InfographicSummaryofresultsofpublicconsultationsWhen the Ministry of Home Affairs tabled a bill to impose an island-wide ban on the consumption of alcohol in public places after 10.30pm, it cited a “consultation exercise” it conducted, where at least 83% of participants indicated support for the extended ban.

This was in stark contract to the public opinion polled by national broadsheet The Straits Times, which indicated very much the opposite – at least 70% were not in favour of the ban. The discrepancy was noted earlier in a commentary published by The Online Citizen.

In case you might be asking why, we refer to an earlier document on the government outreach platform, REACH, indicating the scope of the “consultation exercise”, what it aims to achieve and the timeline.

The document outlined the scope of consultation for Phase 2. Phase 1 of the consultation was carried out between 29 October and 31 December 2013 via the REACH portal and focus group discussions. The exercise sought views on two measures – designating no-­alcohol zones at public places, and shortening of sale hours of alcohol at retail outlets.

No other options seem to be available for participants to choose from – for instance, stepping up enforcement for existing bans, or increasing public education on public drinking.

Nevertheless, MHA reported that:

“The majority of the respondents supported the two measures. 83% of the respondents who commented on the proposal to designate no­-alcohol zones in public places, and 76% of those who commented on the proposal to shorten retail sales hours of alcohol for off-premise consumption, expressed support for the respective measures.”

Notwithstanding, MHA then proceeded to conduct Phase 2 from 16 June to 31 July 2014, which was to look at the “various options available to put the two measures into effect”.

These options were considered for the restriction of public consumption of alcohol, which presumable were put up for participants to vote:

  • Partial restriction with selective enforcement
  • Partial restriction by places
  • Partial restriction by time
  • Wider restrictions (i.e. public consumption of alcohol will not be allowed, except at permitted places)

Again, there does not seem to be an option available for participants to say “no”. However, when MHA recently published the results of this survey, it drew charts to indicate answers to two questions:

  • “Do you support restricting consumption of liquor in public places?”
  • “Do you support measures to restrict sales hours for take-away liquor?”

Perhaps we can take a closer look at the question posed in Phase 2 of the exercise, to get a sense of what participants were considering or voting on:

Alcohol ban MHA feedback questions restrictions
Questions on restricting consumption in general.
Alcohol ban MHA feedback questions timing
Questions on restrictions by timing.

Again, there does not seem to be any indication as to how participants can object to stricter restrictions. It was either more or less restrictions, and ending retail sale of alcohol earlier or later. “Leave things as they are” or “scale back existing restrictions” does not seem to figure strongly in this “consultation exercise”.

Which then draws similarities to another poll we might be less familiar with – the national referendum on the merger with Malaya.

LKY_merge_Malaya_referendum_ballot_1962

In view of these questions vis-a-vis the options considered for the policy, do participants actually have a chance to vote against additional restrictions? Of the 12% to 24% of participants who have indicated disagreement for additional restrictions throughout Phases 1 and 2, exactly which option did they vote for? Was there even such an option?


Ministry of Home Affairs – Phase II of Public Consultation on Strengthening Measures on Liquor Sale and Consumption in Public Places on REACH

Public Consultations MHA Phase 2 alcohol ban – REACH

Subscribe
Notify of
11 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

王瑞杰吁对外来者抱开放心态 惟本地失业高管被迫申请初阶职位

财政部长王瑞杰,昨日出席南洋理工大学常年部长论坛。在会上他呼吁与会的700名学生,应对外来者抱持开放和尝试去了解的心态。 被视为总理接班人的他, 呼吁国人应抱持信心和全球各地不同族群、言语和文化的人交流,并指出“大家不会想活在一个人人筑墙自保的世界。” 他认为,我们必须加深对他人的理解,无论对方是新移民、我们的邻居、大学同侪、还是其他大学的学生,也鼓励学生参与大学间的交换学生计划。 其中一位与会学生,也对王瑞杰抛出问题,询问他对于放眼我国到2030年引进690万人口的立场。但他指出,我国的人口还不算过于稠密,还有其他都市比我国更拥挤,他也引述,“城市规划之父”刘太格在2014年曾提议,新加坡要保持长远永续成长,就应以人口达到一千万的情况作规划。 然而,政府大开闸招揽外来人才定居我国,本土PMET(专业人士、经理、执行人员和技师)却面对越来越难找到工作的困境。 失业半年高管申请月薪三千元秘书职位 上周日(24日),一名高级人力资源顾问马丁盖比( Martin Gabriel)就在脸书申诉赤裸裸事实,我国的就业市场面对严峻的情况,甚至一些高级人员,也被迫申请薪水较少的初阶职位。 他透露,他的其中一名客户,甚至申请月薪三千元的初阶秘书一职。同一职位的申请者多达百余人,其中近两成都是年龄40岁以上。 “令人惊讶的是,即使是高级经理和董事,也在申请上述职位。 他们中的大多数人已失业超过半年,”他说,如果这还不足以证明情况有多糟糕,那大家要知道,这些曾任高管的求职者,过去赚取的月薪远远超过三千元。…

Public Forum – 24 May, Saturday

Implications of inflation on your investments and the labour market

三交通工具大道上碰撞 20人入院就医

涉及三种交通工具的车祸意外在武吉知马高速公路发生,导致20人入院治疗。 有关车祸于周日(10月13日)下午1时30分,在位于武吉知马高速公路朝向泛岛大道的行驶路段发生,涉及一辆斗拖车、私人巴士和一辆电单车。 警方指出,由20名年龄介于8至68岁的人士被送往国立大学医院、黄廷芳综合医院和陈笃生医院。案件目前尚在调查中。 路过事发现场的网民,将现场拍下后上传到社交媒体上。 视频中可见现场有多辆应急车辆,还有民防部队和特别行动指挥处的人员在场。 透过视频,也可见在巴士的后方被一辆电单车撞上,而巴士前方的地上,也散落着不少碎片。 陆路交通管理局也于当天下午1时45分发出相关事故的推文,呼吁驾车人士避开高速公路上的第三车道。 Accident on BKE (towards PIE)…

Amos Yee concerned about rape threat made against him

The mother of 16-year old video blogger, Amos Yee, says she is…