Public Order (Amendment) Bill

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Mdm Speaker, there are two major parts to this amendment Bill. The first is to protect the public from the growing threat of terrorist actions to events that take place in Singapore. The second is to re-emphasise and make clear what has always been our position, that permits may be refused for assemblies and processions where non-Singaporeans and non-Singaporean entities get involved towards political ends.

Let me look at the first part in relation to specific terrorist threats. Members will be aware of the threat of terrorism around the world and in Singapore. The region has been hit several times. We have been targeted. We increasingly see a modus operandi where terrorists target soft targets as one of the main modes of attack.

These are large events with large crowds with limited protection, or public buildings which are less secure. You have seen that over the past two years. You had in November 2015 the attack in Paris where they attacked a cafe, football match and concert. Ninety people died. In June of last year, you had the attack in Nice. More than 80 people died. A truck was driven into the crowds. In December of last year, you have the Christmas Market attack in Germany. Twelve persons dead in Berlin. Of course, you have the New Year's Eve shooting at an Istanbul nightclub, with 39 persons dead. Nightclubs, public events, cafes, football events and so on.

In terms of how the Government has responded, we have taken significant steps. I call that the kinetic response. We have put in more cameras, increased vigilance with technology. We have new capabilities with the Emergency Response Teams. I have indicated that they are trained to be at any place in Singapore within a certain number of minutes and they understand the local terrain very well, including the buildings. We have also conducted major exercises to see what the gaps are and continuously upgrade and sharpen our skills.

In addition, we have also launched the SGSecure movement to bring in the population, and our intention is the entire population has got to come into this and work with the Government in a partnership.

The fact is that terrorists have imposed a cost on society. And the Government and the taxpayers are paying the cost. At the same time, business owners, event organisers will have to bear a part of this cost. That is what the first part is about. Not all of it, but a part of it.

So, why do we have to regulate security for events? When there is a risk of a potential terrorist attack at an event, and the risk is assessable as potentially dangerous, then it is really in the public interest that the Government does something about it, that the necessary security measures are taken. Otherwise, we are putting lives at risk.

The practical issue then becomes one of balancing. What measures do we put in, where do we draw the line, and how do we calibrate so that the measures are reasonable and practicable?

Today, as it stands now before the amendment, section 21 of the Act allows the Minister for Home Affairs to designate special events. This is done to ensure the safety and security of the event, and to avoid disruptions to the event. These are usually events of major and national significance. To give some examples, the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) 2009 meetings in Singapore, Southeast Asian Games Opening and Closing Ceremonies, National Day Parade, events like that.

The Police require a wide range of powers to ensure event security to protect the public, in events of such significance. Those powers include the power to inspect personal property, search people, prohibit certain items from being taken into the event area, security screening, refusing entry into special events and also issuing directions to event organisers.

But we know, today's threats are not limited to these sorts of events. From my earlier illustrations, you have seen they attack concerts, they attack festivals, any kind of gathering. At the same time, we cannot subject all these events to the kind of security or rules that we require, say, for the National Day Parade.

So, it is a balance. You cannot let it go completely unprotected nor can you impose the kind of security that you do for the kind of events I have talked about. When we strike a balance, we must remember and accept that when you put in security measures, they do deter attackers.

For example, in November 2015, the terrorists wanted to go into the stadium. But they were deterred because there were security checks, so they detonated outside and that caused much less loss of lives. After the attacks in Berlin and Nice, questions were raised as to why there were no higher security measures.

In Singapore, in February this year, we had the Guns N' Roses concert at the Changi Exhibition Centre reputed to have 50,000 people. Concerns have been raised as to why there were no added security measures as this is the kind of events that can be targeted.

So, what are the gaps today and how do we deal with them? What the Police do today is to work with event organisers to voluntarily put in the security measures and most organisers are cooperative. But I think the time has come for us to go beyond that to give the Police the powers to require such measures.

When you have events with large crowds, higher risk, there has got to be adequate security, and there has got to be legal powers for the Police to direct that some security measures be put in that are considered adequate. What is the approach we are going to take?

First, we will require organisers of events where you expect beyond a certain crowd, beyond a certain size, to inform the Police in advance that you are expecting this sort of crowd. Second, after the Police's assessment, the Police will then declare events with certain large crowds, or assessed to be at higher risk, as special events. The Commissioner of Police will decide this. And the Police can then direct that the event organisers take special steps, security measures. Of course, if the event organiser refuses to comply with the directions of the Police, then it has to be a non-compliance with the law. The Bill also provides for that.

The intent of this framework which I have just explained − notifying the Police, allowing the Police to give directions, and making non-compliance an offence − is to make sure that the basic security measures are in place, and also allow the Police to direct further security measures, for example, if there is credible or a reasonable basis to believe that there are specific or generalised threats. These are assessments that the Police have to make.

Now, let me deal with the main provisions of this Bill. Members will note from clause 3 of the Bill, it requires organisers to give the Police notice of intention if they expect the crowd size to be above a prescribed size. There will a period prescribed and a notification has got to take place in the context of the prescribed period. Events that meet the crowd size thresholds will then be declared as special events. In making the declaration, the Police will assess if the event is at potential risk of a terrorist attack or a public order incident.

What types of events do we intend to prescribe once the Bill comes into force? For public events, if we expect more than 5,000 persons at any time, and public events refer to events where any member of the public can attend, either by purchasing tickets or by freely entering the event area. For private events, if we expect more than 10,000 persons at any time. Private events are events by invitation only.

The reason for making a distinction between public and private events is that one assumes that, for a private event, the organisers know who they are inviting. And because it is by invitation only, then there is no wide public invitation and, therefore, potentially lesser profile. But, of course, I am just setting the general principles. The specific cases will vary and the Commissioner will have to make that assessment.

How does one estimate crowd size? I think the event organisers would try to make an estimate based on the facts available to them, such as the size of the venue, past events of a similar nature, ticket sales and so on. The organiser makes the best estimate he or she can. And if the crowd size exceeds what they estimated, then, of course, that is not an offence.

How did we come to these thresholds? They were based on risk assessment. Why 5,000? Why not 4,000? Why not 6,000? We have got to draw a line somewhere. Take into consideration, first, the seating capacity of major event venues in Singapore and also looking at the scheduled landscape of events that we have in Singapore.

What is this likely to cover? If you look at the Singapore Indoor Stadium, it can hold 7,000 to 8,000 people when used for concerts. The Star Performing Arts Centre can accommodate up to 5,000 people. How many events would this apply to, based on past precedents? I think about 200 public events.

So, we have taken a measured approach. And remember these 200 public events today have already put in place many of these security measures. What is being done is to give the Police the directive power. What we have today is a system where the Police work with the organisers and the organisers voluntarily do this. The Bill will effectively give the Police the power to direct. And we want to encourage people to organise events. We do not want to stifle the vibrancy of events being held in Singapore. We do not want to discourage people. At the same time, we have to recognise that the worldwide impact of terrorism is imposing costs on everyone.

