Parliament’s new drinking law not steady on its feet

Drinking-related shenanigans have got to go, but this new law makes no sense to me. I am all for an end to the disamenities and crime caused by public drinking. After all, I live within 200m of a popular drinking area, and some people do get a little unruly on the weekends. I’ve even had some of my property damaged by drunks. Yet I believe that this new law is a terrible way to tackle the issue.

linked from


According to Second Minister for Home Affairs S. Iswaran, this law was passed to “tamp down liquor-related disamenities and preserve public order, in response to feedback.”

Which disamenities? The rioting? The affray? The public drunkenness? The vomiting? The littering? We have laws for these already, and are apparently not enforcing them properly (since so many people seem to still be breaking them). There’s even an existing law against being drunk and incapable in public – why not use what we already have? What is this new law going to add to our police’s ability to keep the peace, and at what cost?

We now have lost the freedom to drink peacefully in public and in return we may not get what we want at all, simply because nobody is putting boots on the ground. People who are daring enough to break one law will have no qualms about breaking two. If the Ministry of Home Affairs can show that its officers are effectively policing existing laws, but that they need more laws to keep people on the straight and narrow, then we can take the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) law more seriously.

The privacy issue

Foreign worker dormitories are considered public places for this law. This is a disturbing invasion of the privacy of private spaces, when a law can be passed to make it count as public space.

MP Hri Kumar Nair is on the record asking about how this “could unnecessarily single out foreign workers.” This is a sentiment that worries me too.

Iswaran counterclaimed that “workers can continue to drink in their private quarters according to whatever rules they have in their dorms… And they can also continue to drink in the beer gardens in their dorms, until such time as it is allowed under the licence. So it will not unduly constrain foreign workers in the dorms.”

You mean that an argument of ‘Oh, they already have some curbs, some private rules, this doesn’t change their life much. Let’s just pass this law to invade their privacy since they already have very little of it’ is considered robust? You mean this isn’t a strong hint that we are, basically, trampling on foreign workers’ rights? It’s like passing a law that says that it is legal to chop off the missing limbs of amputees. No practical implications, but inhuman, foolish and potentially dangerous nonetheless.

Unenforced – a mockery of a law

CNA clarifies that “The new law is to encourage responsible drinking and considerate behaviour. As long as members of the public act in an appropriate behaviour and are not rowdy, the police will not step in and instead, focus on the more problematic areas.” Iswaran says as much himself.

Did he actually say that Parliament passed a new law but that the Government wouldn’t enforce it in its entirety? Then why pass it in its entirety? One application of the law for one group and another application of the law for another group is just going to be a big mess. Not to mention that it is unjust, inequitable, and shakes the foundations of why we have laws in the first place.

Iswaran also “emphasised that the intent is not to penalise the mere possession of alcohol.” Well, if the house doesn’t intend to penalise the mere possession of alcohol, then why pass a law that penalises the mere possession of alcohol? The loose logic baffles me.

Grey areas – impossible to police

The existence of grey areas is another sign that this law is going to be problematic. It will either result in people getting away with breaking the law, or result in abuse of the interpretation by the police. Perhaps both.

This letter to TODAY spells out some of these grey areas.

Changing behaviour – no statistics

Okay, so there are all these people getting drunk and then committing crimes. They drink past 10:30pm (most drinkers do). Nobody has presented any data on whether they were drinking in public or in private before the incidents happened. Other than the littering and noise, how many of the other crimes and offences were caused by persons drinking in public (vs private)? Isn’t it a classic case that people get liquored up INSIDE and then take their drunken grouses OUTSIDE (in public) to get settled? How much of this sort of behaviour can be attributed to actual public drinking after 10:30pm?

Without the data, how can we be sure that change will be seen? Iswaran makes a big deal about having a national ban because without islandwide curbs, he believes that the problem “will only push the problem to other areas

Never mind that this was not the case with the Little India riots. The drinking ban there did not simply move riots to other parts of Singapore.

If Iswaran is worried about the problem being pushed to other areas, doesn’t he realise that these “other areas” will include indoor areas as well? Won’t people get off the streets, get into the bars, and then come out and commit their crimes as they always do?

A bad trade

It seems we have traded a lot of freedoms for comparatively few concrete or guaranteed benefits. Moreover, we have traded in a lot of freedoms for marginal gains in our enforcement arsenal. Either that, or we are slowly making a mockery of our legal system by making laws that are not evenly enforced.

What are our MPs doing?

Other than Hri Kumar Nair’s objection to the invasion of foreign workers’ privacy (a point that was brushed off), few other MPs questioned the law in depth. Tin Pei Ling challenged the asymmetircal strip-search powers of police to no effect. Only NCMP Lina Chiam roundly opposed the law and also managed to squeak out a vague point about a lack of consultation.  Few others raised the pertinent questions listed above (or at least I haven’t read any published in the news).

Consultation isn’t the biggest problem here, even though it is a problem. The problem is why our elected representatives are not asking the right questions, or are not getting the right answers, and how a law that seems to be so flawed was passed so easily.



  1. For nearly 40+ years, Singaporeans and foreigners who come visiting or working could live with existing laws that were more than adequate to not cause or create any disamenities or public disorder. So, what’s the real problem here?

