Showing posts with label Public Order Act. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Public Order Act. Show all posts

Wednesday, April 22, 2009

Silenced, defenceless

Silenced, defenceless

I found an island in your arms,
a country in your eyes,
arms that chain, eyes that lie.
Break on through to the other side.

- Jim Morrison

The Public Order Act is not just about maintaining our racial and religious ‘harmony’. Harmony can be maintained, if it must, with the existing laws, as they always have been maintained, with a grip so ironical that one wonders if our vaunted ‘harmony’ even exists.

The POA is also not just about the impending APEC meetings or Youth Olympics and the protesters that accompany these events, for the POA is here to stay.

The POA is about preserving the dominance of the PAP. For this reason, the POA is about us, the citizens.

With the Internet, citizens have managed to reclaim some of their voices, and they are starting to speak and be heard. Nary a week now goes by without the government’s mis-steps being exposed and scrutinized by netizens, and the mainstream media’s chicanery continually unmasked. Now, the PAP’s pedigree no longer appears so distinguished and its record no longer that sterling, and the mainstream media little more than a lackey of the government. That is, a government whose largely fabricated aura, abetted by the media propagandists’ daily worship, has been diminished exponentially.

And right that it has. Our government is just like any good government there is elsewhere – filled with fallible men, prone to err. And like any government there is elsewhere, its natural impulses are to power and tyranny.

This is why democracy, and the structures that uphold it must be built, must prevail. Democracy is vital, it is neither a distant promise nor a compromise. It starts with having free and fair elections, that will give rise to a strong Opposition, and it ends with a freer people. Currently, all three elude us.

With the Internet, awakened and enlightened citizens who can now see the government for what it really is, might be galvanized to action, and threaten the PAP’s hold on power. This is why the POA is enacted, to contain dissent, to suppress action, to shackle the citizen.

But this absolute ease of tyranny – see how the POA was like an edict read out in parliament to overwhelming ‘ayes’, rather than being the contentious piece of legislation that must be deliberated and debated over – did not emerge overnight. The government’s successive legislations and insidious tweakings over the last four decades – on public order, on defamation rulings, on the GRCs, the plethora of licensing and restrictive laws governing the broadcast and print media, ‘public entertainment’ and civil society, not to mention the enormous discretionary powers the government has behind those laws – have gradually but surely strengthened the PAP’s grip on the country, entrenched its power in- and outside parliament, weakened the key institutions of the state, and silenced the citizen. In that sense, we have already been muzzled long ago. Taken together, they create for better and worse, the Singapore that we live in today.

It is this absolute ease of tyranny that manifests itself in the stark but facile choice (or is it a playful taunt?) posed to us by the law minister: “Well, ask yourself two questions: in our region, which country would you rather be in? And among the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 1960s, which country would you rather be in?”

You would rather live in Singapore, wouldn’t you? Anyway, where else can you go?

There are those who simply cannot leave, there are those who truly want to remain. But to remain is to perpetually duel, conscience with cowardice, conscience with contentment. To be made to sing its cadaveric songs of nationalism. To remain is to live in oppression. This is sad, and this is wrong.

From the law minister once more, as reported by TODAY: it boils down to how much Singaporeans trust the Government – bearing in mind the limitations and geo-political challenge that a small country faces.

This is not pleading trust. This is delivering a thin-veiled threat, once more playing the vulnerability game, and inciting the siege mentality created by them – trust us, or else.

For you would rather live in Singapore, wouldn’t you? Anyway, where else can you go?

Trust them, or live in oppression. What a generous choice. What a mockery of trust it makes. And what does it make of us?

Rather, it is the government itself who does not trust its people. From our NRICs to our health records on public computers, from racial profiling to academic streaming, from NS disciplining to scholarship bondage, from HDB flat allocation and CPF lock-ups, to the neighbours’ constant gaze through grilled-windows from the opposite block, to how to love our lovers so as to propagate the state’s ideal family structure, to 24/7 surveillance online and offline, all with the threat of the ISA and the knocking in the night a recurring spectre in our minds. All culminating in this country’s pervasive, undignified, climate of fear, every step a landmine of a legislation, every step the high wall of state condescension, every step once more into the inescapable arms of the government.