Based on the type of events and the threshold of crowds, I talked about the Police having to be told a certain period beforehand, we intend it to be 28 days before the event. That gives enough time for the Police to make an assessment, engage with the organisers on the security requirements and for the organisers to put in place the security requirements. Because the Police have to make an assessment, then they have got to go back to the organisers and say "we need you to do these things", and the organisers need time to go and put in place those requirements.

But, sometimes, it is not possible to give such notice. So, clause 3 will actually require the Commissioner to accept shorter notice, if he is reasonably satisfied that an earlier notice could not have been given. If you do not notify the Police, that would be an offence. So, there is a legal requirement to notify the Police when you reasonably expect the crowd size to be beyond 5,000 for a public event.

There is also the power to declare an event as a special event by the Commissioner of Police. Clause 8 of the Bill will repeal and re-enact section 21. When will the Commissioner exercise this power? When it is necessary to preserve the public order and the safety of individuals involved in the event, as well as other persons, and also where it is necessary to avoid disruptions to the event.

What would the Commissioner have to consider in declaring events as a special event? He has got to look at the size of the event. He has got to look at the experience and expertise of the organisers and he has got to look at the other factors, including threat assessment.

In practice, how is the Commissioner likely to exercise this power? I think he will exercise this power when an event is likely to attract a very large crowd and he assesses it to be at a higher risk of a terror attack or a public order incident.

Some of these events, based on past precedent, could include, say, large-scale sporting events like the Standard Chartered Singapore Marathon, music concerts and celebrations like the Chinese New Year Countdown or the Marina Bay Singapore Countdown. These are iconic events that can be targets. High-profile events like the Shangri-La Dialogue or National Day Rally will also be declared as special events.

Once the Commissioner declares an event to be a special event, he will issue directions to the event organisers to put in place the security measures. He will use section 30, which is an existing provision that applies to special events. Currently, the Minister declares them to be special events under section 30, but he will use the powers under section 30. Clause 9 of the Bill will amend section 30 to clarify examples of written directions that the Commissioner can give.

How will this work in practice? Let us say an event has been declared a special event or enhanced security special event. The Police will then discuss the security plan with the organisers. The Police will then issue directions to the event organisers to put in place the agreed or hopefully agreed security measures, which could include setting up of barricades, engaging security officers by having clear signage. And that is likely to apply to the majority of special events which are events which attract large crowds.

For some events which are likely to be at a higher risk of a terror attack or a public order incident, the Police could direct additional measures, like armed Auxiliary Police Officers (APOs), full body scans, bag checks and measures against vehicle-borne threats. And you have seen how vehicle-borne threats can cause chaos. If for some reason that event venue cannot be secured against security risks, the Police may require the venue to be changed. And that has happened in the past. The event may be cancelled or postponed if it is unsafe for it to continue. That could be due to an imminent threat or severely inadequate security and also inadequate crowd management arrangements.

The Police may also require the organisers to inform the participants, the public at large, regarding some aspects of how the event is going to be conducted, for example, to come earlier because of security screening.

Again, not complying with the written directions given under section 30 would be an offence, and the Commissioner is allowed or will be empowered to do what is necessary to give effect to his written directions. And that could include, if the event organisers are not putting in the security, the Police can put in the security. They can also recover the costs and expenses incurred in doing so, as a civil debt owed to the Government.

But stepping in to implement the security requirements is really an option of last resort. But it is important to have this option in case you have organisers who just go ahead, ignore everything and have a large-scale event without adequate security. Clause 10 will make it an offence for anyone to willfully obstruct any Police Officer or the Commissioner in the exercise of his powers.

Supposing a Commissioner declares an event be a special event, then the powers that are exercisable in relation to the participants and members of the public under sections 24 to 29 and section 32A will not apply. As the participants and members of the public at a special event will not be subject to these powers, the declaration of the special event by the Commissioner does not have to be gazetted.

Clause 8 of the Bill will also enact a new section 21A. That is to allow the Minister for Home Affairs to declare some special events as enhanced security special events. Generally, these are events of major national or international significance which have previously been declared as special events under this Act. The powers that are exercisable in relation to these events remain largely unchanged.

So, we have to demarcate the events which the Minister will declare as special events from those declared by the Commissioner. The Minister will give directions to the Commissioner to refer certain events or a class of similar events to the Minister. And then the Minister will decide whether or not to declare these events. Basically, we are increasing the security requirements for events which attract certain types of crowd more than 5,000 and/or with national or international prominence giving powers for directions. Any declaration made by the Minister must be published in the Gazette because the powers do affect members of the public in and around the vicinity of the special event.

My Ministry has consulted key stakeholders. We have consulted the People's Association, Football Association of Singapore and event companies providing entertainment, as well as sporting events, and event security and logistics providers. Based on the feedback we have received, we will develop guidelines for event organisers on what procedures they need to adopt to notify the Police, and also what security measures are required for a typical event, and what sort of additional security measures that might be imposed, depending on the threat assessment and the nature of the event.

In doing this, obviously, the private security industry is an important partner to help us implement this framework. We are working with the tripartite partners to develop what is being called the Industry Transformation Map (ITM) for the Private Security Industry. So, we will focus on innovation, technology and upgrading the jobs and skills of the officers. Hopefully, that will help the private security industry meet the demands in the years ahead because you are going to have security officers who need to be professional in handling this.

The second part of this Bill relates to the amendment to section 7(2), to prevent foreigners from using Singapore to promote political causes. As to the basic philosophy, there can be no doubt that the Government's position has always been that foreigners and foreign entities should not import their politics into Singapore, nor should they interfere in our domestic politics, especially on issues of a political or controversial nature. The Police have previously rejected permit applications by non-Singaporeans to organise events, for example, the Bersih-related events at the Speakers' Corner.

Clause 4 of the Bill clarifies that the Commissioner of Police may refuse to grant a permit for a public assembly or procession, if he has reasonable grounds to believe that the proposed assembly or procession is directed towards a political end, and organised by, or involves the participation of non-Singaporean entities or non-Singapore Citizens. Those events, where a permit is applied for, will be assessed carefully, case-by-case, by the Police.

In determining whether the proposed assembly or procession is "directed towards a political end", the Commissioner would have to consider if such activities would cover matters, regardless of whether in Singapore or elsewhere, that promote the interests of political parties or a group of persons organised for political objectives, or influencing or seeking to influence policies or decisions of any government, changes in the law, any election or referendum, public opinion on a matter of public controversy, or policies or decisions of persons performing public functions, or to promote or oppose political views or public conduct relating to activities that have become the subject of political debate.

These amendments do not impact on Singaporeans. These are directed at foreigners and foreign entities. "Singapore entity" in the Bill includes entities, such as companies and non-governmental organisations (NGOs), which are incorporated or registered in Singapore and controlled by a majority of Singapore Citizens.

Singapore Citizens and entities can continue to apply for and be granted permits for assemblies and processions directed towards political ends, as long as none of the other grounds which already exist in the Public Order Act are there.

