I repeat, to lift completely any restrictions on public meetings and talks or lectures of a serious nature and allow complete freedom of speech, as is required by the Constitution. That is why I felt very unhappy when I saw this Public Entertainments (Amendment) Bill.

The Government, in spite of all its avowed statements that there was freedom of speech, freedom of expression in Singapore, the Deputy Prime Minister telling the BBC that anyone is free to debate in Singapore, they still see fit to introduce a Bill tightening further, if I may say, the restrictions on meetings of a serious nature.

I say it makes a mockery of our Constitution. I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, that the Public Entertainments Act violates Article 14(1)(a) of the Constitution. If you look at Article 14(1)(a), Mr Speaker, Sir, what do you find? "Every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression." May I repeat: "Every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression." However, it continues, by Article 14(2)(a), to give Parliament the right to impose "such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof." I do not wish to read the rest of it, but the operative part of this is, to impose "such restrictions as it considers necessary". It does not say that you can abrogate the right of the citizen. The right of the citizen must remain.

By requiring the citizen to first go and obtain a licence from a police officer is to take away his right under the Constitution. If one has to obtain a licence, then one cannot truthfully say that one has the right. His right is made dependent on the whim of the officer to whom he has to make the application. It is no longer a right. It becomes a licence granted by the Government, and not a right of the citizen.

So, I say, Sir, that the Act itself is a complete negation of Article 14(1)(a) of our Constitution. And this Act should have been amended, once the Constitution was brought into force, to take out of the Public Entertainments Act the provisions relating to meetings, lectures, talks of a serious nature, and, particularly, meetings organised by registered political parties. That should have been done, but was not done.

May I remind the Minister and the Government that the Constitution itself enjoins, requires the Government to modify the law so as to accord with the right given by the Constitution. But nothing was done to modify the law, and the total ban on public expression in the form of meetings and talks was continued. So, I say, Mr Speaker, Sir, the whole thing is a mockery of the Constitution.

If you look at section 13 of the parent Act, what do you find, Mr Speaker, Sir? It reads: "The licensing officer may, in his discretion, refuse any application for a licence." There you have it. The Act says, forget about the Constitution. We can refuse any application for a licence to speak and we can stop anyone speaking out in public. One would have thought that, in the Amendment Bill, perhaps an attempt would have been made to spell out clearly the grounds on which the licensing officer may refuse the application. Instead of that, this carte blanche freedom is continued.

I suggest that perhaps we should consider now changing the designation of the officer as "Licensing Officer" to "Licensing Czar" under the Government. That perhaps will explain clearly that the Government continues to hold unrestricted control over the right of anyone to speak in public.

If you look at section 14 of the parent Act, it again gives this "licensing czar" grounds to cancel or suspend any licence without again tying him down. I say this because, if you look at section 14(1)(d), you will find the words "If it is contrary to the public interest." So this official is given the authority to decide what is the public interest. But the Constitution says clearly, in no uncertain terms, that it is in the public interest that every citizen should have the right of freedom of expression without any restriction put upon it, except in the very limited areas specified under the Constitution. And what is more, the Act did not provide an appeal to the courts against any decision and this is continued in the Bill that is now before us.

On a matter so important as the right of citizens to speak up, should not the decision be left to the court rather than to the official, and from him to the Minister? I mentioned not very long ago that the licensing officer, in a case where we were charged with violating the Public Entertainments Act, said on oath in the witness stand that applications from political parties are automatically referred to the Minister. The decision is taken out of his hands and the Minister decides whether it should be granted or not. If that is the case, what on earth will be served by allowing the political party to appeal to the Minister? He is asked to review his own decision, not the decision of the licensing officer?

If the Government is sincere in its oft-stated desire to invite our citizens to

speak up, there should have been an opportunity for the citizen to take his case to the court so that the court may decide whether the right under the Constitution is being violated by the decision of the Minister. I would seriously urge the Ministry to refer the whole Act, not just the Bill, to the Constitutional Court for an opinion whether the Act and the scheme of licensing provided under the Act violate Article 14(1) of the Constitution. I see that the Minister for Home Affairs laughs at my suggestion that it should be referred to the Constitutional Court. That is what I always have had when I suggest that it be referred to the court. It shows very little respect for the court. And please do not tell me in reply that I can always take it up to the court. If the Government is accountable to the people, as it says it is an accountable Government and it is transparent in its decision-making, it would immediately, upon a complaint that any legislation violates the Constitution, refer it to the Constitutional Court. So please act responsibly as the Government is accountable to the people and not laugh away at any suggestion that we should refer the matter to the court.

