Public Entertainments and Meetings (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

2.11 pm

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Home Affairs (Mr Amrin Amin): Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

The Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) regulates public entertainment. It ensures that public entertainment is carried out in a lawful and orderly manner, in line with standards of public decency, and at suitable places.

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the Ministry of Communications and Information (MCI) share the administration of the Act. MHA regulates public entertainment (PE) establishments, such as nightclubs, billiard saloons and gaming centres and public entertainment events, while MCI regulates arts entertainment, such as plays, musicals and exhibitions.

Singapore's public entertainment industry is dynamic. Consumer preferences change and business models evolve rapidly. We have to constantly finetune the public entertainment regulatory regime to stay current and effective.

Currently, about four in five PE establishments have good track records of complying with licence conditions. A small group of errant establishments breach these conditions, do not cooperate with the Police and create law and order problems.

MHA last amended PEMA in 2000 to improve the administration of public entertainment licences. MCI amended PEMA in 2014 to establish a framework for greater clarity and consistency in the regulation of arts entertainment. It is timely to update PEMA and ensure its relevancy.

MHA has reviewed its approach to regulating PE establishments and will put in place a more calibrated, risk-based regulatory regime. For the vast majority of licensees who are law-abiding, we will take a lighter touch to support the continued vibrancy of the industry. For instance, MHA will introduce licences with longer validity periods than the standard one-year licences that are issued to all PE establishments today. The Police will also work closely with the industry to promote more responsible business operations.

On the other hand, we need to strengthen regulatory levers against errant PE establishments. The Bill proposes to make the necessary legislative amendments to support this enhanced regulatory regime. As part of the review, MHA consulted the PE industry through the Singapore Nightlife Business Association (SNBA). We reached out to close to 180 nightlife establishments. SNBA and these establishments support the proposed amendments in the Bill.

MCI has also reviewed the arts entertainment-related provisions for greater consistency between the regulation of arts entertainment held at public entertainment establishments or events, which are licensable by the Police, and the regulation of arts entertainments held at other venues.

The amendments are intended to clarify that arts entertainment will be regulated in the same manner, regardless of whether it is held at PE establishments or events licensable by the Police, or at other venues.

The amendments do not entail any changes to existing arts entertainment content standards or the Info-Communications Media Development Authority's (IMDA's) arts entertainment classification and licensing processes. MCI has engaged both the PE industry and the arts community on these amendments.

Let me now take Members through the key provisions of the Bill.

The first set of amendments seeks to prevent the operation of PE establishments that are either operated by unsuitable persons or businesses or operated in unsuitable locations.

Under the current section 5 of the Act, the Licensing Officer may require an applicant for a PE licence to satisfy certain criteria and requirements. This existing provision allows the Licensing Officer to assess whether the applicant is fit and proper to carry on a PE business and prevent unsuitable persons from doing so.

Clause 6 of the Bill expands this assessment of applicant suitability to include persons who are related to the applicant, namely, the responsible officers and individuals with substantial interest in, or control or direction over the business of the applicant.

Clause 4 of the Bill defines "responsible officer" and it will cover directors of body corporates, partners of partnerships, and officers of unincorporated associations, as the case may be. This ensures that all persons who can influence the decisions of the business are duly assessed and are not working behind the scenes to operate the PE establishment.

The Police have reviewed the criteria and requirements to be applied to both applicants and their related persons, and the updated criteria and requirements will be published on the Police's website in due course.

One key objective of PEMA is to ensure that PE is carried out at suitable places.

Clause 4 creates a new provision that requires the Licensing Officer to take into account the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA's) planning considerations in approving a place to operate a PE establishment. For example, a Licensing Officer cannot approve applications for pubs and bars in a conservation area, to maintain the character of historic districts.

The Bill also proposes to increase the penalties for errant operators who try to circumvent our controls and safeguards altogether, by operating PE establishments without valid licences.

Clause 20 of the Bill increases the maximum fine for providing PE without a licence or while the licence is suspended, from the existing $10,000 to $20,000. This amendment differentiates offences by licensees who contravene licence conditions or the Act, and such offences are currently subject to a maximum fine of $10,000. The offender who disregarded the law entirely has to be treated more harshly than the offender who had obtained a licence but was not fully compliant with its conditions or the Act. The maximum fine for providing PE without a valid licence will be raised to $20,000.

In cases where licensees do not comply with licensing conditions or become unsuitable to operate a PE establishment, the Police must have the powers to deal effectively with them. The second set of amendments will strengthen these powers.

The Demerit Point System, introduced in 2000, allows the Police to adopt a graduated enforcement approach against licensees who infringe licence conditions. Licensees are given demerit points for breaches, and appropriate action is taken depending on the number of demerit points accumulated over a two-year period. A licence will be suspended for one month at 21 demerit points, and cancelled altogether at 24 demerit points.

The Police impose demerit points for licensing breaches that are compounded, or for which the licensee is convicted in Court. If the licensee is charged for multiple licensing breaches, it is usual for the Court to take into consideration a proportion of the charges for the purpose of sentencing, rather than convict the licensee for all charges. Charges that are taken into consideration for purposes of sentencing currently do not attract demerit points.

Clause 11 of the Bill now allows demerit points to be given in respect of charges that are taken into consideration by the Court, since the licensee has admitted to committing the licensing breaches.

The Demerit Point System provides early warning for minor breaches and encourages the licensee to exercise self-discipline. However, the Licensing Officer may immediately suspend or cancel the licence where the need arises. The existing section 14 enables this.

Even so, section 14, subsection 1 only applies where the PE provided is problematic. For example, it does not apply if illegal acts carried out by the licensee or his employees are not associated with the PE provided at the establishment.

Therefore, clause 10 of the Bill expands on section 14, to allow the Licensing Officer to immediately suspend a PE licence, if the licensee or a relevant person of the business is charged in Court for serious crimes arising out of or in connection with any activity in the licensed establishment. These serious crimes must have a nexus with the establishment, but not necessarily the PE provided in the establishment.

This includes offences, such as drug offences, trafficking-in-persons and offences under the Organised Crime Act. The list of serious crimes is specified in the new Second Schedule to the Bill.

This will allow the Police to immediately suspend PE establishments which are being used for such serious crimes, instead of waiting for Court trials on the cases to conclude. This also deters other operators from using their establishments for unlawful activities.

The third set of amendments enhances Police operational effectiveness in enforcing the Act.

Clause 5 of the Bill allows the Licensing Officer to appoint suitably trained individuals as "authorised persons". Clause 17 empowers authorised persons to conduct inspections at PE establishments and events. Authorised persons will not be given the more specialised powers that Licensing Officer and Police officers have, for example, powers of forced entry and arrest. These provisions give the Police operational flexibility to deploy manpower more effectively or conduct more frequent checks if the need arises.

Clause 18 empowers Licensing Officers and Police Officers to enter premises, including using necessary force, if there is reasonable suspicion that offences under the Bill are being or has been committed within.

Today, appeals against the decision of the Licensing Officer are heard by the relevant Minister. Clause 15 of the Bill will set up an appeal board to hear appeals by classes of applicants or licensees that the Minister may prescribe.

The PE Appeal Board will operate like the Liquor Appeal Board under the Liquor Control Act. The Minister for Home Affairs will appoint the members of the Board. The intent is to appoint members from diverse fields, including legal, education and business. The Appeal Board will receive representations from the Licensing Officer and the appellant, and make a decision based on simple majority. Its decision on the merits of the case will be final.

On behalf of the Minister responsible for arts entertainment, I will now address MCI's proposed amendments in the Bill. The first two sets of amendments by MCI deal with the classification of arts entertainment, while the third relates to appeals against IMDA's classification decisions.