This is not about trust. It is about the regime’s ability to exert and collect power. Power undergirded by a politics of deep mistrust, subjecting citizens to living in a prosperous state of constant intimidation and surveil. While they pry into all our personal affairs and indiscretions that everyone has, threatening to expose them, incarcerating you for them. Everyone a potential hostage, while their own infractions are placed above their panoptical power, beyond scrutiny. While they gently cajole: Trust us, or else.

Or else, the government can trust us for once, no? The docile, disciplined, depoliticized Singaporean, produced, processed, labeled and sorted, all for the benefit of Singapore Inc. And to whom does Singapore Inc. benefit?

If we bemoan our current state, it is also because we have ourselves to blame.

Honour freedom. The POA and those who support it, dishonour it.

Freedom is not, unless you have bought into the government’s rhetoric, a lofty word – it is a basic need, without which citizens are bereft of dignity. The so-called politics of bread and butter is at one with the right to liberty: together, they constitute a proper, fuller life. One less, and it’s half a life. Why would dignity discriminate?

Albert Camus once observed: there are no two politics, there is only one, and it is the one that makes a commitment – the politics of honour. And indeed there can be no freedom without honour. Honour in words, honour in deed, honour in our hearts.

No heart, no honour. Not unlike those moneyed men in white.

Honour freedom. Today the government goes for them whom you think isn’t about you. (Where were we when the Opposition members were intimidated and bankrupted?) As if it’s none of your business, as if oppression is just fine. Tomorrow they’ll come for you, and you alone. They will, simply because they can, and they will, because you had let them.

Remember the saying: a nation of sheep begets a government of wolves? See how quickly the laws are amended and passed. This is our parliament of men in white, representing not the people but themselves. See how swiftly your basic rights have disappeared.

And why? Because we blind ourselves to the fact that the numerous laws passed ostensibly to maintain peace and prosperity, also invariably constrain the Opposition, crush dissent, and ensure the continued dominance of the PAP. Because you have been trained to disdain freedom, and because you have been encouraged to love your own servitude and bondage. This is the most powerful form of control, indoctrination at its best.

If we bemoan our current state, it is also because we have ourselves to blame.

The Opposition is weak because we kept silent, and so we kept them weak. Taunting them, we bluffed ourselves, feeling secure in our hypocrisy and timidity. Serves them right, we chide. In the end, this has not served us well. And now when we speak, if at all, we speak the language of disappointment, of anger, of disillusionment, of despair.

Each law that is passed is a gag and a tightening of the noose around your necks. The POA is only one of many examples, and no doubt many more will come, cumulatively, oppressively.

Forty years of independence, and we’re as dependent as ever if not more. Our nation-building efforts built a tyrannical regime instead. This is what happens when you remain silent. You will be silenced, and you will be defenceless.

The Opposition has spoken out against the POA – they always have. Go with the Opposition, that’s a start. Honour those who honour freedom, their strength lies in your hands.

Honour your own freedom too, for much is at stake. To be able to walk free and be heard, with fervour without fear.

Because freedom is not a lofty word.


http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27627.1

Further restrictions on peaceful assembly in Singapore

Further restrictions on peaceful assembly in Singapore

AMNESTY INTERNATIONAL

PUBLIC STATEMENT

AI Index: ASA 36/003/2009

For immediate release: April 22 2009

On 13 April Singapore’s parliament passed a new Public Order Act, which further restricts the human right to freedom of peaceful assembly and enhances policing powers to the exclusion of adequate safeguards to prevent abuse.

The government stated that the Act was needed in advance of the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit to be held in Singapore during November, when heads of state from member countries will meet. It claimed that such legislation was needed to combat the threat of terrorist acts during the summit.

Amnesty International recognizes the security concerns and the challenges of policing such a large event. However, this development has the potential of further constricting freedom of peaceful assembly in Singapore, which is already compromised. This law should be amended to ensure full compliance with international human rights standards.