May I commend to the Ministry that if they do not wish to refer the Bill, along with the Act, to the Constitutional Court, it should now withdraw this Bill and reconsider whether it should proceed with the Bill as at present before the House. I would ask the Ministry to consider taking out completely from the Bill sub-paragraph (m) in the Schedule which defines "public entertainment". Sub-paragraph (m), of course, relates to play-reading, recital, lecture, talk, address debate or discussion. And introduce in this Bill, other provisions that require not the applicant to get a licence but require the police to object for grounds stated to any intention on the part of any political party or any party or association to hold a public meeting or talk. May I ask what is the objection, and I do want a serious answer to this. What is your objection to a public meeting in a private closed place like a hotel or somebody's house or building? One can understand some objection if it is to be on a public street or in a public area, but what is the objection to a meeting in a closed room where the public is invited to attend? The OSC, of which I am Chairman, has held two forums. True, we got licences, but after having to satisfy the licensing officer that we were not going to be talking about subversion, and we were only given the licence almost at the last minute.

I say, Sir, that if this Government wishes to show itself as law-abiding and respects the Constitution, it should take away this requirement for the licence and bring in provisions to require the police to lodge any objections with a Magistrate to any proposed meeting of which the applicant should give three weeks' notice before the meeting and then the Magistrate or some officer, hearing both sides, decides whether the meeting should be allowed or not. That would accord with the Constitution and would prove to the world that this Government is serious when it says that it wishes to promote public debate and discussion by its citizens.

Mr Simon Tay says that the Speakers' Corner has been a success. I do not know on what grounds he says that. It was only yesterday that I read in the Straits Times which asks, "Is the Speakers' Corner dying a natural death?" There are very few speakers and very few people listening to them. I, for one, may I say, am glad that it has been completely ignored by responsible Singapore citizens because I have said it right from the beginning that I was not going to show myself up there. That would lend credibility to the Government's claim that the Speakers' Corner is proof of democracy in this country, where there is no such thing. The Speakers' Corner was intended to be a showpiece, like the wayang kulit and to proclaim to people that, there you are, we have got democracy, we have got freedom of expression, when this Bill and the Act completely take away that freedom of expression of the citizens.

So I do seriously urge the Government to do one of two things. Withdraw this Bill and refer the Act to the Constitutional Court for a pronouncement on whether the ban on talks and lectures violates Article 14(1) of the Constitution and if the Government is not willing to do that, as I have said, to reconsider whether the whole scheme of licensing should now be revised in relation to public meetings, talks or lectures, particularly those organised by political associations and that would include not only political parties registered under the Societies Act, but NGOs and civic groups, groups like my organisation, the Open Singapore Centre. Then, as I have said, it would speak volumes for this Government's sincerity to promote discussion and debate in Singapore. If it does not do that, may I say it is all empty words, all hocus-pocus, that Singapore enjoys freedom of speech, freedom of expression. 5.00 pm

Mr Zulkifli bin Baharudin (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, first, I wish to express my concern about the possible negative impact the proposed amendments will have on arts and civil society. I, like many other Singaporeans, am delighted to have witnessed the growth of arts in Singapore. I must compliment the Government for the vision and effort to nurture the development of arts here. But I feel that it is timely that we have specific legislation that will be able to guide this development. Of course, we also need to ensure that the social norms and the acceptable moral standards of our society are protected and not compromised.

Artistes are like scientists - researching, questioning, experimenting and sometimes pushing and testing conventional acceptable norms of the day. Therefore, the Bill must reflect the tolerance for a possible negative outcome of this experiment, but make clear the boundaries within which the arts groups are allowed to operate. I am therefore concerned that instead of taking this opportunity to refine the Bill to be more specific to the arts, we have enlarged it to include perhaps just about anybody else by including meetings under this amendment. I would have preferred that all other matters of public order be included in other legislation, such as the Penal Code, the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act and the Societies Act. There are enough legislation to regulate such public meetings. Otherwise, as it stands now, the legislation may be seen as too restrictive for an otherwise very liberal and growing arts scene.