Mdm Speaker, in conclusion, the proposed amendments will seek to enhance the security of events in Singapore against the clear and present threat of terrorism.

The Bill also seeks to ensure that Singapore will not be used as a platform by foreigners to further political causes, especially those that are controversial or divisive. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Melvin Yong.

3.32 pm

Mr Melvin Yong Yik Chye (Tanjong Pagar): Mdm Speaker, I stand in support of the Bill. I would like to declare that I am one of the trustees of the Union of Security Employees. Given the current regional and global security environment, the proposed changes are timely.

The recent attack along Westminster Bridge in London has once again emphasised the need for us to always remain vigilant and alert for any form of attacks on our citizens, including our security forces. I am glad that the Bill aims to further strengthen our security measures to better protect our people, particularly at large-scale events where many will gather. However, I have some areas of concern for the Ministry's consideration.

First, under the amendment to section 7, it would be useful to better clarify the term "public controversy". Would issues related to race and religion fall under this term? Could the Ministry share where the boundaries or the out-of-bounds markers are? Perhaps some examples would be useful to provide a better understanding of what constitutes "public controversy" under section 7.

Second, the new security measures will inevitably mean that we will need more security officers. Today, we have around 43,000 active security officers in the industry. This security workforce is supplemented by a significant number of Malaysians. Recently, we heard that concession has been given to some security companies to hire Auxiliary Police Officers from new sources, such as Taiwan. Mdm Speaker, we cannot continue to depend on foreign labour to supplement our security needs. We must build up our pool of local security professionals. We need to establish pipelines of suitable locals into our security industry.

Third, we must work on improving standards and enhancing training of our security workforce. In recent years, we have seen a steady increase in the number of large-scale special events. It is important for our security officers to be well-trained, well-equipped and well-informed to handle the ever-changing security threats at such events. They must be properly trained and be kept up to date on the latest security threats and tactics used by those who intend to cause us harm.

Today, our security officers go through two Workforce Skills Qualifications (WSQ) modules at the entry-level before they can be deployed. These modules are delivered by different training providers and some security companies have even set up their own training centres.

Would the Ministry consider consolidating the various training resources and establish a centralised training institute for all security officers? This would allow basic training to be structured and ensure a level of consistency in delivery. It would also allow for regular review of the training curriculum and provide a platform for continuous training for our security workforce.

To attract more Singaporeans to join the security profession, the job scope of security officers should progress beyond basic guarding and move towards more skills-based and knowledge-based security operations, so that the value of the job and the image of our security officers can improve over time.

Today, the industry has established a five-grade single-track Progressive Wage Model (PWM) for security officers. We need to expand on this and create multiple career tracks for our security officers. We know, for example, that the Institute of Technical Education (ITE) West trains students who can set up and monitor remote command centres. But today, this task requires a security supervisor under the single-track PWM and he needs to have four years of experience, that is, two years as a security officer and another two years as a senior security officer. And this is on top of the WSQ prerequisites at each rung and each level. Although exceptions can be given, and are given on appeal, most ITE graduates from this course will find it hard to join the industry and practise what they had been trained for as they do not qualify.

Could we explore a parallel career track for security technologists? An ITE graduate in this area can join as a security technologist and get paid at least $1,800 for his specialty skills, while a polytechnic graduate can start as a senior security technologist.

Mdm Speaker, let me now turn to business cost as a result of the enhanced security measures. For many security companies, the need for more security officers will add to the business costs. But this is also an opportunity for the industry to work together to optimise our limited manpower resources. Security companies need to invest more in risk assessment and smarter use of technologies to augment physical bodies.

Can we use sensors and surveillance cameras in place of human beings to guard a locked door? Can we leverage technology to secure our perimeters instead of a patrol team? Do we need to patrol both sides of the same perimeter fence because they belong to two different owners? What is preventing us from optimising the use of our security manpower? To me, there are two key issues.

First, there is a lack of common standards for security technology. This has resulted in buyers installing excessive, and sometimes over-priced, systems that they do not need. Would the Police consider working with the industry to provide a set of guidelines to assist both security companies as well as security service buyers? We can start by identifying key areas where technological solutions are clearly superior and seek to provide a set of common standards. Through specific funding support by the Government, we can bring down the cost of security technology solutions, improve productivity and enhance security outcomes.

Second, we need to consider mandating security assessments to optimise the use of technology and manpower. There is a Chinese saying: to get the task done, you first need the right tools. Today, most buyers procure security technology separately from security manpower and this is not tenable in the long run.

Mdm Speaker, the Labour Movement has been advocating the need to aggregate demand for both manpower and technology and attract more Singaporeans to join the security profession. We hope that beyond addressing our long-term manpower needs through the sector's ITM, we can also raise the overall security standards that Singapore must have.

We are in a region where terrorism activities fester. Let us not wait until it is too late. The security of our nation is paramount and we must spare no effort to ensure that our security officers are well-trained, well-equipped and well-informed to carry out their duties effectively. Mdm Speaker, I support the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan.

3.40 pm

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan (Nominated Member): Madam, there is little doubt that we must give our Police and law enforcement officials robust powers to prevent terrorism from ever taking root in Singapore and to prevent one-off terrorist acts at private and public events. We have done so in the past through the Public Order Act and other legislation. We must remain vigilant and can look at these particular amendments.

The Shangri-La shooting incident that Members had spoken about in the past is one such incident that we must have a clear response to. We should never underestimate the importance of appropriate and even additional security measures, where necessary. However, Madam, I have certain concerns and, at the outset, I must say that my concerns are not with respect to anything that we would do which are anti-terrorist initiatives but are specifically about anything, including within these amendments, that may have an unwitting or an overt limitation on free speech or through censorship of the media. If we are seeking to stifle creativity, innovation or healthy intellectual debate as the Minister earlier alluded to, others may worry and I worry as well, Madam, that certain aspects and powers or even discretion that have now been put in the hands of the Police Commissioner and others may cause concern. And I would ask for certain clarifications.

My concerns are specific, Madam. If I was to look at section 6A of the present Act, clause 3 proposes fresh discretion in the hands of the Police Commissioner and with the Minister. It suggests, amongst other things, that the Minister may prescribe different numbers of individuals for different classes of events. I would ask the Minister, perhaps, how this categorisation would be delineated. Will the different classes of events be specifically clear and distinguished so that organisers will know and be certain as to what the classifications are and what may be their incumbent obligations? I ask this as well, Madam, because not every organiser may quite know what may be lying in store for them.

Next, Madam, I look at clause 9(e) which relates to section 37 of the present amendment Bill. It suggests that the Police Commissioner may, without affording any opportunity to be heard, modify any written direction under section 1 or 7 of the proposed above-mentioned legislation. This idea of not allowing any right to be heard, Madam, while there is no expressed duty to give reasons under Singapore's administrative law and I would not take issue with this, it does cause some concern. As the Minister rightly mentioned earlier, even his declarations must be gazetted and it must show to members of the public what is being involved. If the opportunity to be heard is being dispensed in some way, would there be a possibility for judicial review? Would there be appeals to the Ministry itself if there is a legitimate reason as to why an event may go forward? Could there be an appeal, perhaps, to the Police Commissioner to consider or reconsider this?

