You Booze, You Lose

By Annabel Tan

DON’T BLAME IT ON THE ALCOHOL: Many call the efforts to curb rowdy drinkers extreme. (GRAPHIC: ONG XIAO HUI)

From around 9pm till the wee hours on weekends, groups of youth throng Clarke Quay’s Read Bridge, sharing bottles of alcohol. Buying booze from convenience stores to drink before hitting nearby clubs like Zouk or f. Club is a pre-party habit for many. Soon though, this will all become illegal.

This is due to the new Liquor Control (Supply and Consumption) Bill passed when Parliament sat last month. From 1 Apr, late night public drinking and alcohol retail sales will be restricted island-wide. Little India and Geylang will also be designated as Liquor Control Zones with stricter limitations.

What appears to be yet another interventionist policy is causing the ‘nanny state’ label to resurface.

In trying to strictly police a regular social activity, the new law exemplifies the overprotective approach the Singapore government has been adopting in regulating the behaviour of its populace.

Mothering or Smothering?

To guarantee stability, policies often trade limits on individual freedom for community benefit.

Many local academia and media outlets have been debating for years on this method of governance. Between allowing the community to tackle its own problems and stepping in to directly implement policing, Parliament does not seem to trust our society with the former, and hence resorts to the latter.

But considering how much the nation has developed over the years, the lack of trust can seem rather absurd.

In this particular case, the law exerts unnecessary and perhaps, unreasonable control over those who simply enjoy having drinks with friends to unwind, and do so responsibly.

Reportedly, the law aims to reduce violent and public nuisances. However, its terms are perhaps overly harsh, akin to killing an ant with a sledgehammer.

The umbrella nature of the ban dismisses the reality that most Singaporeans drink peacefully. While one cannot deny that the buzzing atmospheres of drinking spots seem to be disorderly hotbeds for drunken brawls, most of Singapore’s nightlife often ends in stupor, not fistfights.

In addition to the law’s extensive coverage, the process of creating a solution to curb midnight rowdiness was also criticised due to the seemingly inadequate consideration of public opinion.

Even though the Ministry of Home Affairs cites strong support from the two public consultations it conducted, the discussion it facilitated could have afforded to be more extensive.

Only 624 members of the public took part in both phases of the public consultation. For a Bill that would affect millions, this is a rather small and unrepresentative sample size.

Not just drinks

This new liquor law is a recent case, but not the only example of Singapore babying its citizens. Media censorship here is also unusually extensive, and invites controversy every so often.

In September last year, the Media Development Authority banned the Singaporean film To Singapore, With Love on the grounds of undermining national security.

The documentary, directed by Tan Pin Pin, featured Singaporean political exiles sharing their stories on how and why they ended up leaving the country. While these views may not resonate with the official narrative of Singapore’s history, they do not necessarily dismantle our social fabric.

Shielding the public from conflicting points of view in order to ‘protect’ them from ‘untruths’ is exactly in line with the government’s mother-knows-best mentality.

This approach infantilises the populace and restricts critical engagement with our nation’s historical discourse.

However, as we build the more delicate ladders of social construct expected in a first world country like ours, one must realise that regressive laws that undermine the maturity of our citizens may do more harm than good.

Learning to grow up

As we move beyond fulfilling our fundamental needs, our society should learn to grapple with conflict as a community. But to do so, policies and laws have to first recognise our maturity in handling diverse views.

It is time to let the public have a bigger hand in shaping the nation.

When the Liquor Control Bill was first introduced to Parliament in January this year, the austere terms of the Bill surprised many members of the public.

Although the review of liquor control measures begun in 2012 as a response to complaints of late night public nuisances in certain areas, some felt that the Bill came out of the blue.

In light of this reaction, perhaps more discussion could have taken place before passing a harsh law restricting a common social and recreational activity.

Come April, when the law is implemented, let our nation be the judge of this policy that seems to criminalise a regular social activity.

Singapore has come far in its 50 years of independence, but such mothering will prevent us from developing as a mature society. With the progress we’ve achieved, our citizens deserve at least the space to be socially and politically literate, active members of society.

On the cusp of our Golden Jubilee, let’s exit the nursery and move away from relying on our government to resolve our differences for us. Singapore needs to realise it cannot stay stuck in its Peter Pan syndrome, or risk stagnating further development.

To a nation finally leaving the nest — let’s drink to that.