By enlarging this Bill, I am afraid that we will not be able to solve the perception problems caused by the charges brought against Chee Soon Juan when he launched his book at Raffles Place sometime ago. Many outside Singapore interpret the use of the Public Entertainments Act and the Environmental and Public Health Act as a desperate attempt by the Government to use inappropriate legislation against an opposition figure. Clearly, we do not deserve such a reputation but neither do we need to give others an excuse for perceiving us as such. Although Singaporeans are fully aware of his defiant attitude resulting in the charges being made against him, the use of the Public Entertainments Act, for example, has caused some confusion. Therefore, we should take this opportunity to make this Bill purely for public entertainment and not for any other offences. We must separate arts from politics and make a clear distinction between the regulations for entertainers and that of politicians. Even if this amendment is made purely to enhance our image overseas and ensure that people have the right view on this matter, it would be a worthwhile exercise, because what others think of us matters.

Let me touch on a number of specific issues. Clearly, section 13 should be read in conjunction with Article 14 of the Constitution which guarantees citizens the right to free speech, assembly and association. I have very different views from Mr J B Jeyaretnam, because I think the significant point in Article 14(2)(a) empowers Parliament to impose any restriction it considers necessary and expedient to serve the purpose inherent in eight stipulated grounds of derogation. Thus, when someone puts in an application for a licence, the licensing officer is constitutionally required to approve the application unless it falls within one of the eight heads of Article 14(2)(a). If the licensing officer feels that he must reject the application for one of these reasons, and for those reasons only, he must give reasons. Therefore, amendment should be made to section 13(2) to reflect this default position. Thus, the onus is on the licensing officer to give reasons for his denial of an application. The applicant need not have to ask for the grounds for the decision.

Clearly, in the recent Talaq case, the licensing officer has consulted other relevant bodies. But why not embody this process in the Bill to reflect a more participatory and consultative style of government? Why not spell out the bodies or organisations which need to be consulted? Or establish a body which has a representation from a wide cross-section of the society to advise the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit? It will then give some of the bodies a legal status to make its decision and recommendation and possibly avoid the confusion caused by the recent issue. In this instance, the licensing officer has consulted the National Arts Council and other bodies. But who really is making the decision? Is it the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit? Is it the National Arts Council? Or is it the Majlis Ugama Islam Singapura?

If these groups are to be relied upon to give advice, what and how much weight must be given to their views? Should not the licensing officer consult these bodies first before making a final decision? Thus, the procedures and processes in making this decision must be clearly spelt out.

For civil society, Sir, it does not exempt groups organising talks and seminars and the like from applying for a licence unless it is a "members only" meeting. Thus, if a civil society group decides to hold a talk for an "invitation only" audience, technically, the group will still have to get a public entertainment licence. This is not helpful at all.

The creation of a demerit point system is interesting, but totally lacking in detail.

Why? What is the rush in pushing this Bill through? Although the Minister has stated that details of the demerit point system will follow, why can we not come up with the scheme before voting on it? I would have thought that the demerit point system should be debated and scrutinised in Parliament. Otherwise, this is very much like having traffic rules and demerit point system, but the driver does not know what are the rules and how the demerit point system works against him. If there are OB markers, as it should be in some cases, why not spell them? Otherwise, the vagueness and the lack of clarity make it confusing for arts groups and civil society.

Mr J B Jeyaretnam spoke about the Speakers' Corner. I am extremely disappointed with his attitude. I would have thought that with the establishment of the Speakers' Corner, it is precisely the Opposition groups who will take advantage of this, because they have been clamouring for more space and opportunity to speak to the public at large. And the fact that Mr Jeyaretnam has taken the attitude and the fact that he is not here to listen to the reply from the Minister is something that I find very disturbing myself.

The Speakers' Corner is not just a reflection of the society at large but, certainly, the state of the Speakers' Corner is a reflection of the Opposition members themselves and other groups who want to have an additional platform to make their views known.

Assoc. Prof. Chin Tet Yung (Sembawang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I am sure the Minister of State will answer Mr Jeyaretnam's points, but I would just like to say one thing. Frankly, I am quite astonished at the suggestion or the legal theory propounded by him that there is a duty on any government to challenge its own Bills on constitutional grounds. I have never heard of such an argument put in any jurisdiction that I know of. Obviously, the simple case is that if a citizen feels aggrieved and he has a locus standi or standing to raise an issue before the courts, he can always go to the courts for a declaration. There is no such thing also as unrestricted constitutional rights to freedom of expression, even in that most democratic of democracies, the United States.