The next clause, Madam, that causes some concern is clause 9(g). Clause 9(g) relates to section 38 of the present legislation and seeks to create a new 38A and 38B. It relates to the costs that will be involved regarding these events. Would these costs be imposed concurrently with the current criminal sanctions provided in the present 38 of the Act in the event of non-compliance with the Commissioner's written direction? In addition, will there be internal control mechanisms, Madam, to ascertain whether the expenses incurred by the Commissioner will be given effect to if the direction is reasonably incurred?

Madam, these are perhaps technical points that I have raised. But the larger point would be, if we are seeking to impose obligations on event organisers with events that touch on political matters or political ends, we must have very clear directions at this stage so that we know what we are getting into.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Kok Heng Leun.

3.45 pm

Mr Kok Heng Leun (Nominated Member): Thank you, Mdm Speaker, for giving me this opportunity to share my views on the Public Order (Amendment) Bill. Since coming into force in 2009, and subsequently with amendments made as recently as 2015, the Public Order Act (POA) has achieved its objectives to ensure order and safety in public spaces well.

As such, any proposed amendment should address specific gaps in public safety which have arisen. It should also offer clear terms for the execution of the Act. Yet, in my opinion, there are various aspects of the proposed amendments which require further clarification in terms of their intent. I believe the amendments will have an adverse impact on our efforts to encourage active citizenry.

Our Government has made positive steps, particularly in recent years, to encourage citizens in policymaking. This strategy should be encouraged. Citizens should be politically aware and not politically naive. Political discussion is important to let us understand why decisions are being made, how it affects others and, importantly, allow us to articulate the kind of governance we want. When our citizens' trust and confidence in the political system grow, they will feel invested in the country's development and strategic direction.

Of course, while we encourage political discourse and active citizenry, we would also agree that there must be terms of engagement that ensure civility, non-violence and public order.

Hence, I see the POA as an Act that assures meaningful engagement. Thus, any policy change that deters citizens from becoming actively engaged will be counter-productive to our vision. We know that there has been more and more active engagement through social media, but meaningful engagement done face to face is equally important. True active citizenry must also include Singaporeans initiating self-directed efforts in response to problems in our immediate surroundings. Also, political discourse should not be seen as something scary and dangerous, or something that only articulates itself as complaining. If people are afraid to participate openly in political discussions, they will not evolve into discerning citizens.

To date, I still have audience coming to me about my production and say: "Don't talk about such things. Hey, why are you making these criticisms, will you get questioned? Don't do drama about politics, if not, you will get into trouble." How can all of us assure the public that there is nothing to fear? Ironically, the amended POA might even further deter Singaporeans from good, solid political engagement and discussion. It is in this light that I would like to examine and discuss this Bill.

Under clause 4 of the proposed amendment, the Commissioner has the power to refuse a permit for public assembly or public procession, if he or she has reasonable ground for believing that the activity may be, I quote, "directed towards a political end and be organised by, or involve the participation of, any of the following persons: an entity that is not a Singapore entity; and an individual who is not a citizen of Singapore."

The term "political end" has a very broad definition, as mentioned by the Minister just now. For instance, a public panel discussion on animal abuse, featuring Singaporeans and foreign experts, can be considered as "directed towards a political end". After all, the recommendations of such a panel may well include proposals for legislative changes. Or how about a public lecture, organised by a local NGO, with a foreign expert speaking on healthy policy, proposing recommendations for Singapore to boost Singapore's birth rate? That would also be covered under this very broad definition.

I think the House can agree with me when I say these examples should certainly not fall afoul of POA. After all, they are beneficial for our nation, never mind that they deal with policy matters. Furthermore, they should not cause any public disorder or safety issues. But the issue at hand is this: we cannot categorically claim such events have "a political end", nor can we say otherwise. The amendment should then be clarified, to ensure such events are free from unnecessary scrutiny.

If the proposed amendment is to deter foreigners from leading or participating in political events that threaten public order or safety, then is it repetitious? Because we have already dealt with such things adequately through clause 7(2) of POA. If we say that the proposed amendment is to restrict the direct influence of foreign corporations on domestic politics, then such instances can be dealt with through measures, such as disclosure rules, which will not limit spaces for political discourse.

Therefore, the Bill, with its very broad definition of "political ends", seems to indicate that any event involving a foreign element advocating for some form of political change, whether good or bad, can be rejected by the Commissioner.

Therefore, my question would be: how would the Commissioner decide to refuse the application of a particular public assembly? Should it be assessed based on its propensity to cause public disorder and not just merely on determining if it has "political ends"?

What if there are contestations on the Commissioner's decision? Would there be an avenue for repeal? If the answer is that it can be challenged in Court, then it would definitely be a big deterrent for NGOs because of the cost involved.

During the Budget Debate, I have spoken at length about how a strong civil society and an active citizenry build our national resilience. We are facing difficult and uncertain times ahead and, clearly, we do not have all the answers to the problems we face. In such times, it benefits us to collaborate with and learn from international experts.

Will the proposed amendments to POA restrict our access to foreign expertise and knowledge, given its prohibition of foreign involvement? Our universities and Government agencies have always tapped on foreign resources. Our burgeoning civil society has much to learn as well from foreign experience and wisdom, so that it can grow more robust and address societal problems more effectively. Our nation as a whole has benefited greatly from an exchange of views with people from outside Singapore. Would such engagements now be in danger of ceasing, should the Commissioner, on his or her own discretion, deem them to be infringing the POA?

I do not believe I am alone in saying that the new amendments have the potential to incite more fear and create more barriers for civil society to engage with foreign experts.

It is encouraging that the Government wants to cultivate active citizenry. But we should also not inhibit concerned individuals or civil society from initiating engagement. Bottom up is not always a bad thing. Top down also sometimes need to take a break. It is time for the Government to trust its people. Let Singaporeans strive to find solutions for important issues without Government interference. When we feel more involved and invested in the future of our nation, then we can truly say Singapore has a genuine active citizenry.

Another clarification I would like to seek pertains to the Commissioner's decision-making process. The provision in POA is such that the Commissioner is given the power to decide what he or she deems to be political, in other words, have "political ends". This is a very different power from that of deciding whether an event will potentially create public unrest.

Yet, is the Commissioner the best judge of what is political and what is not? Of course, there is no dispute on the Commissioner's institutional expertise on what constitutes public disorder. This is why the position is invested with the power to decide on that for the POA.

However, the role of our Police Force should be that of law enforcers, not interpreters of political intentions. In giving the Commissioner this new responsibility, are we giving our Police Force the right to make political decisions? Would this not lead to questions about its impartiality? I, for one, would not want public confidence in our Police Force to be eroded or its integrity questioned. Even if the Commissioner is, indeed, impartial, with this new responsibility, he or she may have to make seemingly subjective decisions that favour certain groups and displease others. It would be hard to avoid accusations of political non-partisanship once the Commissioner has to make such difficult decisions outside of his or her institutional competence.