For arts entertainment licensed by IMDA under the Bill, IMDA may impose conditions as part of the arts entertainment licence. However, for arts entertainment held at PE establishments or events, IMDA will not be able to impose such conditions within the PE licence issued by the Police.

Clause 12 allows IMDA to impose the conditions as part of IMDA's classification of the arts entertainment held at PE establishments or events, thereby giving these conditions the same effect as licensing conditions imposed by IMDA.

The second set of amendments involves arts entertainment content that exceeds the maximum R18 rating under the Arts Entertainment Classification Code (AECC).

Currently, IMDA will not issue arts entertainment licences for such arts entertainment content. However, this does not apply for PE establishments or events.

Clause 13 clarifies that IMDA may refuse to classify such arts entertainment content regardless of whether it is held at PE establishments or events or at other venues. Under the Bill, an arts entertainment that has not been classified cannot be staged. This will thus ensure consistency in the treatment of arts entertainment exceeding the maximum R18 rating, regardless of whether it comes under a PE licence by the Police or a licence by IMDA.

The third set of amendments relates to appeals against IMDA's classification decisions. Clause 15 clarifies that any licensee, including those holding PE licences issued by the Police, may appeal against IMDA's classification decisions for arts entertainment. Appealable decisions refer to IMDA's classification ratings, its refusal to classify content that exceeds the maximum R18 rating under AECC and the imposition of conditions as part of its classification of arts entertainment.

These amendments will ensure consistency in the regulation of arts entertainment regardless of whether it comes under a PE licence by the Police or a licence by IMDA.

There will be no changes to existing arts entertainment content standards under AECC or IMDA's arts entertainment classification and licensing processes.

I will now touch briefly on other amendments of the Bill.

Clause 21 confers personal immunity on Licensing Officers, Police Officers and authorised persons acting with reasonable care and in good faith in the execution or purported execution of the Bill.

Clause 16 clarifies that the Ministers charged with the responsibility for PEs and arts entertainments respectively have the powers to make exemptions for their respective areas.

Finally, clauses 2, 3 and 24 of the Bill amend the title of the Act from the "Public Entertainments and Meetings Act" to the "Public Entertainments Act". The regulation of meetings, such as rallies, talks and forums, now falls under the Public Order Act, which was enacted in 2009.

In conclusion, the amendments to the Act will strengthen MHA's and MCI's regulatory frameworks for PEs and arts entertainments respectively and keep the Act relevant to today's operating environment. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Joan Pereira.

2.27 pm

Ms Joan Pereira (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, I strongly support the amendments to strengthen our legislative framework and to increase the penalties against entertainment outlets involved in drugs, human trafficking, organised crime and other illegal activities. I approve of the more stringent assessments during licence applications to screen out undesirable operators and the harsher penalties proposed. These measures will greatly help to act as deterrents.

I am worried about the increasingly liberal attitude of our young people towards drugs, as found in a survey released last month by the National Council Against Drug Abuse (NCADA). The survey found that those with a liberal attitude towards drugs had increased from 11% in 2013 to 16% last year. In fact, today's Straits Times' article on the increasing number of new psychoactive substances causing harm to their users is most worrying.

Entertainment outlets, such as nightclubs, are popular venues for young people to congregate, make friends and have fun. There, they are especially open to new and exciting experiences and, hence, very vulnerable to taking higher risks as they experiment with perceived "adult consumables", such as smoking, alcohol or drugs. Even those who are less inclined may give in due to peer pressure. We must ensure a safe environment for them to have clean fun and protect them from the ravages of drugs.

Numerous raids by our Home Team over the years had also unearthed vice activities upon the premises of unscrupulous operators. In addition to the crimes of human trafficking, such activities are also a threat to our health system, as sex workers may spread sexually transmitted infections.

Singapore's night scene has become quite vibrant and attracts foreigners and those who traffic in them out for a quick buck. This is clearly undesirable due to numerous externalities, such as petty crimes, organised crimes, homicides and so forth. Weeding out illicit entertainment venues will have a significant impact on reducing the cases of human trafficking.

PE venues also include Internet cafes, which can be located within or near housing estates. Again, many of the patrons of such outlets are from the younger age groups. Given the proximity of these cafes to residences, extra care must be exercised to keep illicit activities out of our neighbourhoods.

I believe that the Ministry's proposal to suspend an outlet's licence as soon as a licensee or anyone involved in the operations is charged will be quite effective in putting a stop to the illegal activities at its venue.

I would also like to laud the amendment to allow officers to break into suspected premises by force if necessary. This is one of the few ways to expedite the progress of investigations. We should provide our Police Officers more support and leeway to perform their duties and nip criminal activities in the bud.

With these amendments, I am very confident that Singapore will be in a better position to offer a dynamic night scene while reducing the sleaze and damaging effects of associated crimes. Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim.

2.30 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Aljunied): Mdm Speaker, one of the key thrusts of the Bill is to reduce the likelihood of our PE night spots being owned and managed by those engaged in serious crime or organised crime activities. I agree that this is important, not only to promote a safe environment for patrons, but also to deny serious criminals a source of income and a means for money laundering. While I support the Bill's overall aims, I have two sets of queries on the Bill regarding PE licensing and enforcement.

First, on licensing. The licensing of PE establishments vests in the Licensing Officer. For those who wish to appeal against the Licensing Officer's decisions, the Bill proposes the setting up of a new PE Appeal Board to replace the Minister as the appellate authority in certain types of appeals. Clause 15 amends section 16 of the Act to provide for the Appeal Board to be the authority to hear appeals against the Licensing Officer's decisions if the appeal is from a specified establishment or a prescribed class of applicants or licensees. At the same time, other appeals will continue to go to the Minister. I would like to know what the general division of work will be between the Appeal Board and the Minister. Is it the intention to let the Appeal Board hear appeals which may be of a more routine nature, while the Minister retains the power to hear appeals in more difficult or complex cases? Or is it vice versa, with the Appeal Board dealing with the more difficult appeals?

My second set of queries relates to enforcement as set out in clauses 17 and 18 of the Bill. Clause 17 amends the current Act significantly in terms of the right of entry and inspection of enforcement officers. The current Act empowers the Licensing Officer and Police Officers to enter premises to ascertain if licensing conditions are complied with. The Bill will include a new category of officer, called an "authorised person", who, together with the Licensing Officer and Police Officers, will be called "inspecting officers". These inspecting officers will be given enhanced enforcement powers to enter and inspect PE outlets. Earlier, in his Second Reading speech, the Parliamentary Secretary clarified that, as far as authorised persons are concerned, they would not have powers of forced entry and arrests. But it is also true that the Bill gives these authorised persons enhanced powers in confrontational scenarios, such as requiring production of information, accessing computers, interviewing suspects on site, and requiring witnesses to provide explanations of documents or information found.

The category of the new "authorised persons" to be included to exercise these enhanced powers deserves some attention. According to clause 5 of the Bill, an individual may be appointed as an "authorised person" if he is "suitably trained". What does "suitably trained" mean? If the Government is referring to Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs) becoming authorised officers for licensing inspections, does their training cover the necessary skill competencies to handle the confrontational scenarios envisaged in clause 17?

Finally, on enforcement, clause 18 amends section 17A to explicitly include powers of forced entry. I would like a clarification on why it is deemed necessary now to provide the Licensing Officer expressly with powers of forced entry when he seems to have managed his duties all these decades without such an explicit power.

Mdm Speaker: Dr Intan Mokhtar.