The law complements and strengthens provisions of existing legislation, including the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) and the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA) which have been used previously to suppress peaceful demonstrators.

These include prominent opposition leader, Dr. Chee Soon Juan, the Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party. He was sentenced in November 2006, under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, to five weeks in jail after refusing to pay a S$5,000 fine for speaking in public without a permit, prior to the country's general election in May 2006.

Amnesty International calls on the Singapore government to meet its legal obligations under Article 14(1) of the Singapore Constitution to preserve freedom of speech and expression; the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and the right to form associations.

Amnesty International also calls upon Singapore to abide by Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) which states that, “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes the freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers”. While this right, as well as the right to peaceful assembly (in Art. 20(1) of the UDHR) may be restricted for purposes such as national security or public order, these restrictions can only be applied narrowly and to the extent necessitated by the specific circumstances.

A law which defines as few as two persons moving “substantially as a body of persons” in order to show opposition or support to somebody’s view, publicise a cause or commemorate an event (Sec. 2(1) of the Act) - as “a procession” which needs a permit and on which restrictions may be applied cannot be seriously considered as falling within internationally accepted limitations on these rights.

The circumstances under which permits may be denied are stated in Section 7(2), using vague language that can be broadly interpreted. This includes where there are reasonable grounds for believing that the proposed assembly or procession may “create a public nuisance” or “cause feelings of … ill will … between different groups in Singapore”.

The government can, under Sections 12, 25 and 28 of the Act, give enhanced powers to the police by declaring an event to be a prohibited one. This would enable police to stop and search any person who is entering or about to enter such an area. They may also search any person who is already in this area. They may question an individual’s reason for wanting to enter a venue and also deny entry to such a venue. Failure to comply will subject the individual to a fine and imprisonment. Amnesty International is concerned that these powers are excessive and open to abuse, which could result in violations of the rights to privacy and freedom of movement, as well as arbitrary detention.

Under Section 40 of the Act, police may arrest individuals without a warrant for contravening any of the Act’s provisions, which would include anyone who “assists or promotes… any assembly or procession” (Sec. 3(1)(a) of the Act).

Rather than restricting further the rights to freedom of speech and peaceful assembly, Singapore should revise its laws and policies to accord with international human rights standards, including by ratifying international human rights treaties such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The government should also seek guidance from international human rights monitoring bodies and experts on maintaining security while respecting and protecting human rights.

Background

Singapore imposes significant restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, particularly on critics of the government, the media, and peaceful demonstrations. In 2008, 18 activists and members of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party faced charges for holding unauthorised protest marches against the rising cost of living. In October 2008, already bankrupt Secretary-General of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party, Dr. Chee Soon Juan and activist Chee Siok Chin were ordered to pay S$610,000(approximately US$406,000) in defamation damages to current and former government leaders. They were subsequently sentenced to prison for contempt of court after criticising the conduct of their trial. Although they have since been released, as bankrupts they were barred from seeking parliamentary seats or leaving the country without permission.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27814.1

Tuesday, April 21, 2009

For much is at stake

For much is at stake

The government’s feeble justifications for passing the Public Order Act (POA) have been roundly and rightly denounced by the Opposition parties and netizens, and it is important that you read their responses closely.

The Public Order Act (POA) is about preserving the dominance of the PAP. For this reason, the POA is about us, the citizens.

Take heed: the POA is not just about maintaining our racial and religious “harmony”. Harmony can be maintained, if it must, with the existing laws, as they always have been.

The POA is also not just about the impending APEC meetings or Youth Olympics and the protesters that accompany these events, for the POA is here to stay.

The POA is about preserving the dominance of the PAP. For this reason, the POA is about us, the citizens.

With the Internet, citizens have managed to reclaim some of their voices, and they are starting to speak and be heard. Nary a week now goes by without the government’s mis-steps being exposed and scrutinized by netizens, and the mainstream media’s chicanery continually unmasked.You would rather live in Singapore, wouldn’t you? Anyway, where else can you go?

