Connect with us

Current Affairs

Majority of Singaporeans support alcohol restriction on sale and consumption?

Published

on

28Jan2014 - Liquor Control

Straits Times has just reported on Tuesday (27 January) that a phone survey that was commissioned by government feedback unit Reach on the proposed bill to ban drinking in public and sale after certain timing, has shown strong support from Singaporeans.

The proposed bill will ban consumption of alcohol in public from 10.30 pm to 7am, and stop retail shops from selling alcohol after 10.30 pm. The proposed bill will also allow strip search by auxiliary officers and police officers to search for concealed alcohol if the officers have “reasonable doubt” that one might be in possession of alcohol.

The survey found 81 per cent of the 1,145 to poll in favour of the Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Bill.

Straits Times further reported that Reach had said that those polled from Jan 20 to Jan 26 were chosen randomly and were “representative” of the national population in terms of gender, age and race.

The survey further stated that more than 8 in 10 of those surveyed did not think that their lifestyle and activities would be affected by the possible new regulations.

Former Nominated MP Eugene Tan said to Straits Times: “I believe the majority don’t feel the restrictions are a curb since they don’t drink very much. And the hours – 10.30pm to 7am – are when many of them are indoors. But for the younger ones, perhaps it will present an inconvenience. It is a drastic change from what they are accustomed to.”

While some people online had described the new laws as too strict. Institute of Policy Studies senior research fellow Gillian Koh suggested that the views of some may have been over-represented online.

ST Poll

This might have been the case for views online when Straits Times’s own survey on one of its article had shown an overwhelming disagreement towards the ban with over 9000 people being polled. (The survey result is no longer accessible on the page)

Many netizens are also questioning the neutrality of the feedback body conducting the survey.

Afterall, Reach is the same feedback body that gathered feedback for the Ministry of Home Affairs to indicate strong support for restriction to be placed upon the consumption of alcohol.

InfographicSummaryofresultsofpublicconsultations-330x450

However, questionable methodology is said to be practiced by Reach and MHA in that two phases of feedback conducted.

During the two phases of public consultation by Reach and MHA, the general public and stakeholders were asked on their views on restricting public consumption of liquor; and shortening the sale hours of liquor at retail outlets.

Of the 246 written feedback received on this proposal in Phase I of the consultation, 83% of the respondents expressed support. In Phase II, 88% of the 43 written feedback received either supported a partial ban (by time or place) or a wider ban, where alcohol consumption would be banned in all public places at all times. Of the 624 persons who participated in the e-poll, 88% were also in favour of implementing the restrictions at congregation areas.

As the consultation was conducted on the basis that one would write in to support restriction, the number of feedback received would only mean support for restriction for either full or partial restriction. While those who did not write in, either might indifference or disagreement with the restriction.

Therefore if we were to literally take the results of the consultation by Reach for what it represent, it would only meant just 0.007% of Singapore population supports the idea of alcohol ban/restriction, since no one else was bothered to reply to MHA and Reach’s question.

It is a wonder on how could MHA use a consultation conducted by a government feedback agency that has only 241 written entries in support of the full/partial restriction of liquor selling to support the idea that the majority population of Singapore agrees to the proposed bill and attempt to bulldoze their way through parliament just because the ruling party has majority vote.

This should be another proposed bill after the population white paper that ought to be counted in votes to see exactly who are the Members of Parliament who support this piece of draconian legislation.

TOC has also written on the choices of answers offered to the members of the public who are polled. (That alcohol ban poll – can I even say “No”?). A survey with flawed or leading questions would have the respondents to answer in a certain desired manner. And should we also ask if the respondents were told that police and auxiliary officers would be given powers to conduct strip search too?

The proposed bill will be debated in the parliament on Thursday this week.

