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.

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

COE prices: Gap between Cat B and Cat C vehicles further narrows

By COE SG Charts In COE results on 5 November 2014, the…

MPs to question Parliament on Electoral Boundaries Review Committee

By Ariffin Sha When Parliament sits again on 13 July, two Members…

Migrating Singaporeans – help improve employment opportunities first

S’poreans need to work less and play more. Gilbert Goh.

仅2巴仙公积金存款未提领 公积金局拟推出电子提名

人力部长杨莉明今天(11月4日)在国会上指出,仅有2巴仙的公积金储蓄未被提取;其余过世会员的公积金存款都由中央公积金局或公共信托局(PTO)分发给家属。 截止去年年杪,在公共信托局中类似的2.11亿元无人领取资金中,有1.32亿元是来自公积金局会员。 杨莉明指出,大部分公积金已故会员都有指定受益人,因此他们的资金都会在公积金局获得相关会员死亡通知后,于一个月内完成派发。 她是在受询及无人认领的公积金详情、用于减少相关金额的方法,以及当局是否考虑改变受益人提名手续的相关事宜时,如是指出。 促请合格者尽早申请提款 她指出,就算没有指名受益人,公积金局也能根据《无遗嘱继承法令》或穆斯林的《继承证书》,将死者的剩余公积金分配给其近亲。 “公积金局通常会在接获会员死亡通知后,将已故会员的公积金转入公共信托局,然后追踪和寻找会员的亲属。” 律政部兼卫生部高级政务部长唐振辉在详细说明有关程序时指出,“公共信托局将会联系和已故公积金会员遗产有关的人士,并促请他们进行索取这未指明受益人的款项”。这些人士包括了向公积金局投报会员死亡的知会者,以及移民和关卡局中记录的已故会员家属。 唐振辉指出,为了确保已故会员的“遗产”能够交到对的人手中,公共信托局会要求申请者出示受理证件,以证明其申请和资格。若有必要,当局还会通过代表申请人的方式,想相关单位提出申请或要求有关的资料文件。 他指出,在过去五年来,公共信托局已成功在过去五年,已经将88巴仙无人认领的会员“遗产”分发出去。“当局将会继续寻找具合法资格受益人的工作,包括进行家访。由于没有时间限制,也鼓励具备合法资格的人士进行申请。” 去年受理申请近12万份 为了使公积金局会员更容易进行提名手续,杨莉明指出,当局正探讨着在明年首季推出新的电子提名系统。目前,公积金成员可以到当局的服务柜台,或通过邮寄方式进行受益人提名手续。…