2.34 pm

Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar (Ang Mo Kio): Madam, the amendments to PEMA serve to allow a more holistic enforcement of the law and a more comprehensive set of laws on establishments that provide such PE. My concern is largely with those establishments which may create disamenities or inconveniences within their immediate community.

There are establishments within my constituency, located close to residences, which provide PE, such as karaoke singing or telecast of sports matches. While most of these establishments adhere to existing laws on PE, I have received feedback from residents about a couple of these establishments.

One feedback is on noise, especially into the late night. Another feedback is illegal parking along the roads and driveways to houses, especially those in the private landed estates. Another feedback is on activities that may create feelings of discomfort among residents living nearby, or feedback on establishments that are suspected of allowing illicit activities to take place within and around their premises.

I have a few clarifications with regard to the proposed amendments. Clause 5, amendment to section 4, mentioned that the appropriate licensing officer may appoint an individual, who need not be a public officer, but who is suitably trained as an authorised person to carry out certain functions of the Act.

For this clause, I have two clarifications. First, what is the extent of functions of the Bill that this appointed individual will be able to execute? Second, what are the criteria in appointing the individual to carry out these functions? Would these be our APOs only?

Clause 11, amendment to section 15(2), stated that demerit points may be awarded on the basis of charges against the licensee during the sentencing for offences, and not just on the basis of conviction or composition of offences. I support this.

However, I have one clarification. Is there a maximum number of demerit points that a licensee can accumulate before having the licence suspended or revoked? Would this be similar to our driving licence demerit points system? Notwithstanding these clarifications, Mdm Speaker, I support the amendments in the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Murali Pillai.

2.36 pm

Mr Murali Pillai (Bukit Batok): Mdm Speaker, the proposed changes to PEMA will, amongst others, introduce stricter penalties to deter PE operators from using their premises for illegal activities, and to give the authorities greater powers to control the use of such premises. These are important amendments in support of our fight against racketeering and associated criminal activities. I support this Bill.

I wish to seek clarification on the following five areas of this Bill.

First, the amendments to section 4 of the Act allows the appointed Licensing Officer to appoint trained individuals who need not be public servants as authorised persons under the Bill. My Parliamentary colleagues, Dr Intan and Ms Sylvia Lim, also spoke about this point. It appears that under the proposed amendments, these persons would be deemed as public servants when exercising their powers under the Act. This is in contrast to the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act 2015, which only provides for APOs or Police Officers to be an approved person under that Act to carry out licensing functions. What is the rationale for allowing private sector vendors to carry out functions of the Licensing Officer under the proposed provisions? How will these private sector vendors be selected and are there other similar uses of the private sector for licensing or other analogous matters in Singapore?

Second, the proposed amendments to section 5 of the Act expands the criteria for obtaining a licence which presently only stipulates operational requirements, to include criteria and requirements relating to the responsible officer of the applicant of the licence. The explanatory notes of the Bill state that this takes into account considerations of whether the responsible officer is a fit and proper person, similar to the approach taken in the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act. May I ask if the criteria and requirements that relate to the responsible officer also take into account his character, capability and reputation, similar to the guidelines on the criteria under the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Act?

Third, the proposed section 14(2A) of the Bill allows for immediate suspension of a licence if proceedings have commenced against the licensee for certain offences specified in the Second Schedule that relate to any activity at an approved place for the licence. Could the Parliamentary Secretary please clarify whether proceedings include investigations that have been commenced against the licensee even if the licensee has not been formally charged in Court with any offence yet? Would proceedings also include proceedings for a confiscation order, for example, under the Organised Crime Act, even if the licensee or the responsible officer has not been the subject of any criminal proceedings in respect of an offence stipulated in the proposed Second Schedule of the Bill?

Additionally, how would the proposed amendment to section 14 take into account foreign proceedings commenced against the licensee or the responsible officer, say, for example, a vice-related offence which has an equivalent in the proposed Second Schedule? The proposed section 14(2A) presently does not take into account such foreign proceedings. Yet, this may be relevant, especially if the licensee or the responsible officer is involved in operating similar businesses in other countries and foreign proceedings have been brought against him in that regard. Alternatively, would such considerations be instead taken into account in the fit and proper criteria to determine whether the licence should be suspended or cancelled under the proposed amendments to section 14(2) of the Act? If so, would there be a need to widen the language used in that provision to include responsible officers of the licensees and persons having substantial control over these licensees?

Fourth, the proposed amendments to section 15A of the Act allows the Arts Entertainment Licensing Officer to impose conditions as he thinks fit. Could the hon Parliamentary Secretary please clarify what sorts of conditions are contemplated? Would the Ministry also be providing guidelines on how the discretion to impose conditions would be exercised? This would promote greater certainty for producers of the arts, who could then have these guidelines in mind at the outset when planning and producing their art exhibitions and performances.

Finally, in relation to the proposed new sections 16 to 16AC of the Bill providing for a consolidated appeals framework. I note now that two relevant appeal authorities have been proposed in respect of appeals against appealable decisions of the PE Licensing Officer, namely, the newly constituted PE Appeal Board for decisions involving prescribed specified establishments or a prescribed class of licensees and, in any other cases, to the Minister responsible for PE. Could the Parliamentary Secretary please elaborate on what type of specified establishments or class of licensees would be prescribed that would involve the PE Appeal Board? I believe a similar point was raised by the hon Member Ms Sylvia Lim. In addition, what is the rationale for having an independent PE Appeal Board that deals with appeals against certain decisions involving these prescribed specified establishments or class of licensees, whilst appeals against all other decisions continue to be dealt with by the Minister?

I support our efforts to promote higher standards amongst PE operators, and to safeguard against those who misuse these premises to carry out racketeering activities. I also applaud both Ministries' efforts in engaging the stakeholders before tabling this Bill. I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Randolph Tan.

2.43 pm

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan (Nominated Member): Madam, entertainment outlets, such as nightclubs and pubs, are a significant component of our services sector. They contribute to the vibrancy of our cityscape. They also form an important part of our tourism industry.

If they serve as the front for illegal activities, they will undermine the appeal of legitimate businesses. If they thrive by allowing activities on their premises that properly run establishments adhering to strict regulations refuse to accommodate, the latter could be edged out of business competition. In particular, I would like to express my concerns about unruly behaviour regularly linked to PE outlets.

Madam, in March this year, a well-known venue which hosts several PE outlets was the scene of a killing. The setting is usually the same, with the victim confronted by a group of attackers in the hours between midnight and dawn.

Unfortunately, this was hardly the first time an incident of this type occurred. On Christmas eve of 2015, an American who worked as a stuntman was killed in a brawl at a different area reportedly after he was caught up in an attack by a large group. In fact, merely going by insider accounts reported in media exposes alone would tell us that when a serious incident occurs, it is just a spillover from what happens within these establishments on a regular basis.

A report published in The Straits Times on 19 March this year which followed up on the March incident, gave accounts from three perspectives − those of the regular patrons, employees and establishment owners. They all concurred that such incidents were not one-off. Of course, some laid the blame on bad press, too, which could mean quite a lot of different things, depending on how you look at it.

Madam, to a casual observer, establishments such as nightclubs and pubs have regularly reinforced their own poor reputations in these matters not just by what happens in them, but also by what is linked to them. When incidents are reported, such as fights and even deaths, the same places/names regularly turn up. What is worse is to hear young people talk about what happens regularly that goes on unreported as though it was the most natural thing in the world on a night out.