Now, the PAP’s pedigree no longer appears so distinguished and its record no longer that sterling, and the mainstream media little more than a lackey of the government. That is, a government whose largely fabricated aura, abetted by the media propagandists’ daily worship, has been diminished exponentially.

And right that it has. Our government is just like any good government filled with fallible men, prone to err. And like any government, its natural impulses are to power and tyranny.

This is why democracy, and the structures that uphold it must be built, must prevail. Democracy is vital, it starts with having free and fair elections, that will give rise to a strong Opposition, and it ends with a freer people. Currently, all three elude us.

With the Internet, awakened and enlightened citizens who can now see the government for what it really is, might be galvanized to action, and threaten the PAP’s hold on power. This is why the POA is enacted, to contain dissent, to suppress action, to shackle the citizen.

But this absolute ease of tyranny did not emerge overnight. The government’s successive legislations and insidious tweakings over the last four decades on public order, on defamation rulings, on the GRCs, the plethora of licensing and restrictive laws governing the broadcast and print media, public entertainment and civil society, not to mention the enormous discretionary powers the government has behind those laws have gradually but surely strengthened the PAP’s grip on the country, entrenched its power in- and outside parliament, weakened the key institutions of the state, and silenced the citizen. In that sense, we have already been muzzled long ago. They create for better and worse, the Singapore that we live in today.

It is this absolute ease of tyranny that manifests itself in the stark but facile choice posed to us by the law minister: Well, ask yourself two questions: in our region, which country would you rather be in? And among the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 1960s, which country would you rather be in?

In other words:

There are those who simply cannot leave, there are those who truly want to remain. But to remain is to perpetually duel, conscience against cowardice, conscience against contentment. To remain is to live in oppression. This is sad, and this is wrong.

From the law minister once more, as reported by TODAY:

it boils down to how much Singaporeans trust the Government Ð bearing in mind the limitations and geo-political challenge that a small country faces.

This is not pleading trust. This is delivering a thin-veiled threat, once more playing the vulnerability game, and inciting the siege mentality created by them

trust us, or else.

Trust them, or live in oppression. What a generous choice. What a mockery of trust it makes. And what does it make of us?

It is rather the government itself who does not trust its people. From our NRICs to our health records on public computers, from racial profiling to academic streaming, from NS disciplining to scholarship bondage, from HDB flat allocation and CPF lock-ups, to the neighbours’ constant gaze through grilled-windows from the opposite block, to how to love our lovers so as to propagate the state’s ideal family structure, to 24/7 surveillance online and offline, all with the threat of the ISA and the knocking in the night a recurring spectre in our minds. All culminating in this country’s pervasive, undignified, climate of fear, every step a landmine of a legislation, every step the high wall of state condescension, every step once more into the inescapable arms of the government.

This is not about trust. It is about the regime’s ability to exert and collect power. Power undergirded by a politics of deep mistrust, subjecting citizens to living in a prosperous state of constant intimidation and surveil. While they pry into all our personal affairs and indiscretions that everyone has, threatening to expose them, incarcerating you for them. Everyone a potential hostage, while their own infractions are placed above their panoptical power, beyond scrutiny. While they gently cajole:

Trust us, or else.

Or else, the government can trust us for once, no? The docile, disciplined, depoliticized Singaporean, produced, processed, labeled and sorted, all for the benefit of Singapore Inc. And to whom does Singapore Inc. benefit?

If we bemoan our current state, it is also because we have ourselves to blame.

I have written before, impassioned thought is in itself activism, that political activism is neutered at its heart when individuals forget that change comes not just from the arena of parliament and street protests, but also from the sitting and thinking individual, that the personal is the political, that action originates from oneÕs thought, conscience, and consciousness.

But now to bring our thoughts, conscience, and consciousness to bear, and in our different ways, to serve one cause: honouring freedom. The POA and those who support it, dishonour it.

Freedom is not, unless you have bought into the government’s rhetoric, a lofty word, it is a basic need, without which citizens are bereft of dignity. The so-called politics of bread and butter is at one with the right to liberty: together, they constitute a proper, fuller life. One less, and itÕs half a life. Why would dignity discriminate?

