The Public Order Act: What it is all about

The Public Order Act: What it is all about [2009] 14 Apr_ST

Legal News Archive

Rationalised permits regime

Activities that will require permits under POA are those that:

1. Demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government;

2. Publicise a cause or campaign; or

3. Mark or commemorate any event.

Activities that are exempted:

Commercial, recreational and sporting activities organised by statutory boards and charities with Institution of Public Character status. This means about half the activities that now require permits.

The POA rationalises existing provisions in the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act and the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

It moves away from proscribing based on the number of persons involved in an activity. It focuses instead on whether the activity may have a disruptive effect on the public.

There will be designated 'unrestricted areas' where no permits are required, for example, Speakers' Corner.

Penalties for first-time offenders have been relaxed. However, there are stiffer penalties for repeat offenders. Organisers who are repeat offenders can be fined up to $10,000 or jailed up to six months, or both.

Special events

The POA empowers the Minister to declare certain events of national importance as 'special events'. The upcoming Apec summit in November is expected to be one such.

All assemblies and processions within a special event or special event area will require a permit.

Move-on powers to deal with disruptive behaviour

Under current law, the police can do only one of two things:

1. For non-seizable offences, observe and warn a person, and follow up with a post-event investigation. The police cannot stop the offence from taking place.

2. For seizable offences, arrest the person.

The POA finds a middle ground. It empowers a police officer to issue a move-on order to a person whose behaviour was or has been:

1. interfering with trade or business at the place;

2. disorderly, indecent, offensive or threatening;

3. disrupting the peaceable and orderly conduct of an event.

It can also be issued to someone whose behaviour shows he is about to commit an offence, has just committed or is committing an offence.

This part of the POA draws inspiration from various Australian laws. However, unlike in the state of Queensland, move-on powers can only be applied to a person's actual behaviour, not his mere presence. Also unlike in Australia, it will not be used to apply to noise or loitering problems which can be addressed using existing laws and community solutions that involve town councils, grassroots bodies and mediation councils.

The move-on order will be in written form, stating the area and time of validity, subject to a maximum of 24 hours. It can be issued only by a police officer whose rank is sergeant or higher.

A person who thinks an order against him is wrong can appeal to the Commanding Officer or the Commissioner of Police. But he must comply with the order first.

If a person complies, there will be no police record against him as the order will not be treated as a police warning.

Filming of security operations

The POA empowers law enforcement officers to stop a person from filming or taking photos of a security operation, or where the safety of an officer is endangered. They can seize the photos or films.

Reason: Such acts can compromise the effectiveness of security operations, jeopardise rescue operations, and blow the covers of covert officers.

Officers who can stop such filming: Police officers above the rank of sergeant; Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau officers; narcotics officers; intelligence officers; immigration officers.

These officers can search a person without a warrant if the latter is suspected of having such a film, and even take him into custody.

They can also enter premises to conduct such a search. Equipment used to make such a film may be seized.

These powers are not meant to be used against filming of routine police activities. If a police officer is misconducting himself, the public can film it. The film can be used for investigation and disciplinary action against the officer if needed.

The powers are not targeted against the filming of acts of civil disobedience. These powers are tightly scoped to where a security operation can be prejudiced or the life of an officer is endangered.

The powers cannot be used to prevent filming of police abuse.

A person who films a relevant activity commits an offence only when he is ordered to stop filming and refuses, or if he is ordered to surrender a film and refuses. There is no question of someone filming an activity, without knowing that he is not supposed to do so, and being prosecuted for it.

Property owners

The onus will be on owners or occupiers of a property to prevent an unlawful activity from taking place on the property, if the police inform them that such an activity is going to take place there. Otherwise they will be guilty of an offence.

Sound principles, evolving framework, Review Page A23

The POA moves away from proscribing based on the number of persons involved in an activity. It focuses instead on whether the activity may have a disruptive effect on the public.

---

ALLOW STREET PROCESSIONS

'We have been fairly successful with our experiment at Speakers' Corner. The protests there have been peaceful thus far.

We should take that experiment further and allow certain streets which lead up to the Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Park to be designated safe for processions. Not completely unrestricted as in the Speakers' Corner, but less restricted in that approvals are granted more easily. The procession routes so designated should pose minimum disruption to the public and have permanent security cameras mounted along the streets.'

Ms Irene Ng (Tampines GRC), suggesting some streets be opened for protests

NO CLEAR-CUT DEFINITION

'The definition of 'cause-related events' is not always clear or easy.

For example, a condom company decides to hold a large-scale outdoor activity to raise funds for patients suffering from debilitating sexually transmitted diseases. Would this require a permit?

On the surface, it is a social activity, a charitable event for a good cause - raising funds to help patients with their medical needs. Ostensibly, it is also a commercial activity to increase brand awareness and sales. On the other hand, it can be viewed as a cause-related activity, promoting a certain kind of lifestyle which may go against society's more conservative values.'

Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tanjong Pagar GRC)

OPENING UP

'I see this Bill as continuing the process of opening up that begun a few years ago.

Since as a country we want a more open and free society, and are moving towards more openness, we should not allow any legislation to hinder our growth and development towards active citizenry and civil rights participation.'

Ms Ellen Lee (Sembawang GRC), applauding the new Public Order law

HIS WORRY: MORE 999 CALLS

'My concern is that the new 'move-on' powers given to police officers will generate an even higher number of 999 calls - for example, people will think it appropriate to call the police to have noisy groups 'move on' from the vicinity of their homes.

'Move-on' directions should be used sparingly and not for non-urgent cases involving, for example, neighbourhood noise.'

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah GRC)

BACK-HANDED COMPLIMENT

'The amendment, she suggested, was made in respect of cause-based activities to placate international public opinion. The first point I take away from that is that it is a back-handed compliment and it is an acknowledgement that in fact this amounts to a relaxation on the current position, which is why she thinks that we are doing it to get some kudos from international public opinion.

But the second point I make to her is, would the Singapore Government introduce legislation to placate international public opinion? She really thinks that? We are not in such a weak position, nor is such conduct usually associated with this government.'

Mr K. Shanmugam, in response to a point made by NCMP Sylvia Lim

BIRTHDAYS AND BIRTHDAYS

'I think Ms Thio will accept there is a difference between a birthday celebration of (the) Prophet (Muhammad) which was celebrated in 1964 and a birthday celebration of Ms Thio's that might be held in a public place.'

Mr Shanmugam, responding to NMP Thio Li-ann, who had asked if a birthday celebration in a restaurant might require a permit, given an assembly was defined as one 'to mark or commemorate an event'.

In 1964, riots broke out when troublemakers instigated a procession to mark Prophet Muhammad's birthday

Source: Straits Times © Singapore Press Holdings Ltd. Permission required for reproduction.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26994.1