While I support the Bill, I would like to urge MHA to take a stronger stand in addressing the negative issues that are associated with such establishments. The current Bill deals with what occurs on the premises of such establishments, but we often hear of reported incidents occurring outside. In mid-April this year, it was reported that the Police arrested a group of nine men between the ages of 20 and 30 for rioting with a deadly weapon, which caused the death of a 31-year-old man at a car park in an area different from those two that I had already mentioned above. This happens so regularly that when it is reported, I often wonder why there is no attempt to draw a link to the establishments where such incidents could have originated.

When violence peaks and serious incidents occur, it is the Police which have to be called in. At such times, the diversion of significant Police resources is more than just a cost that has to be borne by taxpayers. The drain on tight Police resources caused by recurrent incidents of this nature is a distraction from greater policing priorities.

Finally, there is another danger, which is to our youths, which several hon Members have already mentioned. When nightspots tolerate or engage in undesirable activities on their premises, young patrons are especially vulnerable. Not only could they be unwitting victims of such incidents, if they are led to think that illegal activities can proceed without effective policing, they may come to associate them as a natural part of an exciting night out.

In August 2013, in a written response to a Parliamentary Question, Deputy Prime Minister Teo, then Minister for Home Affairs, had already highlighted policing measures in preventing youth gang fights, where, I quote, "PE outlets, such as billiard saloons and amusement centres, are subject to licensing conditions which require the licensee to report unlawful activities to the Police".

Madam, the enhancements in today's Bill are important additional measures for dealing with this problem. I would like to urge the relevant Government agencies involved to continue to explore additional ways of holding entertainment outlets and their patrons accountable in ensuring that good clean fun does not cross the line. The violence and deaths which have occurred are both senseless and tragic. Beyond that, legitimate business activity suffers. The problem must be tackled through tougher legislation. Madam, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Denise Phua.

2.47 pm

Ms Denise Phua Lay Peng (Jalan Besar): Madam, I rise to speak in support of PEMA. I am the local Member of Parliament (MP) in the Kampong Glam and Jalan Besar vicinity. Residents would largely welcome this Bill. Most important to many residents − not just in my area, but I think in other areas as well − the Bill will strengthen the ability of the Government to ensure that PE is not carried out in places that are not suitable to its nature.

As MPs serving residents in the city district, colleagues such as Mr Melvin Yong, previously Mr Edwin Tong and myself, have had our fair share of challenges to balance the tension between the needs of residents and the needs of PE outlets and events. Let me share a few examples from my past few terms serving my residents.

Along Queen Street several years ago, the problems of noise, especially from customers arriving and leaving, drinking during hours when nearby residents are sleeping, had resulted in many complaints to the Police and also gave rise to Police raids.

Then, at Little India, where merchants organise live concerts to attract visitors, including tourists and foreign workers, residents, young and old, in nearby public housing, could not accept the resulting noise and crowds and often called up Member Melvin and myself.

Third, at mixed developments, such as Sultan Plaza and the Textile Centre, the nearby night joints created at one time much unhappiness to the local residents living upstairs. This had resulted in many night phone calls to the Police, to the MP and Police raids as well, creating much tension between the residents and the nightspot operators.

And then, where religious activities take place in establishments, such as mosques in my Kampong Glam area, there had also been constant tension with the neighbouring food and beverage (F&B) and entertainment outlets whose offerings may be considered potentially offensive to some who go to the mosque to worship.

But kudos to the diligent Singapore Police Force, the Home Team members who are based at, especially Marina Bay and the Rochor Police Posts, incidents are markedly reduced over the years. This peace is, however, achieved not without the high cost of enforcement by the Police and the supporting efforts of the local grassroots helpers and the MPs.

Madam, 456 PE licences out of an approximate 2,700 island-wide are in the Bugis, Jalan Besar and Beach Road areas. My first point of concern is to seek the Ministry's assurance that these residential areas will not become unsuitable for residential living, whether in public or private developments.

PE establishments, Madam, should generally not be located within residential areas. This is due to the disamenities that will most certainly arise. Disamenity issues, such as the issues of noise, that would still occur when customers arrive and leave through even sound-proofed doors, and often during the resting hours of residents. Although the Home Team brigades I work with are some of the most diligent and helpful public servants I know, on behalf of my residents, I still urge the Government to consider the following measures.

One, adopt a whole-of-Government approach, with relevant agencies, besides MHA, URA, the Ministry of National Development (MND), the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the Ministry of Social and Family Development (MSF) as well, to ensure a more appropriate tenant mix of businesses with the right licences in residential estates. There should be more community services located closer to the residents, such as senior activity centres, preschools, childcare centres, polyclinics, grocery stores that will be useful to the residents. This should be part of urban planning zoning for residential estates in the city. A more family-friendly wholesome tenant mix in residential areas will certainly save considerable amounts of resources to monitor, track, raid and arrest potential culprits.

Two, the Government should avoid issuing business licences for establishments, such as massage parlours, bars, jackpot operators, night entertainment licences in neighbourhoods of religious establishments.

Three, in urban planning, the Government should seriously reconsider the building of mixed developments. It sounds sexy and good but it is really hard to implement, especially if these mixed developments for residential and commercial are within the same building. Nightclubs, massage parlours, bars and entertainment outlets in buildings with residents living above is a sure recipe for conflicts and tension as they are most likely always the sources of complaints and conflicts.

Madam, I believe that much of the potential conflicts between residents and PE operators can be proactively alleviated if there is a more effective whole-of-Government approach, and proper public communication of zoning principles in urban planning.

Madam, there are also specific parts of the PEMA Bill that I would like to seek clarification from the Parliamentary Secretary.

First, on the amendment of section 4 that provides for the Licensing Officer to appoint "individuals who are suitably trained" to perform the powers of inspection and other duties of the Licensing Officer. About these authorised persons, I would like to ask the Ministry on the extent of power that may be exercised by them and also the courses of action should a normal routine procedure escalate to a full-blown public disorder or even a riot situation.

Second, on the amendment of section 15A, whilst I understand the need to align the two areas of licences by MHA and MCI, I would like to seek clarification so that things will be more transparent on the decision framework that the Arts Entertainment Licensing Officer may impose in classifying any arts entertainment.

Lastly, I would like to seek clarification on the PE Appeal Board, which is one of the additions to the Bill, as to the reasons for setting this up and the scope of this Board, the Board's decision-making framework and approach and how this might be different from the current arrangements. I look forward to the Parliamentary Secretary's considered response. I fully support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Ms Thanaletchimi.

2.54 pm

Ms K Thanaletchimi (Nominated Member): Mdm Speaker, I rise in support of the Bill. The world order is changing at breakneck speed and people's preferences and desires are similarly being transformed. As our society matures with changing times, technological advances are taking precedence in all sectors, including the arts and entertainment. As Singapore safeguards itself against the constant threats of various forms, a tighter control over PE events seems to be a necessary evil. As this may impact the creativity element of individuals, groups, businesses and organisations which put together such events, the Government needs to maintain a fair balance. When control measures with tighter licensing requirements are introduced to protect the safety and security of the society, it is important to ensure that creative efforts are not stifled.

However, Madam, I have the following clarifications in regard to the Bill.

The omission of the word, "meetings" from the title of the Bill makes a major shift and, henceforth, the initial purpose of the Bill. There needs to be greater clarity on the separation of public meetings from PE. Both PE and public meetings need to be in line with community standards and public decency and uphold the law and public order.

Two, there needs to be more clarity on the purpose of this Bill. With the amendments, what are the licences that will be refused and suspended? What are some of the examples that were refused and suspended before? And what were the bases for refusing and suspending these licences?

