I'm confident the police force as a whole will continue to uphold the tradition of excellence so that Singaporeans will continue to enjoy a very high levels of safety, security, law and order.

Safety and security is not just the responsibility of law enforcers.

I want to move away from the usual COS speech to say something a little bit more philosophical, maybe even reflective and this comes from some of the points made by MPs including Mr. (Christopher) De Souza.

The whole question about the street protests that have taken place around the world, what are the lessons for us?

Where do we go from here? Can it happen here?

And I think it comes back to this point. You can have the best police force in the world. You cannot deal with riots, unless there are other things that are taken care of as well.

You have had riots across the world, Chile, in Europe, in Hong Kong, of course, other places.

Street protests have escalated to violence. They have disrupted the lives of ordinary citizens destroyed public, private infrastructure.

You have had Lebanon, where several months of protests have caused a lot of damage.

Santiago, I mentioned, demonstrators were enraged by hikes and public transport fares. They looted stores, set fires to vehicles, properties.

Then we saw Hong Kong, seven months of protest.

Mr. Gan Thiam Poh asked what can we learn from these protests?

I'll take this opportunity to discuss Hong Kong and the others, and what are the lessons for us.

You've seen hundreds of thousands of people on the streets in Hong Kong. Some of them have engaged in extremely violent, disruptive behavior.

The whole purpose of crippling government and inflicted severe damage to the economy and to the reputation of the city, and obviously caused very severe challenges for the Hong Kong police force.

Before this latest period of unrest, the Hong Kong Police Force was considered one of the finest in Asia. I said together with the Singapore Police Force and the Hong Kong Police are probably two very highly-regarded forces in Asia.

Disciplined, professional, well-respected by local residents.

But since the protest started, the police have been caught between the need to uphold public order, and protesters who resorted to increasingly violent tactics just to attack the police and instigate them.

And that is, I would say, severely damaged the relationship between police and the public.

Not helped by the one-sided portrayal of the situation in the media, including, in particular, the international media, often focused on criticising only the police force.

The demonstrators were always titled "pro-democracy protesters".

The police, always with a reference to their brutality, a brutal response.

The first time a police officer fired a live round, the media depicted it as example of police brutality and the picture went around the world.

But all the events leading up to that point were ignored.

Protesters, as I said, were often portrayed in a positive light.

That the police were being attacked, their lives were frequently in danger, their families were being exposed, all that was ignored.

The protesters were not just violent towards the police. Hong Kong residents who went to try and clean up were set upon by the protesters.

In one instance, a man was hit over the head with a drain cover by masked assailant while clearing the road blocks.

Today, just before the Covid-19 situation, the Hong Kong Police Force was seriously stretched, faced persistent criticism, both domestically and internationally.

Even when they were off duty. They had to fend off protesters targeting their family and their loved ones. Morale was obviously affected.

So, what are the lessons for us? I think one key lesson is the actions of a disaffected few should not be allowed to threaten the rights of the majority, to live in a stable, peaceful society.

And really, there has to be a zero tolerance approach to illegal demonstrations and protest.

We already have the Public Order Act, we take a zero tolerance approach.

So it's an offense to organise or participate in a public assembly in Singapore without a police permit.

Where Singaporeans want to protest or demonstrate about issues that concern them, there is a Speakers' Corner, no permit is needed.

Now here is a balance.

Some countries have traditionally said, well, 'Freedom to protest is part of the freedom of expression and should not be clamped down.'

But you know, when it comes to the crunch, they all take different steps. For example, in 2009, Copenhagen hosted a UN Climate Conference.

Mr. Speaker, with your permission, may I display a slide on the LCD screen.

They anticipated widespread protests, and this is Denmark. So, Danish law enforcement constructed a holding facility. What you see is a holding facility. We don't do this in Singapore. They set up 36 steel cages that could hold more than 350 persons. So anyone who protested would find themselves in there.

In London, climate activists calling themselves the "Extinction Rebellion", mounted non-violent protests for two weeks.

They conducted marches, blockaded roads, disrupted train services. More than 1,800 were arrested in one protest and activists climbed onto the roof of a train during the morning rush hour.

Commuters were suitably frustrated. They dragged him off the roof and assaulted him. We don't recommend that in Singapore. But the Metropolitan Police then banned the Extinction Rebellion protests across London.

