MPs question rationale for determining alcohol as a factor in riot

SINGAPORE — Several Members of Parliament (MPs) yesterday questioned the authorities’ rationale for determining alcohol as a contributory factor to the Little India riot and some wondered whether they were too quick to pin the blame on liquor and impose restrictions on its sale and consumption.

While Nominated MP (NMP) Janice Koh asked for the specific incidents that led the Government to identify alcohol as an underlying cause of the riot, NMP Nicholas Fang asked if breathalyser tests were conducted for those arrested in relation to the incident.

In response, Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said though alcohol may not have been a major factor, there were indications that it was a contributory factor in the incident.

“As regards to the alcohol issues, we do have indications that alcohol was a factor and that certain individuals who may have been directly involved in the incidents leading to the riot ... were under the influence of alcohol to one extent or another,” Mr Teo said.

“So we think that alcohol was a contributory factor, though probably not the only factor.”

Mr Teo added that the matter was “evidential” and would be left to the courts to decide when the 25 men accused of rioting take the stand.

A debate also arose over whether the post-riot alcohol ban in Little India should be removed.

The ban prohibits the consumption of alcohol in public places and curtails retail hours of the sale of alcohol on weekends, public holidays and the eves of public holidays.

Workers’ Party MP Pritam Singh said some members of the public have been asking if curbs on the no-alcohol zone would be lifted so it goes “back to pre-riot times”, but MP for Moulmein-Kallang GRC Denise Phua said more than 80 per cent of the residents living above a row of liquor stores whom she visited have been asking the authorities to continue with the ban.

“There’s clearly a variety of opinions here with regard to whether alcohol is a factor or not a factor, and obviously, Mr Pritam Singh feels that alcohol should be allowed back in Little India as before. I think there may be different opinions as to whether that is reasonable or sensible to do,” said Mr Teo.

He added that the Government was also looking at various measures to restrict the sale and public consumption of alcohol in other areas aside from Little India.

As part of its review on the public consumption of alcohol, MP for Chua Chu Kang GRC Alex Yam asked if the Government would consider having an “open container law”, such as those in Canada and Finland, which prohibits open containers of alcohol in certain places.

Mr Teo said he was open to the idea, but added that such a law may not be easily enforced.

“We can have very detailed laws, but if they end up not being enforceable in the practical sense, and you require a linesman or two linesmen, like in a tennis game to watch whether you are on this side of the line or that side of the line ... and you require that all over Singapore, I think it will be very intrusive on Singaporeans’ everyday life and ... not easily enforced if we have those laws.”

As of Sunday, Police have detected 38 incidents of violations involving 10 business operators and 57 individuals since the imposition of curbs on sale and consumption of alcohol in Little India.