Third, one of the provisions in the Bill is to set up an independent PE Appeal Board which will assess and handle appeals against certain decisions of the PE Licensing Officer. The key word here is "independent". It is important to have an independent body so that the system gains trust from the public by ensuring openness and transparency. Who will appoint and who will be appointed as members of the Appeal Board? What are their terms of reference? If the appeal is rejected, will there be recourse for the aggrieved party?

Fourth, while I note the proposal to increase the penalty for conducting PE without a licence, what is the rationale for such an increase? Has there been an increase of such cases of conducting PE without a licence? Being a strong proponent of public education and awareness, I would like to propose that we channel the funds collected from these fines into public education. Will there be a periodic review of the classifications of the various PE and arts as well as licensing requirements? Madam, notwithstanding these, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Er Dr Lee Bee Wah.

2.57 pm

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah (Nee Soon): Mdm Speaker, Singapore is a tourism hub and we also want to promote art and culture for our local community. So, the number and variety of PE and arts entertainment activities are likely to rise in the months ahead. This is a good sign as this suggests that more Singaporeans are becoming more appreciative and receptive towards various cultures, artforms, sports events and so forth. Moreover, the abundance of entertainment, many from overseas, reflect our nation's openness and acceptance of different cultures.

All said, we should also respect the values of our own Asian culture and not allow individuals or groups to misuse art to become an affront to others. Worse, if they are used to promote radical ideology.

I am pleased to note that stricter guidelines and policing policies have been introduced to be stricter on operators of places of entertainment. I believe the management should do more than just deploying bouncers. But they should have ground staff who would see to it that the safety of the patrons is safeguarded. Those who allow drugs to be sold on their premises should be charged. They should never allow the use of illicit means to draw the crowd. The operators should also be asked to post a bond to ensure compliance with licensing regulations.

While it is easy for licence owners to point a finger at its employees, I feel the owners should not run the business by proxy. Can the Minister say that all applicants for PE licences are screened for criminal records? Would this screening apply to their key staff running the operations? To date, how many owners have been taken to task or charged for violating the licensing conditions?

Will those holding licences now and found unsuitable under this new Bill be asked to surrender their licence? Are foreigners allowed to apply for a licence? If so, how are they to be held responsible?

Government Ministries must coordinate their efforts or we would end up wasting public funds. This is like, on the one hand, so many jackpot machines were allowed at a soccer club when, on the other, we watched over licensed casinos like a hawk and impose entry fees for locals.

The downside of drinking is that when one gets one too many, rowdy behaviour, sometimes culminating in brawls, would occur. One incident that came to mind was the tragic case of an American stuntman, who was badly beaten up outside a club and succumbed to his injuries. Recently, we read of a fatal stabbing hours after the night club shuttered its doors to the last customer.

If I may ask how much resources are committed to policing night clubs, pubs, discos, karaoke joints and eating places that serve alcohol and the like? Our Police, Customs, Immigration officers are stretched in this era of constant threat of terrorism, where they have to protect our shoreline. May I ask how many fights are attributed to drunk patrons and staring incidents at these night spots in the past two years?

I take pride in the efficiency of our MHA. We should impose greater responsibility on the operators of these night spots to provide the protection to the public and maintain good order. Can it be made mandatory for nightlife spots to hire better qualified and trained security officers to maintain public order inside and outside the premises?

Next, what is the guideline for the approval of locations for nightlife spots? URA says it will take into account residents' feedback, but is there a fixed guideline for the minimum distance from, say, residences and religious places?

I will give Members an example. There are a few pubs and games arcades along Sembawang Road, which is near Goodlink Park, and I have been receiving feedback from residents. They complain about cigarette butts, littering, noise, public nuisance and so on. Some residents are worried about the bad influence on their children. I have given the feedback to URA, and URA replied that this is not under their purview because the games arcades are registered under the Registry of Societies, which is under MHA. So, MHA told me that they will monitor, but until now, residents are still living under all these influences and pressures that they do not like to have.

Some of these nightlife spots are sleazy, with scantily-clad women openly soliciting business, and drunk and rowdy customers creating a public nuisance. It can be disturbing and dangerous for residents walking through the area. On a related note, are there guidelines for the attire of employees working in these establishments? I note that there are strict guidelines pertaining to attire at public events, particularly those of performers and even staff. Should these guidelines not also be extended to the employees who loiter outside their establishments? Mdm Speaker, in Mandarin, please.

(In Mandarin): [Please refer to Vernacular Speech.] The main purpose of these amendments is to regulate public entertainment. However, I would like to talk about our PE places. These places can bring about two types of problems. First, customers get into a fight. Do we require security personnel at these places to undergo extra training to stop the fighting? This will reduce the burden on our Police Force, as well as potential harm caused by these fights. Residents living nearby will also experience less inconveniences.

The second problem is the noise and the scantily-clad women loitering outside these places. They cause discomfort to the residents living nearby. Can the authorities clarify there is a minimum distance requirement between these places and residential areas? Should there be guidelines for the attire of employees who loiter outside their establishments, just like the guidelines pertaining to attire of PE performers?

(In English): Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill and I believe that the need to protect the patrons are important, be it against drug abuse, fire or unnecessary fights between patrons. Owners of these places must have realised that if they want to have a profitable business, they must do so with commensurate responsibility for the people whose presence they profit. These outlets are also soft targets for terror groups. I hope MHA would not be overtaxed in its resources to have to watch out not only the front and the back gates, but also the side alleys of the establishments which hold the PE licences.

Mdm Speaker: Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef.

3.05 pm

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef (Marine Parade): Madam, I have two declarations to make. Firstly, I stand before Speaker as the MP for Geylang Serai, which houses some of these facilities, including the co-existence of at least 170 religious organisations, clan organisations, temples, mosques and other civic organisations as well as many residential areas and, secondly, as an emergency and trauma specialist who, on the other hand, also handles and manages casualties that come from these incidents.

Madam, I stand in support of this Bill. PEMA provides for the regulation of PE and meetings and helps ensure that these are carried out within acceptable community standards and public decency as well as uphold our law and order. I would like to make a few points pertaining to the Bill.

Firstly, I strongly support allowing the Police to suspend a PE licence as soon as a licensee or anyone involved in the business is charged in Court for serious crimes, such as persons trafficking, dealing in drugs and so on and so forth. This is also linked to the act of allowing the officers mentioned to enter premises suspected of flouting regulations under this Bill, even if they have been denied entry by the owners. Blacklisting these errant personalities and companies is critical, as, in many cases, they tend to commit recurrent breaches.

I would like to ask the Minister if there are better or stricter ways to be able to identify persons associated with blacklisted companies or those trying their luck by applying under a different name or a relative's or a friend's name to avoid being caught and detected. And this is something that goes on. But these people end up circulating in the industry, giving a negative perception and name to the industry. It is thus unfair to the others who are genuinely interested in providing such services honestly.

These days, the trend is to have the so-called artistic entertainment on showcase at non-traditional venues and locations. Information technology (IT) also enables live streaming from remote locations, including overseas locations and sites. Thus, can we ensure the stakeholders are clear on the classification and categorisation? Can the Ministry also help with more education and publicity, so that people can have a better idea of the latest regulations in place?

Madam, since the last review of PEMA and the enactment from 1 March 2016, can I find out how many breaches have there been? And of what severity or seriousness levels are these?

Can I also clarify with the Minister what exactly is meant by the term "a fit and proper person" in this Bill? I feel that it is better for us to clarify this definition upfront, rather than have to be contradicted by applicants in the process of their application later on after we have passed the Bill.