Now, Sir, if I may be allowed to speak in relation to the Bill. I support this Bill in so far as it seeks to update the law and especially by removing activities that no longer require licences and by streamlining procedures for issue and renewal of licences. This is an important Bill, coming as it does in the wake of earlier concerns in January this year about the operations of the Licensing Unit and, more recently, of course, about the play Talaq that was not allowed to be staged.

Sir, in this debate, I would like to touch on two sets of issues. The first relates to issues of substance, ie, what are the factors to be considered in the granting of licences and whether there will be changes in this regard after the enactment of the Bill. The second relates to the process and procedure of obtaining a licence.

In the area of public entertainment, there is always an issue of balancing the objective of encouraging creative and new art forms, and what may be called the maintenance of public decency and order. In the Films Act, for example, we have an elaborate system of obtaining licences or permits to show films and to have films censored. In the case of public entertainment falling within the Public Entertainments Act, the same concerns arise. What is the proper balance to be struck between allowing our artistic talents to entertain the public and maintaining public decency and order?

In the sitting on 17th January this year, the Minister for Information and the Arts gave an answer which is quite relevant in today's debate. The Minister referred to the need for artistes to obtain licence for new art forms, such as forum, theatre and performance arts, where there is no script and encourages participation of the audience. Controversy arose in this case because of some indecent and unconventional behaviour on the part of actors during a performance several years ago.

The answer given by the Minister - may I be permitted to summarise - contains four factors that should be taken into account. First, the broad factor of risk to public order and decency; second, the exploitative nature of the art form to educate audiences on volatile issues; third, the propagation of beliefs and messages of deviant groups; and, finally, the use of the art forms as a means of subversion.

I refer to these factors because the fundamental issue of substance for having a licensing scheme to regulate public entertainment is striking that proper balance between artistic freeedom and maintenance of public order and decency. The Bill appears to make the Licensing Unit and the Minister in charge, namely, the Minister for Home Affairs, responsible as the guardian of public order and morality, unlike the Films Act, for example, where there is an appeal to a wider body known as the committee of appeal. In substance, both the showing of a film and the staging of a play, for example, are not different. I am puzzled that there is such a distinction made here and that there is no appeal body in this particular piece of legislation.

It can also be seen from the factors referred to that there are very broad considerations that involve public morality which probably could be better gauged by a body of individuals culled from various segments of society. I know, for instance, that in the recent controversial play, the permission to stage it was withdrawn after objections from MUIS. Why not have an appellate body comprising representatives from organisations such as MUIS or National Arts Council, who could then recommend to the Minister on a more regulated basis? If we are serious about improving the cultural arts scene in Singapore, we may need more civil society mechanisms to ensure that we are not erring from excessive caution. I would like therefore to urge the Minister of State to consider such a scheme as appropriate for the Public Entertainments Act, as it is for the Films Act.

Sir, the Bill also proposes to implement a demerit point system. Such systems are common in Singapore, principally in matters relating to public health and road safety. Again, I should like to ask the Minister of State for clarification, as some of the speakers earlier have done so. What purpose would such a demerit system serve in the area of public entertainment? We can see the need for such a scheme in the areas of public hygiene and road safety, where the public may be subject to daily risks of dirty food or unsafe driving. But in public entertainment, the harm that may result is surely not as direct or severe as to require a demerit point system. Has the situation deteriorated so much that we should consider implementing a demerit point system?

I am sure the Minister of State can provide an explanation as to why such a system should be put in place and how it would operate. And, in particular, I echo the issue that was raised by Mr Zulkifli whether it would have an undesirable effect on the cultural and arts scene in Singapore. The harm that we would want most to avoid is that our most creative artistes go abroad and develop their talents instead of remaining at home. This must not happen, as a result of a scheme that is seen to be too restrictive. I would urge the Minister of State to let Members of this House and the public know what are the principles that will be used to administer this demerit point system. And it is unfortunate that the rules relating to such a scheme are not placed before the House at this time.

Sir, I turn now to other issues that arise from the Bill. While matters of substance are very important, matters of procedure may also be important in that a long drawn out procedure to obtain licences may be viewed as unsympathetic to the growth of a vibrant public entertainment scene in Singapore. While the Bill positively aids in promoting public entertainment maybe in the new provision that groups performing under the auspices of certain statutory bodies like the People's Association, National Arts Council, MUIS and the National Library Board can now provide public entertainment without requiring a licence. There are many statutory bodies that are given this exemption. But there may be a case for including other bodies such as the Singapore Academy of Law and Info-Communications Development Authority of Singapore. These are not in the list. The question is: why are they not because they too have on occasions put on public shows? On the other hand, it is odd to find the inclusion of the Professional Engineers Board or the Board of Architects on this list. In fact, not all professional bodies are on the list. For example, the Law Society of Singapore, which regularly runs meetings and road shows to advise people of rights and so on, is not on the list. Perhaps the Minister of State can clarify how this list came about and whether it would be revised at regular intervals.