    No one is questioning why Singaporeans and foreigners now, either with their new ‘quality’ or ‘quantity’, or both, have changed to the extent that we need new and additional laws to rein in drinking practices or habits. I’m just being polite here to include S’poreans in the category of those causing dismenities and disorder.

    Why can’t and why aren’t foreigners doing what Romans do when in Rome? Why the need for new and additional laws in direct response to mainly foreigners’ behaviour?

    Isn’t this a case of the tail wagging the dog into action?


    1. Clarification: when you said that you’re “being polite” did you mean that you actually believed that foreigners were the cause, and that you only added Singaporeans so that you didn’t sound like a bigot?


      1. I find it inexplicable tt some Singaporeans, from ministers down, are quick on the trigger to label another or a viewpoint. It is curious how one can conceivably carry on any useful discussion under such a cloud. ‘Bigot’ appears to be a favourite. It was used even to lump patriotic actions of some S’poreans who objected to the PIDC last year.

        If I point out that Singaporeans are ‘kiasu, kiasi, kiabo’, would that make me a ‘traitor’- or ‘bigot’ – for calling that out? Or putting down my fellow Singaporeans can only make me sound like honest? But any other observations of non-Singaporeans make one a bigot?

      2. But you didn’t clarify. And I didn’t call you a bigot. Whether or not you are a bigot, you are clearly defensive and evasive.

        Do you actually believe it is only foreigners who are adding to the drinking disamenities here? On what basis do you make this proposition?

      3. Yr reaction proves my last point exactly. Why the need to rush to judgement with adjectives aplenty – if one actually wishes to engage on an issue?

        Of course, I chose not to clarify, if you had understood my response. Does that make one ‘defensive and evasive’ when one decides tt a question is not worth replying to – directly?

        Why don’t you answer if calling out S’poreans as k..k..k makes one a ‘traitor’? No, I won’t call you defensive or evasive for deftly not obliging.

        For good measure, why don’t you discuss the key point I raised about the need for new legislation – after nearly 40 years of not having to? How did that need arise in the first place? What’s the first cause?

        …..I wonder if it’s your way of attracting commentators to your blog.

      4. I already addressed your key point in my original blog post. Poor policing.

        You have specifically raised the point that the worsening public order situation is due to foreigners. What would you like to offer to support your statement?

    2. Hi.
      Policing does play a role. But by assigning the lack thereof for the increase in disamenities blah blah, are we to assume that adequate policing was the reason why disamenities were not an issue for 40+ years? Or, my turn to ask you, ‘What do you offer to support yr claim?’

      Living close to Geylang and not too far from Little India, both places I pass thro’ often enough, I can only offer empirical observations. Also reports of incidences at higher-end nightspots in the city centre. Many Singaporeans would report the same observations.

      But for verifiable info, look to Iswaran’s ’47 cases of rioting and 115 cases of serious hurt linked to the consumption of liquor last year’ claim in parliament, 30 Jan. Who are those involved in the 47 & 115 cases?

      Maybe, with some questions to yr policing hypothesis, we can also reach the ‘first cause’;
      – What has accounted for the lack of ‘policing’? Manpower shortage or Increase in need? Or both?
      – Cause of the ‘relative’ shortage? (Residents-to-police ratio) Resident number increases or police headcount reduced?

      The police have all the numbers, i.e. their own headcounts, resident numbers, where the increase originate from or who those are – and who the ones (overwhelmingly?) rioting in the 47 cases and causing hurt are. They are just not saying or giving us access to drill down those data to understand the real (first) causes for the law the politicians are passing.

      We’d do better to ask them, not me or another private citizen, if we want to understand the true cause – and demand that they deal with the cause(s), not the symptoms.

      Regardless, I agree with yr point tt the new law is not steady on its feet. There is no need for it. We could have used existing laws which have served us well for decades. Throw the book at those who infringe, lawfully deny them entry for their criminal records…once the word gets around, just like our narcotics laws, the problem should be manageable.
      Why ever not are these current leaders doing that? That’s another discussion for another day.

      Thx for hosting my comments.


      1. Well, I suppose where you hang around will colour your view of the situation. The Clarke Quay and Zouk problems are largely involving locals. Geylang and Little India will make you think it is low-income foreigners who are the problem. Holland Village and Orchard Towers will colour the situation as a rich expat thing. Perhaps you just hang around Geylang and Little India too much.

        My claim of insufficient policing is supported by the Police department’s own statement that they actually need an additional 1000 officers.

      2. G’morn.

        I said ‘both places I pass thro’ often enough’, not ‘hang around’. I also qualified city centre nightspots as ‘reports’…even if what’s reported appeared to be mostly foreigners, not your ‘locals’, punching our taxi drivers etc. I now reiterate, the best evidence-based approach to this issue is to dig out the first cause(s), to be found in the recorded 47 riot & 115 serious hurt offences actually committed. Anything else is conjecture, coloured or pure.

        It’s ok to base one’s claim on the police statement. But is that the best we can do? Can we not drill down the data instead of solely relying on what the police prefer to imply (as a cover for their boss’ or their own failures, maybe) or would have us believe?

  2. Remember the so-called ‘casino debate’? The pappies have already made their decision, but they’re just going through the formalities to give the illusion that they’re consultative and open to feedback.

    What a farcical fiefdom these scums have made Singapore to be.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s