Pertaining to the PE Appeal Board, what exactly is the composition of the Board, and what is the SOP and terms of reference and so on and so forth? As has been asked by other Members as well, can I also request that perhaps the local MP for such premises can be consulted when there is such an appeal going on as well?

For the demerit points system allocated under clause 11, can this be tagged to the person for a longer period because I feel that if you just dispose of this within one to two years, the seriousness that it should actually portray to these people may be lost? Therefore, we want them to be more conscious of the seriousness of these things and the Bill.

Madam, delineation between art and entertainment, as well as what is acceptable and what is not acceptable, is really a fine line, especially in a multiracial, multi-religious, multi-ethnic society like ours in Singapore. As we tread with caution and sensitivity, we need to do what needs to be done. I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

3.09 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, let me begin by commending the efforts of our Home Team for the recent enforcement operation conducted at nine entertainment outlets in Orchard Road and Selegie Road on 15 April. This enforcement operation also revealed that PE outlets can be a hotbed for vice, drugs and other illegitimate activities. This signals a need to tighten our laws regulating PE outlets.

Mdm Speaker, I support the proposed amendments to PEMA and I have a few suggestions for the Ministry's consideration.

First, I agree with the proposal to tighten regulatory approval by requiring the Licensing Officer to consider whether the applicant is appropriate for the role. The provision to allow for immediate suspension of the licence once proceedings have commenced against the licensee or the responsible officer would also serve to address a current situation where errant outlets continue to operate despite having accumulated numerous breaches. This will send a strong signal to the licensees to keep their outlets in order. However, as highlighted by our Parliamentary colleagues, Er Dr Lee Bee Wah and Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, one concern still lingers − the usage of proxies to apply for a PE licence. How can we put an end to unsavoury businessmen operating from behind the scenes in the PE industry?

Next, I would like to highlight the need to tighten the approval of PE licences, especially in or near mixed developments. Let us take the three examples in my constituency − Balmoral Plaza and Orchard Towers which are mixed developments, and the area around Mount Sophia, which is near Peace Centre.

Like Dr Intan Mokhtar and Ms Denise Phua, during my house visits, it is not uncommon to hear residents complain about these PE outlets located within or near their homes. While fights take place regularly among drunken individuals, beyond such safety concerns, these outlets also bring about disamenities as their patrons loiter outside the outlet and indulge in loud conversations and smoking. I believe enough has been elaborated by the various Members who have spoken before me.

I do agree with Ms Denise Phua that we should not grant PE licences to operate within residential buildings. But in the meantime, can the Ministry consider imposing a cap on the number of PE outlets in a specified area, particularly in areas where there are many residences? Would the PE Appeal Board consider residents' appeals against the granting of a PE licence in their neighbourhood? Feedback from residents can also be given to the Appeal Board either through the Management Corporation Strata Titles (MCSTs) or the Residents' Committees.

Mdm Speaker, the peace and sense of safety of home is often disturbed for residents who live near such PE outlets, and the operators have grown savvy in avoiding trouble in a very technical sense. Residents tell me that in many of these PE outlets, the bouncers or security personnel will ask the patrons to smoke or fight outside of the outlets instead so that they will not get any demerit points or violate any licensing conditions.

As such, I would like to propose that we review the demerit points system, and also to consider having higher demerit points for serious breaches, such as when the security personnel themselves get involved in fights within or outside the outlet. Similar to what has been done at Orchard Towers, would the Police also consider setting up surveillance cameras outside selected PE outlets, in particular, where these outlets co-exist with residences? This is to monitor the spillover activities from these outlets.

Madam, while an exciting nightlife scene adds vibrancy to our city state, more can be done, and more should be done to help residents who live near PE outlets. With that, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

3.14 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, this Bill introduces positive changes to the PE and arts entertainment licensing framework in Singapore and I stand in support of it.

I especially support the amendment to section 14 of the Act, which allows the suspension of a licence when proceeding in relation to offences listed in the proposed Second Schedule. We witnessed an active debate in Parliament recently on stamping out the use of drugs. The offences in the Second Schedule include drug offences, and I believe this is aligned with the move to make Singapore a drug-free society.

Further, the Second Schedule includes matters in relation to prostitution and human trafficking. I am supportive of this in light of the criticisms levelled against Singapore for not doing enough to combat human trafficking and protect foreign workers in this dark side of society. This is testament to the Government's continued commitment to prevent trafficking.

Madam, allow me to seek a few clarifications about this Bill and offer some suggestions.

I note that a Licensing Officer may appoint a suitably trained individual as an authorised person. As many Members of this House have asked, can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify what is meant by "suitably trained", who these authorised persons will be, and also clarify why there is a need to appoint these authorised persons in the first place?

Next, we are proposing to increase the maximum penalty for unlicensed PE and conducting PE while suspended from $10,000 to $20,000. I understand that it has been more than a decade since we have increased the penalties, and I am concerned whether this increase is sufficient and will be a sufficient deterrent. We need to consider that $20,000 might be the earnings in just one or a few nights in some cases.

I also understand that the Police will work with industry partners to promote higher standards. Can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify if these standards have already been drafted? If not, when will they be ready, and also whether these standards will be published on the Police's website for transparency? This will be in line with the "fit and proper" criteria details which will be published on the Police's website. Can the Parliamentary Secretary also clarify if the eventual goal is to legislate these higher standards?

With regard to the PE Appeal Board, can I clarify, in submitting an appeal, will the applicant or licensee be given the opportunity to face the Board and present their case, or, if needed, be allowed to have legal representation?

Finally, is there a prescribed timeframe for this appeal process? I note that an appealable decision takes effect even though an appeal has been made to the Board, unless the Board determines otherwise. In this regard, an appellant appears to be required to make two appeals or two petitions − one to appeal against an appealable decision and, two, to request for the appealable decision to not take effect until the Board renders its decision.

Can the Parliamentary Secretary clarify the process and procedure to request an appealable decision not to take effect? I believe this requires clarification as some subject matter of an appeal could be very time-sensitive. Madam, notwithstanding the above clarifications, I stand in support of the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Senior Minister of State Janil Puthucheary.

3.17 pm

The Senior Minister of State for Communications and Information (Dr Janil Puthucheary): Mdm Speaker, I would like to address the queries raised by the Members on the arts entertainment-related amendments and the regulation of arts entertainment before Parliamentary Secretary Amrin Amin wraps up the debate on the Bill.

PEMA was last amended in 2014 to improve the administration of arts entertainment licensing. Changes were made to more clearly delineate the licensing regimes for arts entertainment and PE which fall under IMDA and the Police respectively, and to ensure the relevance of the Act in view of changing trends in the provision of arts entertainment. For instance, we introduced the requirement for all arts entertainment to be classified regardless of the venue that they are held at, be it at PE establishments licensed by the Police, such as nightclubs, or at other venues, such as theatres and concert halls. In line with technological trends, we also made it a requirement for the live streaming of arts entertainment to a public venue to be licensed and classified.

I thank Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef for recognising the importance of increasing awareness of the regulation of arts entertainment. IMDA agrees that this is important and takes steps to ensure that the public and industry have access to such information.

First, to inform members of the public interested in staging arts entertainment, IMDA publishes information on the licensing and classification of arts entertainment on its website. This includes AECC, information on the classification processes, as well as guidelines on the submission of licensing and classification applications.

Second, whenever there are changes to be made to the regulatory framework, IMDA also consults the industry to inform them and seek their views on the proposed changes. For instance, for the 2014 amendment that provides for the classification of arts entertainment regardless of where it is held at, IMDA held several engagement sessions with stakeholders, including SNBA, the Singapore Hotel Association (SHA) and major business precinct associations to inform them of the changes and also to consult them on ways to streamline regulatory processes for PE establishments offering various forms of arts entertainment.