I come now to the problem I raised earlier in January concerning the time taken for processing applications. In January this year, the Minister for Home Affairs answered a question relating to this matter and his answer was as follows, and I quote:

'Police has publicly pledged to process 90% of all establishment licence applications within eight weeks and ad hoc licence applications within three weeks.' It further added that in 1999, more than 50% of all applications were processed within a week while 91% were processed within three weeks. This may suggest a situation that is relatively under control and that the police acted reasonably speedily and they should be congratulated for that. But I hope that the Minister of State can reassure us that there will be a better effort made to expedite licensing procedures and also ultimately to cut down on the number of activities for which a licence is necessary.

Sir, creative talents require a certain space where involvement of people should be spontaneous and immediate. Such situations are not likely to occur in Singapore if we exert too much control over the expression of creativity in public. I agree that there must be some control where public safety, health or order is threatened by such activities. It may be right in such situations to expect licensing. But there must be many other situations where we should be able to enjoy the public performances of our multi-talented population and others with a minimum of red tape. The need for the Public Entertainment Licensing Unit to take a balanced view is critical and I hope that the new measures will not be a step back from cultivating a vibrant art and culture environment in Singapore.

Sir, on this note, I support the Bill.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Speaker, Sir, first, let me thank all the speakers for speaking on the Bill and thank all the other speakers, except Mr Jeyaretnam, for supporting the Bill.

Sir, the speakers have caught the spirit behind these amendments. PELU does not stand still. The Public Entertainments Act does not stand still. It has been fine tuning its regime over the last few years. For example, some Members who know will realise that now for rock concerts, dancing is permitted provided safety conditions are satisfied. Also, in some of these pubs where jazz music is played, if the space is appropriate and if the operator is confident that there will be no law and order problems, members of the audience can also join in. Indeed, over time, not so much in a major way, certain activities have been exempted from the Act, for example, films that are shown in cinemas.

This is a big exercise because the time is ripe to look at how the Act can be further amended to make regulation even lighter, a lighter touch to regulation. One approach will, of course, be class exemptions. Mr Goh Choon Kang has asked whether or not getai will also be exempted. Indeed, getai will be exempted from the Public Entertainments Act. Already this year a lighter touch was used to regulate the Seventh Month Festival where there were exemptions given under the Miscellaneous Offences Act for auctions. But if we do this for auctions and do not do that for getai, there will be anomaly. For this year, public entertainment licences were still required for getai. But under the class exemption approach, public entertainment licences will not be required. So Seventh Month Festival operators will know that there is a regime here where there is no need for exemptions but they will have to satisfy certain conditions, which is fair. As long as they satisfy those conditions, they will be allowed to organise their functions.

One condition would be for them to notify police at least seven days in advance of the event. This is not to hinder them or to put a blanket on their activities. It is good for police to know where some of these getais will be operating because in the Seventh Month Festival period many will be performed all over Singapore. So Police will have pre-knowledge of where possible problems may arise. It is not that they will arise but it is good for the local police division to know that. That is something which I am sure all Seventh Month Festival operators will be very happy about. This year's event went off well despite the fact that many people had to adjust, including the operators, grassroots leaders and so forth. When we take this approach, it will be a win-win situation.

Sir, another point is the scope of the Bill. Here again, these amendments signify the fact that the Ministry, Police and PELU know that the Act cannot be over-reaching. As Members read in the amendments, certain categories have been removed from the ambit of the Act, events that are already covered in other Acts like fireworks display and also events that do not pose law and order problems. This shows an active mindset on the part of the Ministry, the police and PELU to see which activity can be taken out. Indeed, with class exemption, even more activities will be taken out. But the question then arises: can more be taken out?

A point has been made by many speakers whether or not talks and meetings should be regulated, in particular indoor talks and meetings. Mr Jeyaretnam may call for the total taking out of all talks and meetings. But I think many Members in this House will agree that for outdoor talks in particular, it is very important to have the public entertainment licence because in outdoor settings, law and order problems can arise. But does it therefore mean that in an indoor setting there is no need to regulate these talks? The answer is no, because in multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, there is still a need to see what are the talks being conducted on the ground, in particular talks that may be subversive or inflammatory in terms of race and religion.