Furthermore, under POA, there is no requirement for the Commissioner to provide any detailed reasons for the rejection of a permit application. This means that the Commissioner's decision would effectively be free from public scrutiny. Yet, without transparency in the decision-making process, the public has little option but to resort to speculation and conjecture. Instead of building our citizens' trust in the Police Force, the Bill could potentially cause an erosion of public confidence, which is something we do not want to see happen.

Given that the proposed amendments are problematic on numerous levels, as well as the potential of undermining public confidence and trust in the impartiality of our Police Force, I believe that a closer scrutiny of the Bill is required.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Gan Thiam Poh.

3.55 pm

Mr Gan Thiam Poh (Ang Mo Kio): Mdm Speaker, the introduction of this Bill is a sad indicator of the environment we live in. Singapore has been relatively safe so far, thanks to the vigilance of our security personnel as well as cooperation from the private sector. Our years of effort at promoting mutual understanding and building tolerance and harmony amongst different racial, religious and community groups also play an important role. Nevertheless, the threat of a terrorist attack is high and we must take pre-emptive measures to ensure the safety of Singapore and all our residents and visitors.

The Bill will require organisers of public events which expect more than 5,000 participants to consult the Police on security measures. I would like to ask if the Minister can share how the number of 5,000 was arrived at. I also seek clarifications about whether this limit also applies to the Speakers' Corner, election rallies and events organised by grassroots organisations.

Security measures would include deploying more security officers, bag checks and installing anti-vehicle barricades. Would the Minister elaborate on the minimum necessary security measures that an organiser must implement and how would the Government assist with the sharing of costs? What happens if an organiser decides to set the number at 4,999 instead of 5,000 or split the crowd into two at venues in close proximity to each other? Or split events into two successive sessions, one immediately after the other with less than 5,000 within the venue while having less than 5,000 or just fall short of 5,000 waiting outside the venue, making a total of 5,000 at any point of time.

Will the 5,000 include organisers and performers and supporting staff because, at some events, in fact, the performers and the supporting staff added up together could be more than 5,000 together with the participants?

As there are limited choices of venues which can hold 5,000 people, will the Ministry consider designating such areas so that permanent security installations and measures can be set up in these areas to leverage the economies of scale and help organisers reduce costs?

I am also curious about whether the use of electronic and personal communication devices will be restricted at these events since they can be used by terrorists, as reported recently in the US and the European Union (EU).

Finally, regarding manpower requirements at such events, will the volunteers helping out be required to be trained volunteers? The support of volunteer staff will help to reduce the cost of organising such events.

In addition, will the Ministry consider constantly updating and equipping all NS personnel and reservists with skills and knowledge to combat terrorism? I would like to conclude with my support for the Bill.

Mdm Speaker: Mr Louis Ng.

3.59 pm

Mr Louis Ng Kok Kwang (Nee Soon): Madam, these amendments have the important function of strengthening our security framework to protect the public against terror threats and I stand in full support of them.

However, I would like to seek some clarifications that will hopefully address the concerns of civil society groups, in particular, their concern that this Bill might have the unintended consequence of making it more difficult for civil society groups to responsibly and legitimately exercise their freedom of expression.

The new section 6A requires organisers to give special notice to the Commissioner if they expect more than the prescribed number of participants. The Minister had covered this earlier, but how will organisers determine that it is for free and non-ticketed events? It is very possible for an event to attract a greater turnout than expected.

I personally experienced this when the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society (ACRES) held events at the Speakers' Corner when, at times, the turnout was twice of what we expected and catered for. How will the Commissioner respond and how will security measures be implemented to ensure security in such a case? Also, and more importantly, is there a possible loophole that organisers might simply report a lower number of the expected turnout?

Next, the new section 7(3)(f) defines an assembly or procession "directed towards a political end" as one that influences or seeks to influence public opinion on a matter of "public controversy". With society evolving, topics that were once deemed contentious or taboo have, with time, become necessary conversations. Who decides when a matter becomes a matter of public controversy? Will it be an independent panel set up to make these decisions? Efforts to promote such conversations should not be penalised, and peaceful and constructive public gatherings are necessary ingredients for critical thinking, for active citizenry and for active participation in the Singapore story.

Section 7(2)(h) will also require the Commissioner to be the judge of whether a certain political procession or assembly should be denied a permit because of its political nature. This may not be a matter of public order or security, and it is not clear whether the Commissioner or the Singapore Police Force will have the institutional competence to make such a decision. In order to enforce the law properly, there must be public confidence in the Police Force which can only come if the Police are recognised to be politically neutral.

Unfortunately, there is potential for the Police's political neutrality to be compromised when they are required to make political decisions. Again, should an independent body be set up instead to make these decisions? Also, the Commissioner has no obligation to provide any reasons for the rejection of a permit application. Without detailed reasons, decisions by the Commissioner may lead to speculation which does not build public confidence. Can the Commissioner be required to provide organisers with reasons if their applications are rejected?

Many civil society groups are also concerned about the financial costs. I note that the Commissioner may direct organisers to implement security measures and traffic control under section 30(2)(f). This will affect events held at the Speakers' Corner. It is important to consider if the affected group has the ability to pay for such security and traffic control measures. NGOs and individuals acting on their own initiative may not be able to pay for enhanced security and traffic control measures.

While I am fully supportive of the need for additional security measures, I am concerned about the ability of Singaporeans to hold events if they are going to be charged for being too popular. Is the Ministry considering any form of support to organisers, especially civil society groups, who may not be able to afford enhanced security measures? Like grants available for many programmes, is it possible to set up a grant to assist civil society groups with these costs?

Lastly, Madam, can the Minister clarify if public consultations have been done with all relevant stakeholders, including civil society groups, with regard to this Bill? Madam, I am fully supportive of the Bill's goal of strengthening our national security. However, we must involve all stakeholders in this fight. Our unity as a nation is our greatest weapon against security threats.

Mdm Speaker: Minister Shanmugam.

4.03 pm

Mr K Shanmugam: Mdm Speaker, I wish to thank the Members who have participated in this debate, and I will respond to the points on the amendments as best as I can.

Mr Louis Ng asked how organisers would predict the crowd turnout at free, non-ticketed events. When you organise an event, the organisers will plan with a certain turnout in mind, and they will have to notify the Police within the prescribed period and to give their best assessment of what they reasonably expect the crowd turnout to be.

We had recognised that this will be a subjective exercise because they will have to plan for the venue, they will have to plan for logistics and, therefore, they will have an idea of what the crowd size will be. If the crowd size has exceeded, but they had exercised due diligence in their assessment, then that will not be an offence, obviously. But a deliberate under-assessment, if that can be shown − of course, it has got to be shown by the prosecution − that is a different matter.