Albert Camus once observed: there are no two politics, there is only one, and it is the one that makes a commitment - the politics of honour. And indeed there can be no freedom without honour. Honour in words, honour in deed, honour in our hearts. No heart, no honour. Not unlike those moneyed men in white.

Honour freedom. Today the government goes for them whom you think isn’t about you. (Where were we when the Opposition members were intimidated and bankrupted?) As if it’s none of your business, as if oppression is just fine. Tomorow they’ll come for you and you alone. They will, simply because they can, and they will, because you had let them.

Remember the saying: a nation of sheep begets a government of wolves? See how quickly the laws are amended and passed. This is our parliament of men in white, representing not the people but themselves. See how swiftly your basic rights have disappeared. The POA is only one of many examples, and no doubt many more will come, cumulatively, oppressively.

And why? Because we blind ourselves to the fact that the numerous laws passed ostensibly to maintain peace and prosperity, also invariably constrain the Opposition, crush dissent, and ensure the continued dominance of the PAP. Because you have been trained to disdain freedom, and because you have been encouraged to love your own servitude and bondage. This is the most powerful form of control, indoctrination at its best.

The Opposition is weak because we kept silent, and so we kept them weak.

Serves them right, we chide. In the end, this has not served us well. And now when we speak, if at all, we speak the language of disappointment, of anger, of disillusionment, of despair. Forty years of independence, and we’re as dependent as ever if not more. Our nation-building efforts built a tyrannical regime instead. This is what happens when you remain silent. You will be silenced, and you will be defenceless.

The Opposition has spoken out against the POA; they always have. Go with the Opposition, that’s a start. Honour those who honour freedom, their strength lies in your hands.

Honour your own freedom too, for much is at stake. To be able to walk free and be heard, with fervour without fear. Because freedom is not a lofty word.


http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27525.1

Monday, April 20, 2009

Which country would the Minister like to govern?

Which country would the Minister like to govern?

Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam, said the Public Order Act seeks to optimally balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety, security and stability. He said in Parliament:

“Have we gotten that balance right? Well, ask yourselves two questions. In our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 60s, which country would you rather be in?"

Before Singaporeans answer these questions, perhaps the Minister would like to answer this - which country in our region would he like to govern?

Which nationality can tolerate shortsighted policies such as the highly punitive 'Stop at two' population containment program that caused its fertility to fall below replacement level?

Which nationality has to put up with controversial population growth policies like the 'Have three or more, if you can afford it' program that came with a eugenic 'Graduate Mother Scheme' to improve the quality of its breed as well?

Which nationality has suffered silently under the highly discriminatory 'Education Streaming' policy that subjected many of its young children to unnecessary stress at a tender age and possibly a lifetime stigma of being classified as underachievers?

Which nationality has allowed its government to quietly discontinued half-baked policies with no apology tendered?

So which country would the Minister like to govern? I am sure the Minister’s answer to my question would be Singapore. Where else in this world can the Minister find such a supportive and 'easy' group of people to govern and be paid handsomely in the process as well?

And which country would I rather be in? My answer to the Minister’s questions is the same. This is probably the only thing we can agree on.

So back to the question of have we gotten the balance between political freedom and public order right? For being a responsible, supportive, and constructive electorate all these years, the answer to this question is an emphatic no.

Do Singaporeans deserve to be treated like children? Do we deserve to have our rights as citizens restricted further though we had never shut down the airport, paralyzed the city or even endangered the lives of our politicians and fellow citizens since we became a nation in 1965?

I believe the political marriage of convenience between Singaporeans and the PAP is no longer mutually beneficial. Over the past 44 years of nationhood, the party has eroded the power of people bit by bit. Today we are a nation paralyzed with fear, real and imaginary.

This paranoid government must grow up and recognise that nation building requires mutual respect of the highest degree between the citizens and the elected authority. So far, Singaporeans have given the government all the respect it had craved for. The Public Order Act is not the kind of respect the citizens expects in return.