There may be also other topics, for example, one of the indoor talks that PELU rejected was a talk on picking of locks. This was rejected in January 1999 because police felt that this is not a very good topic. It may attract all kinds of people who may want to learn how to pick locks. We learn, for example, over the Internet how to make bombs. That is coming on stream. If we allow people just to give talks without some regulation in compact, multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, that is not advisable. But the real question is: has the regime hindered the giving of talks? Here the answer is a clear no, because PELU has all these years administered the Act with a light touch.

Indeed, in 1999, out of about 6,000 applications processed, only 64 applications, ie, 1%, were rejected. These were rejected for good reasons. The point I want to make is that some of these perceived hardships that people very loosely talk about do not exist. In fact, even Opposition party members will know that though they are required to apply for licences from PELU, these have been very freely granted. They have organised many talks and forums. If they apply in good time they are also approved in good time. Indeed, the class exemption will also benefit Opposition MPs on the ground because in a community event some of these activities like karaoke singing and so forth will now be exempted. That is an important point to note.

The Act is not to catch targeted groups of people. Mr Zulkifli talks about civil society groups. Civil society groups will, if they put hand to heart, know that the Act also does not inhibit them. Indeed, some will even say that over the last two or three years there has been a renaissance in this area because many talks have been organised by many civil society groups over this time, including Mr Jeyaretnam's Open Singapore Centre. The Think Centre has organised some forums. Other groups like the Partner for Active Community and the Working Group Committee on Civil Society, and those Members who are in the societies will know that they have been able to secure licences for these talks. There is no question that these amendments or PELU or the Public Entertainments Act inhibit the growth of civil societies.

A fundamental point is this. Is the Act unconstitutional? Mr Jeyaretnam makes a song and dance about it. Again, he makes no new points. He repeats old points and he does not make correct points. Worse, he does not stay in the House to listen to what is the correct position. He is not here. As Mr Zulkifli, a layman, points out, section 14 does not say that every Singaporean has a right to free speech and he can say whatever he wants, wherever he wants, whenever he wants. If that happens, what happens in some other countries where there may be freer speech will happen in Singapore. The courts have in fact decided that the Act is constitutional. That is the main point. This is really a red herring.

How about the discretion that is exercised under the Act? Mr Jeyaretnam again makes a song and dance about it. Mr Zulkifli mentions it. The Act does give discretion to the licensing officer. But let us not forget that he does not act alone. He acts in consultation with relevant agencies. For example, he will consult, if it is an establishment of a pub, the local police division, and look at the suitability of the site. He will consult the NAC. In fact, except only in those rare cases where, for example, there may be racial and religious sensitivities, NAC's views have prevailed. That is what PELU tells me because NAC is, in fact, the body to advise on arts topics. But all of us would agree here that in those instances where there may be higher overriding considerations, as happened in the recent Talaq example, where MUIS had come out with very strong objections on the performance of the play, even with the conditions that were proposed by NAC, PELU ultimately decides. It takes all these views into consideration. It may accord greater weight to some of these views. But ultimately it will decide.

A suggestion has been made whether or not PELU is the correct agency to do this. PELU currently is a one-stop agency for all these activities. Prof. Chin makes the argument, and Mr Simon Tay makes a strong pitch, that the arts should be treated differently because it may not be strictly law and order. There may be a need to balance the need for artistes to express themselves against the wider public interest.

Let me first say that there is reason for PELU to be involved because there could be law and order considerations. For example, if a play does invoke racial and religious sensitivities and does agitate a community, it may lead to unhappiness in the community and disharmony in society. Having said this, in the specific area of arts performances, there is some basis for a review to be done by PELU on whether it should be the one-stop agency. Let me assure Members that the point is taken and PELU will do a review and MHA will consult MITA on what is the best position for Singapore, taking into consideration the development of the arts and also the need to preserve public interest and public safety.