So, the example where you expect 4,999, I think all of us have some experience in organising events. I would be surprised if the Police are not surprised that someone comes up and says "I expect 4,999". I think that person can expect a more detailed assessment from the Police.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked if the different classes of events we prescribe will be sufficiently clear and distinguished. If I may refer to the specific clause, I think the Member was concerned about clause 3 in the new section 6A, "for the purposes of subsection 1, the Minister may prescribe the number of individuals for different classes of events". I think the concern is, would there be good faith exercised?

Really, I would like to say to Members, we are trying to prescribe security for different types of events. Standing here today, you and I know different events will have different types of security signature. An event relating to a concert will be very different from a public event that, say, intends to deal with issues of race or religion. These are matters that can only be decided based on the nature of the event, based also on international and regional events and surroundings, and then make an assessment, which is why it is difficult to prescribe upfront in the legislation, and which is why discretion has to be given to the Commissioner and the Executive.

But the underlying rationale and principle of that particular clause is for the Commissioner to direct taking of specific security steps. It is not to say: do not hold the event. It is to say, "Well, I think this event is going to require barricades, this event is going to require this kind of security, I think you better check the bags". I do not think it can be suggested that that exercise is going to be handled in bad faith. And the Police will give the guidelines to the event organisers on what measures to be implemented, how the framework is to be implemented, and they will give examples, too.

What is the "reasonable" expectation of the size of the crowd? It is again a question of fact. I talked about it. You look at past events, similar events, you look at what is the logistical planning for the event, and you look at the venue, as I have said. So, predicting the turnout accurately may be difficult and no one is saying that you have to be accurate, but you are required to make the best efforts to estimate the crowd size. We are all in this situation because of international events. We do not want what happened in Berlin, Nice or Istanbul to happen here, and so, everyone has got to play a part. The vast majority of events at the Speakers' Corner will not attract this kind of threshold crowds.

Mr Louis Ng asked if organisers may deliberately under-report expected turnout to avoid being declared a "special event". I think I have made it clear: deliberate under-reporting will be an offence, and if the investigations reveal that the organisers planned for a much larger crowd size but failed to notify the Police, that will be an offence.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan asked about the costs involved where the organisers do not implement security and the Police step in to put in those measures. In the end, the Government is incurring the cost on behalf of the taxpayers of Singapore or, in fact, all citizens of Singapore. If the Commissioner or the Police put in those security measures and have to pay for it, then that, as I said, will be recovered as a civil debt. Separately, non-compliance with the Commissioner's directions would be a criminal offence.

But really, we do not want to get there. We want events to succeed, we want event organisers to work with the Police and to make sure that it is secure. Everyone will have a great event, with as reasonable a framework as possible, and at as reasonable a cost as possible.

Mr Louis Ng asked if grants can be provided for civil society groups to pay for security measures. I have made the point that taxpayers are bearing a huge part of this cost already, in terms of what the Police have to do, in terms of providing for security. This is now time for everyone in society to step up and bear different parts of the cost. So, the question is how much should the taxpayer pay and how much should the event organiser pay? Where it is a very substantive event, it is only fair that the event organiser pays a part of the cost for additional security measures that have to be implemented because of the expected crowd size, such as bag checking, barricades and so on. It is unfair to expect the general average citizen of Singapore to pay for every event 100% of the cost. The citizens of Singapore are paying a very substantial part of the cost anyway.

Mr Melvin Yong asked about the need to ensure that security officers are well-trained to carry out their duties. Licensed security officers will need to be trained before they can carry out specific tasks. For example, how do you do security screening for individuals? How do you use walk-through metal detectors? How do you use hand-held metal detectors?

We will require the training to meet the standards of the Singapore WSQ System for Security (Security WSQ), and training providers will need to be accredited. So, this is something that needs to be done. My Ministry is working closely with the security industry. We hope to develop an ITM. What we need to achieve is for the industry to offer high-quality services which offer the right quality and are sustainable from a manpower perspective.

We will consider Mr Melvyn Yong's suggestions on PWM and promoting greater use of technology. Greater use of technology is a no-brainer and we will obviously have to work on these things.

That was on event security. There is a second part which I said on the amendments which relates to foreigners using Singapore to promote political causes. Here, we have to bear in mind that the Act was first put in place several years ago in 2009. What we sought to do was to strike a balance between adequate space for political expression and society's need for order and stability. And by and large, that has been achieved and we have worked the Act quite successfully all these years. The thrust of the amendments today relates to foreign participation. It is not about local participation.

So, I sat listening to the very passionate speech by Nominated Member of Parliament Mr Kok Heng Leun but I wonder if we are moving like ships in the dark in the sea. The Bill says one thing and Mr Kok's speech pretty much has nothing to do with the Bill. Let me explain why.

Mr Kok said, "we have made positive steps to engage citizens in policymaking. I believe this strategy should be encouraged. Actively engaged citizenry is possible only with political discourse, involvement of the people. And this, in turn, allows us to develop deeper understanding and our citizens' trust and confidence in the political system grow, they will feel invested in the country's development in strategic direction." Mr Kok also said it should not always be top-down and bottom-up; we have to trust our citizenry. All of that, I do not think I disagree with and it would make a very good political speech at some point. But what does that have to do with the amendments?

If you look at the amendments, in particular clause 4, and I do not know whether the Member has actually gone through clause 4. Section 7(1) deals with the Commissioner receiving notice of the application and deciding whether to grant the permit or refuse to grant the permit. That is not being changed. That is not being amended.

Clause 2, which shows that the Commissioner has the discretion to refuse to grant a permit, may refuse to grant a permit, if the assembly or procession may occasion public disorder or damage to public property and so on − (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g) − all of that is not being amended. I think Mr Kok has had no problems with any of those up to now; at least that has been the law. And then (h) is new. So, we need to focus on (h) and not have a broad general political speech.

So, if you look at (h), it says "it is directed towards a political end and to be organised by or involve the participation of any of the following persons: an entity that is not a Singapore entity or an individual who is not a citizen of Singapore." And sub-clause 3 then relates back to this − what "directed towards a political end" means.

The key condition is that this event is not being organised by a Singapore entity or individuals who are not citizens of Singapore. Essentially, foreign involvement.

Now, what has that got to do with bottom-up, top-down trust in citizenry, empowered citizenship? In fact, I would say, have more faith in our citizens. Do not just hope for foreign involvement in organising events. Why do we not have confidence that our people can organise and take part in civic activities?

Look at Pink Dot. Last year, my Ministry made it clear that we will not agree to foreign participation. As a Government, we do not take a position for or against Pink Dot. But we do take a position against foreign involvement in events like Pink Dot. That is not new; that has always been the law. We made that clear last year that, this year, we do not want to see foreign participation. If you look at the media, newspaper reports, Singapore companies have stepped up.

Again, I take no position, but the point is, this is a matter for Singaporeans, Singapore companies, Singapore entities to discuss without the involvement of foreign culture wars. And that is the purpose of the amendment. The purpose of the amendment, therefore, actually fits in with what the Member said. Which is why I listened with some degree of perplexity as to what the thrust of the speech was.