The people of Singapore must remind the government to show better respect at the next poll.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27540.1

Sunday, April 19, 2009

Regressive Public Order Act serves more of a political than security purpose

Regressive Public Order Act serves more of a political than security purpose

The new Public Order Act passed recently in Parliament is a regressive law put in place by the PAP to serve their own petty partisan interest rather than to maintain public order and security as claimed. (read article here)

The Act will 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.

Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam quoted the examples of scenes of disruption like those at international meetings such as the G20 meeting in London and more recently, the failed ASEAN Summit in Thailand’s Pattaya to defend the need for the new law.

CNA reported that that’s exactly what Singapore, which will later this year host the APEC meetings where many world leaders are expected to attend, wants to avoid.

I cannot understand how the “move-on” orders will help to prevent large numbers of demonstrators from gathering in the first place. How is the police going to get their message across when they are swarmed by thousands of determined protestors in one go?

It is highly unlikely that we will see hundreds of Singaporeans protesting at the APEC meetings. A more probable group will be foreigners from NGOs and human rights organizations in which a riot police on standby will suffice to maintain public order and security.

Existing laws are adequate to prevent disruption to law and order. The police are well equipped to restrain the protestors and arrest them on the spot. Why then do we need another public order act?

The “move on” order under the Act is deliberately targetted at small numbers of Singapore protestors making use of international events to draw attention to the PAP’s draconian laws curbing civil rights and liberties of Singaporeans.

The SDP had effectively organized and launched small group protests at previous international events held in Singapore such as the IMF meeting much to the chagrin and embarrassment of the PAP.

Photos of the police officers forming a human chain around an unarmed Chee Siok Chin were circulated widely on the internet, disgracing the PAP government in eyes of the international community which explains why under the new law, third parties are not permitted to film the ongoing protests either.

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 publicises a cause or campaign; and those that mark or commemorate any event.

This means that outdoor political activities against the PAP’s interest will be completely outlawed. No Singaporean will be allowed to demonstrate against any PAP leaders, the PAP itself or even a PAP policy.

Mr K Shanmugam, said: “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.

“Have we gotten that balance right? Well, ask yourselves two questions. In our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 60s, which country would you rather be in?

The minister’s argument is both shallow and disingenuous. There is absolutely no correlation between the freedom to exercise one’s political right and public safety.

Singaporeans have shown during the minibond rallies last year at Hong Lim Park that we are able to assemble and protest peacefully without endangering ourselves and others.

Besides, there are many measures the police can take to pre-empt public assemblies from descending into chaos such as limiting the number of protestors and searching their bodies for dangerous weapons before they are allowed to gather.

The real motive behind the law is to prevent any public expression of disaffection and anger against the PAP’s governance because not only will it bring shame and disrepute to the PAP, it will also shatter the myth that it is a popular government voted into power by the people.

The PAP knows that People Power is the only way Singaporeans can remove them from power. By curtailing the right of Singaporeans to assemble which is guaranteed under our Constitution, Singaporeans will have no choice but to play according to the rules set by them.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27330.1

Friday, April 17, 2009

The Myth of the Violent Singaporean Protestor

The Myth of the Violent Singaporean Protestor

In the ISD Intelligence Service Promotion Ceremony on 15 April 2009, Deputy Prime Minister and Home Minister, Mr. Wong Kan Seng said that they would implement the recently passed Public Order Act "firmly" to deal with those "intent on disrupting public order".

But what does he mean by disruption of "public order"? Prior to asserting that they will deal firmly, Mr. Wong paints a picture of public disruption when he said, "We have just seen the G20 protests in London. Thousands of protestors had taken to the streets, with the more violent among them damaging public property and business premises. In Thailand over the last one year, thousands of protestors have caused grave damage not just to physical property, but to livelihoods and the economy of the country as tourists are staying away. We have also seen on television street battles between protestors and authorities, causing injuries to many people and some have died as a result. I do not believe that Singaporeans would want such violence to happen here, and with what we have seen time and again in other countries, it would be naive of us to believe that nothing untoward will happen during street demonstrations".