Now we have been criticised for disallowing protests outside of Speakers' Corner even if it was just one person.

But where do we draw the line? One? Two? Three? 30? 50? 100? 200? 5,000?

How many protesters are acceptable? How do we tell what will be a peaceful protest and when will it escalate into violence.

Part of the issue in Hong Kong is that protests allowed. Police are only allowed to intervene when it turns violent, so by the time you have 50,000 people on the streets, and some people go in there, let's say, 500, mixed up, who are deliberately intent on creating violence. How does the police handle this?

This sets up the police for failure and sets up the police to be the fall guys.

It's far better to say protests in specific places, and otherwise, no protests and other places -- because you really want to strike a balance within competing interests.

Sometimes people want to protest, say, take iconic places, Orchard Road or Tanglin, or places with a lot commercial activity, primarily because of the disturbance it will cost everyone else, and therefore, their cause will get noticed.

So, on the one side is the desire of the protesters to get the themselves noticed, on the other side is disamenity to the rest of the community.

Why should one be favored? And why should the rest of the community be said just accepted?

Why not we put a place, if you want to protest, you go to there, and you protest.

And anywhere else, you don't put my police force in an impossible position where they will have to let as many thousand people as one to congregate, and then deal with violence, as it inevitably, in many places, does result in.

And the second lesson, so that's the first lesson.

I think our approach the approach we took was the correct one of being strict about where you can protest, and otherwise, the best police force in the world would still not be able to handle it.

The second is, it cannot be seen purely as a law and order issue.

If you seek to deal with protests, and your approach to protests is simply to have tough laws and enforce them, it's not going to work.

Because underlying it is, what's your social order? What's the level of inequality? What's the social justice? How do people feel in your society? Is it a fair society? Do people want to support the system? Do they, by and large believe that they benefit from the system.

If a large majority of your people feel that it's a fair system, they have opportunities that the government and the system is set up to help the largest majority possible, then people have faith in the system and the people who want to break the laws would be a minority.

Then your police can handle it.

Very well, significant section of your population believes that the system is fundamentally unfair, the social economic system and the benefits is fundamentally unfair, and that it is set up to benefit a few at the expense of the majority, at the expense of the many, then no amount of strict policing and strict laws are going to keep people off the streets.

What do they have? Why should they support? Why should they support a system that is fundamentally unfair?

So, the first order of point of importance for any government and for us as a lesson is really, the social economic, political structure. It must deliver good governance. It must deliver to the majority.

Then your police force can go and deal with those who break the law and the rest of the population will say, 'Yes, we support it. These people are not to be breaking the law.'

So, law and order, yes, but it's not possible without good governance.

You go back to the... and none of these concepts are new. All these different approaches have been tried.

Those who are familiar with Chinese history will understand legalism going back to the Qin Dynasty, even the Warring States period, that was the preferred way of bringing order to a chaotic, fractured society.

So, the emperor's rule was based on strict laws, harsh enforcement, collective punishments, but such a system cannot carry on for long.

So some people often misunderstand and think that our approach is based on very strict punishments.

Now, its first and foremost based on making sure that the majority progress and that the system is fair.

Strict punishments can only be built on such a system.

The Qin emperor's rule collapsed because it actually, the approach actually worsened people's social and economic lives.

You move forward to the Han Dynasty, China's emperors tried to follow Confucianism, which dependent solely or primarily on the leaders setting the example and inspiring people to be like them.

Families, social harmony, responsible government with a moral duty to promote harmony.

Confucianism appeal to people because they enjoyed internal peace, stability and under it, the country experienced remarkable progress.

But it has limitations as well.

Because in every society, a large majority of people can be inspired, to be good, to be noble, to do the right thing, following the example of leaders, assuming you have leaders who can inspire that kind of confidence, but you will always have a group that will want to challenge your laws that will want to break them.

And that will want to destabilise.

You need to deal with them through a system of laws, which can be enforced, what framework how strict, what you allow, what you don't allow, must be for each society to decide.

So, you have to build it on a basis of fairness, upholding moral responsibility on the part of the leadership, proper governance, an approach of upright, virtuous governance, which inspires people and bring that across to the people as a whole and then deal with the lawbreakers in a way, that makes it clear to everybody, that the laws would be applied fairly evenly, and law breaking will be dealt with.

If there is good governance and people benefit, you can always deal with a small number who want to disrupt.