Back to the licensing officer's discretion. He does not exercise discretion in vacuo. Because if you look at the Act, section 14 states the broad grounds on which his discretion will be exercised, whether it may lead to a breach of peace, whether it may be offensive, immoral or subversive, or whether it would lead to any injury. So these are the broad factors. Within this framework, there are also specific factors, both for ad hoc licences and for establishment licences. Indeed, Mr Simon Tay has raised a parliamentary question on this, asking what these factors are, and we have replied. So it is no secret. For example, PELU will look at the suitability of the applicant, whether he has got an adverse record, and also look at the suitability of the place. If it is an establishment licence, is it in a residential area? PELU will look at what is the nature of the entertainment being provided. So these are some of the factors PELU will look at.

I will say that in practice, especially for establishment licences, when there is this to-ing and fro-ing between PELU and the applicant, and ultimately if the application is turned down, he will have a sense as to why his application has been turned down. And indeed, if he does not, he can ask for reasons. Mr Zulkifli makes a point - why not PELU give the reasons upfront. So let me assure him that PELU has nothing to hide. The Act provides for the applicant to ask for reasons within seven days and when he does that, reasons are given, after which he has 14 days to appeal to the Minister. So even though the licensing officer does have a discretion, ultimately should there be a rejection and an appeal, it is the Minister, a representative of the Government, who will determine according to policies that are laid down, in particular public interest, public safety, public order, whether or not the event should go ahead. And I think that is constitutional and proper because the Minister is an elected representative and he has to bear in mind all these wide considerations. If the appellant is still unhappy, he can go to court. He can ask for judicial review. So the courts are always there. Mr Jeyaretnam seems to allude that there is no recourse to court. He is not correct.

Prof. Chin Tet Yung makes this point about the demerit scheme which I think Mr Zulkifli also makes. Let me assure the Members that this scheme is not something to catch the applicants or make it more difficult for them to comply with conditions. You must understand this scheme and the spirit of the Bill, which is to liberalise it, which will make punishment more transparent, more certain and more graduated. This demerit scheme only applies to establishment licences, not ad hoc licences. So there is nothing to fear that with a demerit system, ad hoc applications for performance of the arts or meetings or talks will be affected. The scheme cannot fit into an ad hoc mould, but only for establishment licences, because there is a standing relationship where the licence is granted for one year, two years, three years, and the person runs the pub. And there will be conditions given to him when he is given a licence to run the pub, for example, closing hours, maintenance of register of employees, he must not employ illegal foreign workers or there must not be gambling or drug taking. So these are conditions. Some of the conditions, of course, are more serious than others. So not maintaining a register may not be so serious. So just like the Driver Improvement Points Scheme (DIPS), all these will be set up, and then the points will be allocated. So he will know where he is at this scale, and what he must not do. Because he will then know that if he breaches these conditions, then this number of points will be added on and this penalty will then befall him. Even in terms of penalty, this demerit scheme gives flexibility to PELU because new penalties will be added, like imposition of a security deposit - that is a penalty that will be added on this list - or curtailment of closing hours. At any point in time along this scale should he commit an act whereby a certain penalty is attracted, he will be given notice. Like I have said in my speech, he will be given notice that this action is impending and then to explain to the Minister or to plead his case. So that is the spirit behind the points scheme. It should work well because it would mean that people can operate their businesses more effectively and more efficiently.

Mr Simon Tay asked whether or not the Speakers' Corner can be extended in concept to indoor stadiums. Again, this is not a new point. I think he will know that. But like I have said just now, there is no need to do that because if you have a talk inside a hotel or other premises, you apply for a licence, you will get it. It is better in fact not to restrict people to one venue. In fact, under the present scheme, there are so many venues. You want to have a talk inviting the public, you apply for a licence, and the point, like I have said, is the ease with which applications are granted.

Prof. Chin asked about the timeframe. Yes, in an earlier answer, we have said that for establishment licences, the current target is eight weeks; for ad hoc licences, the current target is three weeks. All these will be lowered. Because now with the improvement in the Act in terms of administration, with less applications coming to the PELU officer, these timings would be lowered. So PELU will work towards lowering the timeframe taken for application. I am quite certain that with all these improvements, the time will indeed be lowered. So that is something that all applicants can look forward to.

I think those are the main points that I have answered.

Mr Chiam See Tong: May I have a clarification, Sir?

Mr Speaker: Yes, Mr Chiam.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, regarding these ad hoc and establishment licences, in the case of Potong Pasir, we have a series of events throughout the year, can we apply for an establishment licence in the sense that we get one licence for the whole year's activities?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: That is a series of ad hoc events. So it is not like operating a pub or a lounge, that is an establishment licence. So I am afraid Mr Chiam would have to apply, but it is not a problem applying. He has been granted many of these licences.