For the current round of amendments, IMDA held a briefing to arts groups despite the amendments having little impact on their operations. As mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary Amrin Amin, the current rounds of amendments will not result in any change to the existing arts entertainment content standards or the IMDA's arts entertainment classification and licensing processes.

I would also like to address the question from Ms Denise Phua and Mr Murali Pillai on the amendments to section 15A, which would allow IMDA to impose conditions as part of IMDA's classification of arts entertainment that comes under PE licence. The conditions are akin to the existing arts entertainment licensing conditions. Each arts entertainment should be assessed on its own merit and different conditions may be required depending on the content and the form of the arts entertainment. The more common conditions imposed include the need to display classification ratings and consumer advice at the performance venue, and to prevent persons below the age of 18 from viewing arts entertainment rated R18. Such conditions are not new, and applicants generally have not had issues complying with them.

Madam, if I may speak now on the Government's approach to arts regulation in general so as to give additional context to the changes that we are making and also to reassure Members that the amendments will, in no way, affect the regulation of arts entertainment.

First, IMDA adopts an age-based classification framework where content is classified according to their suitability for different age groups. Classification serves to protect the young, while allowing adults to make informed viewing choices on a wider range of arts content. In making its classification decisions, IMDA aims to strike a balance between reflecting generally accepted social norms, while giving due consideration to the arts entertainment's artistic and educational merits.

IMDA classifies arts entertainment according to AECC. Content suitable for a general audience, including children, will be given a General rating, while those that are targeted at a more mature audience can either be rated Advisory, Advisory 16 or R18. Content that goes beyond the R18 rating, for example, those which may undermine national interest, are likely to cause feelings of ill-will between different racial or religious groups or are excessive and/or exploitative in their depictions, will be disallowed. The existing framework thus already addresses Er Dr Lee Bee Wah's concern about the misuse of arts entertainment as a means to offend or to promote radical ideology.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef asked about the breaches that had occurred after the last review of PEMA. Since IMDA took over the responsibility for enforcing and investigating breaches related to arts entertainment from the Police in 2014, it has issued 26 advisories and warnings for breaches of licence conditions and offences under the Act.

I would like to assure Ms Thanaletchimi that IMDA is cognisant that the forms and substance of arts entertainment are not static and will continue to evolve. IMDA keeps itself up to date with the developments in the arts scene through engaging stakeholders, such as the Arts Consultative Panel, the National Arts Council and the arts community. IMDA also reviews the AECC guidelines, as well as its interpretation and application of the guidelines, in consultation with stakeholders to ensure that it keeps up with changes and developments in artistic trends and community standards.

Mdm Speaker, the latest Population Survey on the Arts released by the National Arts Council last year, shows that arts interest and attendance are at an all-time high in Singapore. This is a positive development. But it also means that with higher demand and, therefore, higher supply of arts entertainment, IMDA, as the regulator, will have its work cut out. However, through regular engagements and dialogues with the stakeholders, I believe that IMDA will continue to serve its role well in safeguarding the public space for arts entertainment, even as our arts scene continues to become more diverse and vibrant. I support the Bill, Mdm Speaker.

Mdm Speaker: Parliamentary Secretary Amrin Amin.

3.24 pm

Mr Amrin Amin: Mdm Speaker, I thank the Members who have spoken on this Bill and for their support.

Senior Minister of State Janil has addressed the issues raised by Members relating to arts entertainment regulation. I will now focus on the issues relating to the regulation of PE.

Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked about the number and seriousness of PE licensing breaches and violent crime in PE establishments.

In 2016, there were over 600 PE licensing breaches committed. These were committed by about 20% of the 2,700 PE establishment licensees. About 90% of these breaches were minor, such as failing to maintain a proper record of all employees or failing to ensure that performers do not mingle with patrons. The remaining 10% were major breaches, such as overcrowding, which pose a public safety risk. There were 38 incidents of violent crime, which include serious hurt and rioting, in PE establishments. The situation is under control and Members have also noted this in their speeches. We are proactively managing the situation, and this Bill strengthens our regulatory levers to ensure that the situation continues to be well-managed. As such, we are adopting a calibrated risk-based regulatory regime.

Some Members asked for clarifications on the measures to prevent operation of PE establishments by unsuitable persons or businesses or operated in unsuitable locations. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef and Mr Melvin Yong asked if we can better identify unsuitable persons that hide behind proxies when applying for new licences. This is an issue which we take seriously. At the point of licence application, the Police will screen the applicant's background carefully to ascertain if he has links to errant establishments, as well as the applicant's general records. There are also regular checks that the Police conduct on PE establishments and the operators after the licence application.

Clause 6 of the Bill will also allow the Police to apply certain criteria and requirements on not only the applicant, but also relevant persons, such as responsible officers of the business entity and any person who has substantial interest in or control over the business. The Police can reject the application, or cancel an issued licence, if any of these relevant persons do not meet the Police's criteria and requirements.

Mr Murali Pillai asked what these criteria and requirements would be. The criteria include an assessment of honesty, integrity, reputation, competence and capability of the applicant and relevant persons, much like the Liquor Control Act. For example, we will consider whether the applicant and relevant persons have been convicted of serious crimes and their track records of complying with regulatory requirements. The criteria will be published on the Police website when the amendments to the Act take effect.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah, Ms Denise Phua and Mr Melvin Yong asked whether there are minimum-distance requirements for the approval of PE establishments near residences, religious places, schools or in mixed-use developments. Ms Denise Phua also asked for a whole-of-Government approach to determining siting for PE establishments.

Singapore has a highly dense urban environment and it is difficult to impose minimum distances between PE and other land use types. A case-by-case approach is taken in such matters. Specific cases in the Member's constituencies can be taken up separately.

Today, the Police coordinate and work closely with agencies, such as HDB and URA, in assessing applications, and also consider feedback from residents and stakeholders. The Police also impose conditions to mitigate potential disamenities to the community, such as acceptable noise limits and limiting operating hours, including limiting the liquor serving hours, if they have a liquor licence.

This Bill will strengthen the Police's regulatory levers against errant PE establishments. I welcome Members to work with their grassroots leaders to engage the Ministry and the relevant Government agencies on how we can use these levers better to manage concerns regarding PE establishments in their constituencies.

Ms Thanaletchimi asked whether the proposal to raise the penalty for providing unlicensed PE is due to the rising incidence of unlicensed PE. In 2016, there were only 12 cases of unlicensed PE establishments. We are proposing to raise the fine for unlicensed PE as a matter of principle. A person who disregards the law entirely should be dealt with more harshly than a licensed person who breached licence conditions. Today, the maximum fine for these offences is the same at $10,000. The Bill increases the maximum fine for providing unlicensed PE to $20,000.

Mr Louis Ng asked if a $20,000 fine is a sufficient deterrent for errant operators who try to circumvent our controls and safeguards altogether by operating PE establishments without valid licences. If an unlicensed operator is caught but continues to operate illegally while being investigated by the Police, he can be charged for multiple counts of the offence. In addition, such operators may also be liable for other offences, for example, the unlicensed sale of liquor under the Liquor Control Act. The penalties will add up for egregious offenders who brazenly flout the law. Further, such offenders will not be considered should they seek to apply for PE licences in future, given their history of non-compliance.

Mdm Speaker, I will next address queries on the enhanced powers against errant establishments. Assoc Prof Fatimah Lateef, Mr Louis Ng and Ms Joan Pereira have spoken in support of clause 10, which allows the Licensing Officer to immediately suspend a PE licence, if proceedings have commenced against the licensee or a relevant person of the business for serious crimes.