Continue Reading
4 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
4 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

TJC issued 3rd POFMA order under Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC) was issued its third POFMA correction order on 5 October 2024 under the direction of Minister K Shanmugam for alleged falsehoods about death penalty processes. TJC has rejected the government’s claims, describing POFMA as a tool to suppress dissent.

Published

on

The Transformative Justice Collective (TJC), an advocacy group opposed to the death penalty, was issued its third Protection from Online Falsehoods and Manipulation Act (POFMA) correction direction on 5 October 2024.

The correction was ordered by Minister for Home Affairs and Law, K Shanmugam, following TJC’s publication of what the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) alleges to be false information regarding Singapore’s death row procedures and the prosecution of drug trafficking cases.

These statements were made on TJC’s website and across its social media platforms, including Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, and X (formerly Twitter).

In addition to TJC, civil activist Kokila Annamalai was also issued a correction direction by the minister over posts she made on Facebook and X between 4 and 5 October 2024.

According to MHA, these posts echoed similar views on the death penalty and the legal procedures for drug-related offences, and contained statements that the ministry claims are false concerning the treatment of death row prisoners and the state’s legal responsibilities in drug trafficking cases.

MHA stated that the posts suggested the government schedules and stays executions arbitrarily, without due regard to legal processes, and that the state does not bear the burden of proving drug trafficking charges.

However, these alleged falsehoods are contested by MHA, which maintains that the government strictly follows legal procedures, scheduling executions only after all legal avenues have been exhausted, and that the state always carries the burden of proof in such cases.

In its official release, MHA emphasised, “The prosecution always bears the legal burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and this applies to all criminal offences, including drug trafficking.”

It also pointed to an article on the government fact-checking site Factually to provide further clarification on the issues raised.

As a result of these allegations, both TJC and Annamalai are now required to post correction notices. TJC must display these corrections on its website and social media platforms, while Annamalai is required to carry similar notices on her Facebook and X posts.

TikTok has also been issued a targeted correction direction, requiring the platform to communicate the correction to all Singapore-based users who viewed the related TJC post.

In a statement following the issuance of the correction direction, TJC strongly rejected the government’s claims. The group criticised the POFMA law, calling it a “political weapon used to crush dissent,” and argued that the order was more about the exercise of state power than the pursuit of truth. “We have put up the Correction Directions not because we accept any of what the government asserts, but because of the grossly unjust terms of the POFMA law,” TJC stated.

TJC further argued that the government’s control over Singapore’s media landscape enables it to push pro-death penalty views without opposition. The group also stated that it would not engage in prolonged legal battles over the POFMA correction orders, opting to focus on its abolitionist work instead.

This marks the third time TJC has been subject to a POFMA correction direction in recent months.

The group was previously issued two orders in August 2024 for making similar statements concerning death row prisoners.

In its latest statement, MHA noted that despite being corrected previously, TJC had repeated what the ministry views as falsehoods.

MHA also criticised TJC for presenting the perspective of a convicted drug trafficker without acknowledging the harm caused to victims of drug abuse.

Annamalai, a prominent civil rights activist, is also known for her involvement in various social justice campaigns. She was charged in June 2024 for her participation in a pro-Palestinian procession near the Istana. Her posts, now subject to correction, contained information similar to those presented by TJC regarding death penalty procedures and drug-related cases.

POFMA, which was introduced in 2019, allows the government to issue correction directions when it deems falsehoods are being spread online.

Critics of the law argue that it can be used to suppress dissent, while the government asserts that it is a necessary tool for combating misinformation. The law has been frequently invoked against opposition politicians and activists.

As of October 2024, Minister K Shanmugam has issued 17 POFMA directions, more than any other minister. Shanmugam, who was instrumental in introducing POFMA, is followed by National Development Minister Desmond Lee, who has issued 10 POFMA directions.

Major media outlets, including The Straits Times, Channel News Asia, and Mothership, have covered the POFMA directions. However, as of the time of writing, none have included TJC’s response rejecting the government’s allegations.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

on

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Trending