Parliament passes the Public Order Act 2009

Parliament passes the Public Order Act 2009

Parliament passed on Monday 13 April 2009 the Public Order Act of 2009.

Unlike previous legislation which defines an illegal assembly or illegal procession as one that involves 5 or more persons, the Public Order Bill criminalizes public activities held without a police permit by ANY number of people which in the view of law enforcement authorities compromise public order.

Law Minister and Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam told Parliament on Monday that the Public Order Act is needed prevent trouble at major conferences such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation summit to be held in Singapore in November this year.

The Law Minister also cited the recent example of political unrest in Thailand in which protesters eager to compel the ousting of Prime Minister Abhisit Vejjajiva laid siege on the ASEAN Summit hotel, Royal Cliff Beach Resort, as well as other top-end popular resorts along the Pattaya Beach.

“The backdrop of current events in Thailand, with the international leaders having to leave the conference by helicopter hurriedly, showed very tellingly the need for this legislation,” said Mr K Shanmugam.

He also said that “the approach is to seek the optimal balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety security and not affecting stability”.

However, opposition NCMP Sylvia Lim offered her view that the Government was taking advantage of political struggle in Thailand to “justify the implementation of draconian laws to inhibit the basic rights of Singaporeans further.”

She said: “As long as this Government respects and upholds democracy, the problems now we are seeing in Thailand will not happen here … … But if the government wants to tinker with individual freedom and democracy to an oppressive level, it will actually become the source of public order problems.”

I fully concur with Sylvia Lim, who has put across the main point of contention very succinctly. I am also pleased to know that Sylvia Lim voted against the Bill.
A summary of what is involved in the Public Order Act 2009

1. The new Public Order Act rationalises the existing two Bills — the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) and the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA). According to media reports, under the new Bill, three types of activities will require permits: those that demonstrate support for or against views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government; those that publicize a cause or campaign; and those that mark or commemorate any event.

In reality however, public actions made to promote a cause or campaign, or commemorate any event, are ALREADY subject to the need for a police permit, as explained here, here, here, here, here and here. The new Public Order Act thus merely formalizes existing subsidiary legislation in this area, which the authorities have already been selectively using against peaceful demonstrators, and manifestly for political reasons rather than for reasons involving public safety.

Many sporting and recreational activities will be exempted.

2. The penalty for participation in an assembly or procession without permit has increased. The maximum fine for first time offenders is raised to $3,000 and that for repeat offenders is now $5,000.

3. The Act will also give police officers new powers to issue pre-emptive “move-on” orders, which will be in written form, ordering demonstrators not to congregate at the intended rally area, or give them a chance to leave without getting arrested.

A Channel News asia report claims that currently, police can only observe and warn a person if an offence has been committed and follow up with investigations after the event. The report further claims that the police can only arrest the person on the spot if it is a seizable offence such as for carrying weapons. (See here.)

The media report however is misleading. Police have already made on-site arrests of peaceful protesters, such as the Tak Boleh Tahan protest on 15 March 2008, or the protest by four SDP CEC members outside the Istana in 2007 concerning Singapore’s military weapons trading with the Burmese junta.

4. The police will also formally get special powers for international events, which Mr Shanmugam describes as “trophy targets for terrorists”, where they can search people and personal property, including articles of clothing and the contents of vehicles. Law enforcement personnel can also require entrants of designated areas to declare their names and place of residence, as well as the reasons for their presence, before they are permitted entry.

Again, I must point out that law enforcement personnel have already been using such powers before the Act was introduced. For example, Ms Chee Siok Chin of the SDP was abducted by the police, bundled into an unmarked van, and unceremoniously driven away while she and John Tan were on their way to Shangrila Hotel on the evening of 20 November 2007. (See here.) The police used the excuse that Shangrila Hotel had been gazetted as a Protected Area under the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act (Chapter 256) in connection with the ongoing ASEAN Summit that was held in Singapore at that time. Other passersby could proceed without hindrance at the same location. Clearly the law applies only to some and not to all.

5. The police will also have powers to stop the filming of ongoing security operations and seize such materials. The police can also take such a person, who is believed to have such a film or picture, into custody if he refuses to stop filming or surrender his materials. But this rule does not apply to routine police duties, which means citizen journalists are now prohibited from filming civil disobedience acts, but can continue filming law enforcement personnel giving summons to illegally parked cars or scenes of police officers lazing on the job, for instance.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26833.1