So, all these other points, the Member's question then is, for the ordinary Singaporean, is the amended POA going to deter him or her from good solid political engagement? As you can see from the amendments, none of that is really germane. So, Mr Kok, if you do not mind, I would not deal with all other points that you have made along the same lines about local citizenry and active participation because that is not what this Bill deals with. You might say some of those points may potentially be relevant for the first part where there might be some increased costs, but that, I have explained, is necessary from a hard security perspective. But from the perspective of foreign involvement, I think I stand on very good grounds. Let me give Members some illustrations.

I have said it is something that we need to bear in mind that foreign involvement may not just be the relatively innocent types where foreigners come in and take part or organise, but also directed by foreign state agencies. And I do not think you will support that. I do not think any Singaporean will support that. How do you distinguish between the one and the other? I think it is a cleaner rule to say foreigners, "Do not engage". It is not a hard rule. I told Members the Commissioner "may". So, the Commissioner has a discretion. As to whether that makes the Commissioner political, I will come back to it in a minute.

The kind of events, even with a political dimension, if it does not involve foreigners, then it is not affected by these particular amendments. So, let us be clear about that.

Why are we making this amendment? The balance between public space for political expression and social order and stability is really different when it comes to foreigners. Foreigners must not take our public space for granted to advocate a political cause, whether in Singapore, relating to Singapore, or outside of Singapore.

The Member mentioned the context of, say, animal welfare. Let me give the Member four examples as to how this might impact. Let us say you have an event. Malaysians finance an event in Singapore and take part in an event in Singapore and encourage Singaporeans to come and take part in an event in Singapore which says that Syariah law should be imposed. Do you think we should agree to Malaysians taking part and financing the event? The answer is obvious, is it not?

Let me give Members a second example. Let us say foreign Christian groups, say, financed from America, come here, want to organise an event combined with locals, and they want to call it an anti-lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) rally. Do you think we should agree to that? Answer is clear, is it not?

Let me give Members a third example, because this cuts across all religions and races. Let us take the Myanmarese Buddhists. They want to organise an event in Singapore and combine with our Buddhists, and they want to protest against the Rohingyas. Do you think we should agree?

Our Singaporeans organising protests is one thing. Foreign-financed, foreign-participated protests are a completely different ball game. We have been successful by being very firm about that. Let us not change the rules. The current amendments keep to that philosophy and that rule.

Let me give Members a specific example on animals and animal welfare. You would have read in the newspapers. In India, there are states which now ban the slaughter of cows. Hindus, particularly, targeted at Muslim sellers of meat. Supposing under the rubric of animal welfare, Hindus from India want to finance an animal welfare event in Singapore protesting against the selling of beef in Singapore and they want to involve Singapore Hindus, and it is targeted at groups along the lines of people who sell or eat such meat. And they say that this whole thing is animal welfare. Do you think we should allow it?

So, you see, this has shades of complexity and any attempt to define upfront political event and a non-political event will run into these shades of complexity. All you will end up doing is creating many alley ways and bye ways in which your definition would be made useless and you would be made a laughing stock.

I can understand the desire for clarity. But in this field, to define this with absolute clarity in the way that you want, first, the reasons for wanting them, I assure you, is not quite what the Bill seeks to do. It does not seek to cut back on Singaporean rights in the context of these amendments. But the absolute clarity that you seek, if we try to define it, it is not going to achieve what we want to achieve. So, really, then it becomes a question of philosophy which then touches on a little bit on what Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan talked about as well.

What you would have to do is then give that discretion to the Executive, in this case, the Commissioner of Police. That is why the word is "may", and that word has been there since 2009. And you have to trust the Commissioner of Police. Ninety percent of Singaporeans trust the Police, as I read from another survey to this House a few weeks ago.

The alternative is then to run to Court each time somebody is not happy. That is not the way you can run a proper Government. The way we have run the Government, successfully and cleanly with the right outcomes, has been to vest the discretion in many areas in the Executive, with the knowledge that a highly-educated population will hold the Executive to account if there is abuse of that power.

In the context here, we are specifically dealing with a Commissioner looking at an event and saying that it is political, political ends, involving foreigners. I do not think Singaporeans will argue with this, of giving the Commissioner the discretion to make that assessment. One that deals with the welfare of dogs and kittens may pass muster. One that deals with the welfare of cows, specifically in terms of slaughter or eating its meat, may not pass muster. It depends, may or may not pass muster. Depends on who is involved, depends on what is the purpose and depends on who is financing it. Which foreigner? Which foreign group?

So, the basic question: in the absence of the possibility of being able to define it without becoming ridiculous, then you have to vest that discretion. You vest that discretion, you give that framework, and it works. That is the way we have worked. For the rest for that section, that is the way that section is now re-worked in respect of foreign participation.

If the Commissioner declares an event to be a political event, that does not make him political. He is not deciding in favour of one conclusion or another. He has to make an assessment based on the provisions as to whether it is directed towards political ends, regardless of how that question is to be answered, as in it may go in favour of this political end or that political end. That is not his question. His is a threshold question: does it involve politics or political ends?

Also, Mr Kok Heng Leun was concerned that the amendments somehow restrict civil society's access to foreign expertise and knowledge. Most of the avenues for civil society to tap on the foreign expertise and knowledge are untouched. We are now only dealing with public assemblies and processions. What may amount to public assemblies? So, there continues to be plenty of avenues for civil society to learn from others.

We are talking about people marching, public assemblies, advocating specific causes and change. I agree that the way that the definition is, it is broad and it can cover many aspects. So, you can have the Commissioner looking at it and say "is this something that will cause public disorder; is that a threat; what sort of foreign involvement is this and how does it impact on us? Those are assessments that he has got to make.

There were also questions on what might be a matter of public controversy. It is not a new definition. It is contained and also considered in the Films Act as to what is a political matter.

Asst Prof Mahdev Mohan made the specific point as to whether this will stifle free speech by reference to clause 3, which gives the discretion for different numbers and different events. And I have dealt with that. On the Commissioner's discretion under clause 4 and his powers to modify, I have explained how it works. People have to make an assessment as to what numbers they expect and they come to the Commissioner within the prescribed period. And then the Commissioner makes an assessment that tells them that these are the measures I want you to put in place. What we do not want is a long bargaining session with the Commissioner where they say "I will put up barricades but I do not want to put Auxiliary Police Officers" and that sort of arguments. A simple, clean, neat, effective way to give power to the Commissioner to decide what security measures he/she thinks is the best way to go.

As to whether there is a recourse from the Commissioner's decision to not grant a permit for an assembly or procession, the existing section 11 allows a person who is aggrieved by a Commissioner's decision to appeal to the Minister. So, there is that appeal process and the Minister can allow the appeal either in whole or in part.

Mdm Speaker, I think I have covered all the points. And, if I have not, I am sure Members will let me know.

4.34 pm

Mdm Speaker: Mr Koh Heng Leun.