Mr Chiam See Tong: But is the Minister willing to consider giving the Potong Pasir Town Council one licence for the whole year? Then we do not have to apply again and pay separate fees. Instead, we just pay one fee alone.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, I think Mr Chiam knows that, first, events may change. You are not sure what you will do nine months down the road. I think Mr Chiam did apply for a licence for a talk in his Potong Pasir Neighbourhood Park, but then there was a last minute change because his organisers said that Mr Chiam could not make it. That happens, you see.

Mr Chiam See Tong: I am talking about the regular events that we normally have. We have got table tennis, we have got ---

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Chiam says it is regular. I think all of us who work the ground know it, even PAP MPs. You may say it is regular, you may have a schedule, but then nearer the time of the event, you may travel, or you are indisposed. So I think it is only fair to PELU, for you to apply when the event is more certain, and if it falls within the ambit of the Act, and now it has been relaxed, you will get your licence.

Mr Simon Tay: May I seek a point of clarification from the Minister of State.

The first point of clarification is about the advisory panels. The Minister of State has said in his reply that they do listen to some other people, but we are not certain, it is not predetermined who will be heard most. What is his reply to the suggestion about a fixed advisory panel on the lines of the Films Act and censorship of films? Why is it any different?

The second point of clarification I seek from the Minister of State is his reply on the suggestion for an indoor version of the Speakers' Corner. His reply was that one can apply for a licence anywhere, and therefore is that not better. But surely, Sir, does the Minister of State not realise that the efficacy of a Speakers' Corner (Hong Lim) is the speed of the licensing process? You go down there, you get it within 15 minutes or half an hour, and that is the same idea that would distinguish an indoor Speakers' Corner from the `apply three weeks in advance you can speak in any hotel' idea.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I will take Mr Simon Tay's first point. On his suggestion for a panel involving citizens, the films model, when the review is being done, this can be considered, because if MITA takes over the function, I am sure they will look at what model works. On the other point, let us look at the timeframe. Currently, it is three weeks. But, like I have said, PELU is determined to bring it down. So with the shorter timeframe, the time lag that Mr Simon Tay talks about will be less. The other point, of course, is whether we want to have a setting of a Speakers' Corner in an indoor setting with microphone, with people in close proximity and speaking whatever they want. Because for a Speakers' Corner, as it is, as is well known, even the topic is not known. So in an open setting where it is visible, where you do not use the microphone, the possibility of law and order problem arising is reduced, which experience has borne out. I think it is quite different in an indoor setting with a microphone where there will be more heckling, people are in close proximity, and adherents of different opinions will then jostle for attention and who knows, fisticuffs may take place.

So I think the system now is a better approach. Let us leave it at that where if there are indoor talks where the public is invited, tell us what the topic is, and if PELU sees that the application deserves approval, it will be approved.

Mr Low Thia Khiang (Hougang): I understand that the Act exempts activities organised by grassroots organisations like the PA. Would the Minister of State consider also giving exemption to community activities organised by Opposition MPs, like Mr Chiam has just raised, activities organised by the Town Council, or activities organised by my constituency's committees?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, for the community events which involve magic shows, puppet shows, karaoke, under the class exemption, they will already be exempted. But the talks, I think, is another matter. Not that we want to restrict your desire to speak to your residents. The reason is because the relaxation - in fact this was a relaxation announced in Parliament just at the last sitting - is so that the elected MP can speak to residents of his own ward in an outdoor constituency, community setting. Right now, it will be up to PELU to decide, based on the facts of the case whether or not this requirement has been satisfied. So I think it is better for PELU to make a decision, because if you think that, yes, this is a constituency community setting, so you fall within the Act, and you organise it, and lo and behold, 800 people turn up, half of whom are from outside the constituency, then you will be caught by the Act. So let us not go through that trouble. I think Mr Chiam's experience has shown that if you apply, PELU looks at it objectively, if it falls within the ambit of the relaxation, the licence will be given in good time.

Mr Speaker: I will allow one last clarification.

Mr Simon Tay: The Minister of State in his clarification earlier has mentioned a review. Can I ask him whether this is just simply an ongoing constant review, as he alluded to earlier, or would he commit to a definite review on certain points such as an advisory panel, with a reply to this House at a definite date?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: As I said, a review will be conducted. So it is a specific review looking at whether this should be done by some other agency.

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. - [Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee].

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