Mr Murali Pillai asked what type of "proceedings" would trigger suspensions. The intention is to suspend licences when the licensee or relevant person is charged in Court for a serious crime under the Second Schedule. If the licensee or relevant person is not charged, but has other proceedings, such as confiscation orders under the Organised Crime Act outstanding against him, the Police can consider suspending or cancelling the licence under the "fit and proper" framework. The same applies for foreign proceedings.

Ms Thanaletchimi asked generally about the basis for suspending or cancelling licences. Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar also asked about how the demerit points system works. I have addressed these points in my earlier speech.

Dr Lee Bee Wah, Assoc Prof Randolph Tan, Dr Intan Azura Mokhtar, Ms Joan Pereira and Mr Melvin Yong have raised concerns about fights and disamenities in and around PE establishments. They have also suggested various measures to deal with these issues. MHA shares these concerns. Going forward, the Police will also require all nightclubs to install closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras at entrances and exits. This will deter crimes in and around the PE establishment as well as facilitate investigations into any such crimes that take place. Many responsible PE establishments have already installed such CCTVs.

Some Members have suggested that the Police also hold the licensees responsible for fights and crime that take place outside of their establishments. Mr Melvin Yong also suggested that demerit points be awarded if security personnel of the establishment are involved in fights, or if they ask patrons to fight or smoke outside.

We are exploring new licensing conditions with appropriate demerit points to address the issue of law and order incidents originating from PE establishments. Licensees should take reasonable steps to respond to incidents that originate from their premises, even if they spill out of the premises.

For security officers who are found to be the cause of fights, their licence under the Private Security Industry Act could be revoked. For serious criminal offences, they would also be charged in Court.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah also suggested that the Police impose conditions on PE establishments to prohibit their employees from being scantily-clad. Such conditions are already in place. Employees have to be decently attired when carrying out their duties.

To address the more fundamental issue of establishments that facilitate or attract vice activities, there are licensing conditions to curb such illegal activities. I also spoke earlier about the new powers to suspend a licence if the licensee or relevant persons have been charged for serious offences in the Second Schedule. The Second Schedule includes vice-related offences under the Women's Charter. If there is any information on breaches, please call our hotline.

Er Dr Lee Bee Wah asked how much resources are committed to regulating PE establishments. The six Police Land Divisions regularly conduct enforcement checks on PE establishments under their jurisdiction to deter and detect illegal activities. In 2016, the Police conducted over 1,000 such checks.

Clause 5 of the Bill allows the Police to appoint authorised persons to support such checks, in particular, checks of a more routine or preventive nature. This provision gives the Police operational flexibility to deploy manpower more effectively or conduct more frequent checks should the need arise. Authorised persons are also subject to supervisory controls by the Police.

Dr Intan Mokhtar, Mr Louis Ng, Mr Murali Pillai, Ms Denise Phua and Ms Sylvia Lim asked about "suitably trained" authorised persons and their powers. Examples of "suitably trained" persons include APOs or retired Police Officers who have the requisite skills and experience.

Authorised persons can only exercise the powers of inspection created by clause 17. These powers of inspection are tightly scoped to include only the basic powers they need for routine inspections, such as making copies of documents, taking photos or requesting for explanations. Any licensing breaches detected and reported by authorised persons will be investigated by the Police.

On Ms Sylvia Lim's and Ms Denise Phua's points, routine inspections, such as checks on staff records, are usually uneventful. But in the event of escalation of violence, authorised officers drawn from the ranks of APOs and retired Police Officers would have received training and have experience in managing licensing inspections and managing difficult situations generally, and they can also call for Police back-up. APOs today are required to attend basic modules, which include training on checks on persons and bags, and incident management, and they will receive additional training before being deployed to inspect PE establishments.

On the powers of forced entry for Licensing Officers and Police Officers, Ms Sylvia Lim asked why such powers were needed now. The Police have encountered PE establishments that locked their premises on arrival of enforcement officers. This provides them opportunity to dispose of evidence and lead time to stop any lawful activities. Currently, a search warrant from the Courts is needed before the Police can gain entry into the premises for the purpose of licensing checks. The new power of forced entry will allow the Police to take swift and effective action to detect and enforce licensing breaches.

Mdm Speaker, I will now address queries on appeal processes. Mr Louis Ng, Ms Denise Phua, Ms Thanaletchimi, Mr Murali Pillai and Ms Sylvia Lim sought clarifications on the structure, processes and terms of reference of the PE Appeal Board.

The Appeal Board will largely mirror the structure and processes of the existing Liquor Appeal Board under the Liquor Control Act. The Minister for Home Affairs will appoint the members of the PE Appeal Board from a range of fields, such as legal, education and business. This ensures that the Appeal Board considers a range of perspectives on issues pertaining to operational matters of PE establishments. To maintain independence, the Appeal Board members cannot have any dealings or be in any way concerned with the provision of PE. Appellants only send written representations to the Board and they can engage lawyers to prepare the representations. The Appeal Board decides based on simple majority, and its decision on the merits of the case is final.

On whether an appealable decision by the Police will take effect even while the appeal is ongoing, this is not a new provision; it already exists in the current section 16(4) of the Act. However, the Appeal Board may decide on a case-by-case basis to specify that the appealable decision should not take effect while the appeal is being considered.

The Appeal Board will strive to hear appeals expeditiously, but time taken depends on various factors, including the complexity of the matter.

The Minister for Home Affairs will prescribe the classes of PE establishment licensees that will have their appeals heard by the Appeal Board. The current intention is to prescribe all licensees of PE establishments be heard by the Appeal Board but the Minister can prescribe otherwise in future. The Appeal Board would consider the Licensing Officer's considerations regarding the regulation of the PE establishment's operations as well as the appellant's business concerns.

The relevant Ministers will hear appealable decisions from all other licensees that are not prescribed to be heard by the Appeal Board, such as organisers of large-scale, one-off events. Appeals from such licensees tend to involve security and policy considerations and are more complex, and these are matters of governance where the Minister should decide.

Mr Melvin Yong asked if the Appeal Board will also hear appeals from residents against the approval or renewal of licences for PE establishments. Our assessment is that there is no need for that. The Police already take into account residents' and Members' representations on such matters.

In my earlier speech, I mentioned briefly that following our review, the Police will also work closely with the industry to promote more responsible business operations.

Mr Louis Ng asked whether these industry standards have already been drafted, whether they will be published and eventually will be legislated. SNBA and European Chamber of Commerce (EuroCham) have recently announced that they are working together to improve standards in the PE industry, including exploring a formal industry-led accreditation framework. This is an important effort by the industry to voluntarily adopt higher standards to ensure that PE establishments are operated in a responsible manner. The laws are adequate, but if the industry wants to do more, they should be encouraged and we welcome it.

Assoc Prof Randolph Tan suggested that PE establishments put in effort to promote good drinking etiquette. Er Dr Lee Bee Wah suggested to have additional training for staff to manage disputes. Ms Thanaletchimi suggested we enhance our public education efforts. We will work with the industry on these.

Ms Thanaletchimi asked for clarification on the separation of public meetings from PEs as a result of the change to the title of the Act. As I have mentioned in my earlier speech, we are removing "Meetings" from the title, as meetings, rallies and forums have been regulated under the Public Order Act since 2009.

Mdm Speaker, I believe I have covered all the points raised by Members.

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. – [Mr Amrin Amin.]

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

Mdm Speaker: I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 4.10 pm. Order.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.45 pm until 4.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 4.10 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]