Mr Kok Heng Leun: I thank the Minister for responding to my speech. First, I want to make a clarification that in my speech, my concern was about what if local NGOs would sometimes, because of capacity-building purpose, need foreign participation, in terms of foreign speakers in their public assembly. I think that is my main concern. I share the Minister's position that we should not have foreign entities organising such events here. On that point, I will agree with the Minister. So, I think my question here is that, as long as there is enough clarification so that civil society can feel that they can still continue with what they are doing, I think that would be really very good.

I just want to check with the Minister, in a particular case whereby, for example, an NGO, which already has a staff member who is a foreigner and he is working full-time with the NGO and they happen to be organising a particular event, would that actually be a problem under this new amendment?

Mr K Shanmugam: Well, Mr Kok, it is a bit difficult to answer that question in a vacuum. It depends on what role that foreigner plays. If he is a key person and he is going to be organising everything, and really, it is his influence that impacts on the way the event is organised, the panel is chosen, towards specific political ends, then I think there is foreign interference. But there can be many other situations, and this is not intended to be illustrative. And it will not come as a surprise to you that NGOs are a favourite route of foreign agencies to channel funds and pressure governments. A lot of foreign agencies − when I say agencies, you know what type of agencies I am referring to − if they are going to put up their hand and have a signature, it will be through NGOs.

So, we need to be very careful. But you will see I have taken some trouble to take you through the amendments that, and as I have said, I think the Bill that is presented and your speech pass each other by, like ships in the night, because they are not engaging with each other. Because your speech was about Singaporeans, Singaporean civil society, we should not have top-down; we should have bottom-up; we should encourage Singaporeans; we should make sure that our people participate and I said that I agree entirely with you. But that has nothing to do with clause 4. Clause 4 specifically is targeted at foreign participation. In fact, the best example I can give you, as I gave in my wrap-up speech, is again Pink Dot.

Last year, when my Ministry said no foreign participation, there was considerable concern. There were these arguments about what amounts to politics because my Ministry issued a statement saying that we have always taken the position that foreigners cannot engage in political activities. In our view, LGBT issues are for Singaporeans. There were these, what I would call, issues around the definition of politics. Second, there was concern that when we say no to foreign sponsorship, for example, for Pink Dot, it will impact on the event. But actually, as you see, based on media reports, Singaporeans are stepping up. Again, the Government is neutral on this point. I have made that clear last year. I made that clear this year. But whether it is pro-LGBT or opposing LGBT, it is a matter for Singaporeans to decide. And Singapore companies, Singaporean sponsors are stepping up. So, I would say, tell your friends, the civic society, have some confidence in themselves and have confidence in Singaporeans to step up.

This Bill is not aimed at that. Do not think that you can only do well by getting money from foreigners and getting foreign participation. Now, that is quite separate from having a foreign speaker or two in panels, getting their expertise and, by and large, those sorts of activities, it is going to be assessed case by case what is the nature of the event, what is the issue at hand. It will be difficult to stand here and give you a clear black line that it applies to this and it does not apply to that.

Apart from anything else, a particular event held in one set of circumstances, domestic and regional and international, may take a completely different complexion when the regional and international circumstances change and domestic situations change, which is why these are matters where you will have to give the power to the Executive and let the Executive decide. Yes, you want another clarification?

Mdm Speaker: Yes, Mr Kok, please keep it short.

Mr Kok Heng Leun: Thank you. I thank the Minister for the clarifications again. Yes, I am actually very happy that the Pink Dot has been able to get all the support locally. And I also want to reiterate, which is one of our fellow Members' points, that it is important that Singaporeans organise it and we have our say. But I think here the concern is with regard to how the Commissioner is going to make the decision. Members have actually suggested would they have an independent committee to help them?

Mr K Shanmugam: Mr Kok, let us follow this analysis through. I have explained why it does not make sense to have this go to a judge, in terms of what is a political end, in terms of what is the potential impact on society, in terms of whether there can be a public order incident, whether this is a particular case for foreigners to be involved, to be allowed to be involved, to be not allowed to be involved. These are all matters of governance. A weak government without the desire to decide these things will pass it on to a judge. And it will result in the matters constantly being mitigated. Our position is that we will make that decision. If we are wrong, we will take it on the chin. Our people will know whether the decision is being exercised properly or improperly. And if we keep making decisions improperly, any government will face the consequences. So, that is the framework. What I say is subject to some applicable principles on judicial review.

You say why should it be the Commissioner of Police? Why not somebody else? Another panel, an independent panel, something that is independent of the Police, I presume, advising the Commissioner. What is that panel going to do that you think the Commissioner is not able to do himself?

And really, all of these are suggestions to dilute the exercise of power or the authority of the Commissioner of Police which the Bill seeks to vest. I have said our approach to governance has been to vest to that authority and say that person will be responsible. Sometimes, and there plenty of examples, where you have panels which either outside of the Statutory Board or Executive, which either advise or sometimes, actually make a decision. But that relate usually to matters of morality, taste, what the public might find acceptable or not acceptable in terms of social mores. Those sorts of things I can understand.

But this is a matter of governance. Is this a security event? Is this an event that may have security implications? Is this an event where I should allow foreigners to take part? That is why the people elect us − to make those decisions. If we get it wrong, the people will tell us. So, I am not saying no to public advising the Executive, but I think there is a range of areas. There are some where clearly the public panel should advise. I do not think this is one of those.

Mdm Speaker: Yes, Mr Kok.

Mr Kok Heng Leun: I am sorry but just one last point to reiterate. Minister, I think a lot of civil societies also want to build their trust with the Government. I think it goes a long way for both sides to work together. And with regard to this Bill, I hope that, if there were actually more consultations in the process, that would actually clarify a lot of things.

Mr K Shanmugam: Well, what I can hope is that you, with your contacts with the civil society, will explain to them what I have explained to you. I think it is absolutely important to have that trust between citizens and the Government, and also civil society and the Government. Thankfully, Singapore, in the context of the overall plunge in trust in government in the rest of the world, we are in a fairly, in fact, quite healthy position in terms of how much the people trust the Government.

We have to make sure that we work very hard to maintain that trust, because trust cannot be demanded. It has to be constantly worked for. And you have got to continue to prove that you are worthy of the trust.

This Bill, our own view, looking at it is that when people see clause 4, first of all we did not think there was any issue of trust when it came to the Commissioner of Police directing that an event shall include extra security measures. If we did not do it, people will say, "Why did you not put in those security measures?"

The second other major change, as I was speaking with you, is on events, and I read straight from clause 4(2)(h), "directed towards a political end and be organised by or involved a participation of any of the following persons, an entity that is not a Singapore entity or an individual that is not a Singapore Citizen" and then it goes on to talk about what is a political end.

It did not strike me at all that this would raise any questions of trust with Singaporeans. Why should it? We are saying this about foreigners. It may affect − now that I have listened to you − the people who misunderstand the scope of the Bill and so I think it is the Government's duty to go out and explain what this Bill covers. To that extent, thank you for helping us. I now understand it better.

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 K Shanmugam.]

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

Mdm Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair at 5.10 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 4.51 pm until 5.10 pm.

Sitting resumed at 5.10 pm

[Mdm Speaker in the Chair]