There has been no such incidences of violence in the acts of civil disobedience in Singapore. In fact, it is the authorities who had upped their notch of violence in countering the these acts of civil disobedience in recent days.

When the Minister said, "In Singapore, it is only a tiny group of irresponsible and selfish individuals who have been pushing this line of civil disobedience. They do not care for the interests and safety of other Singaporeans; they are only interested in themselves", he tried to draw a parallel between the violent protestors of the United Kingdom and Thailand, to the peaceful protestors in Singapore like Seelan Palay, Shafiie Syahmi and the likes. This is highly misleading and regrettable.

Would the Singapore Police Force now acquire (or have they already acquired) 'non-lethal' devices like the stun shield to counter such protestors of civil disobedience? At the Trussco's exhibition of 'restraining devices' held on the same day as the ISD Intelligence Service Promotion Ceremony, Trussco's CEO, Mrs. Tina Wong said that the Singapore Police Force were "a major end user" of the Taser technology.

Amnesty International in providing a sample of manufacturers of exporters of 'non-lethal' devices, which could be used for torture as well, notes that Defenders Network a company based in Alabama, USA, had sold restraining devices such as Electrified High-Voltage Anti-Riot Shields which could emit up to up to 150,000 volts, to Singapore (among other coutries), because as Defenders Network claims, it can "maintain peace and order without drawing blood or endangering lives".

But are such devices really 'non-lethal' and do they not 'endanger lives'? The use of stun shield has resulted in at least one "unnecessary use of force" death in the USA prison systems. And also, there is the tragedy of Harry Landis, the Texas Corrections Officer. On December 1 1995, as part of the training to use such an electric shield, Landis was required to endure two 45,000-volt shocks. Shortly after the second shock, Landis collapsed and died. An inquiry later revealed that "the electric shock threw his heart into a different rhythmic beat, causing him to pass away".

The ability to burst the trigger and send at least 50,000 volts of electricity, which stuns or causes the death of a protestor, even in the pretext of maintaining "public order", is too much of a responsibility to be given to the police; especially based on a mere hypothesis, when there is no recent history of violent protestors in Singapore.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27146.1

Thursday, April 16, 2009

Reading The Riot Act

Reading The Riot Act

Speaking in opposition to the new Public Order Bill, Workers’ Party chairman Sylvia Lim, a former police officer, minced no words when she told parliament:” …. to say that 1 person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word“. The change in definition of “assembly” and “procession” in the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of 5 persons or more. This means even ONE person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen’s freedoms.

In Singapore, an individual’s right to freedom of expression and assembly is enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution, under Part IV entitled Fundamental Liberties. “Has this Public Order Bill crossed the line, asking Singaporeans to give up too much vis-à-vis the State?” Sylvia Lim asked.

While the authorities try to justify this draculian rape of civil liberties with the media frenzy covering the recent events at London’s G20 meeting and Thaksin instigated violence in Thailand, Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng was less coy about his true intentions. Speaking at the Internal Security Department (ISD) promotion ceremony, Wong said, “In Singapore, it is only a tiny group of irresponsible and selfish individuals who have been pushing the line of civil disobedience.” Flexing muscles which did not seemed to be diminished by the comic escape of former Jemaah Islamiyah leader Mas Selamat Kastari, Wong issued a stern warning to the “protestors and anarchists”, promising that his version of Brownshirts will come down hard on them.

In retrospect, everything is going to plan if you recall what Lee Kuan Yew said, as an opposition PAP member speaking to then Chief Minister David Marshall (Singapore Legislative Assembly, Debates, 4 October 1956):
“Repression, Sir is a habit that grows. I am told it is like making love - it is always easier the second time! The first time there may be pangs of conscience, a sense of guilt. But once embarked on this course with constant repetition you get more and more brazen in the attack. All you have to do is to dissolve organizations and societies and banish and detain the key political workers in these societies. Then miraculously everything is tranquil on the surface. Then an intimidated press and the government-controlled radio together can regularly sing your praises, and slowly and steadily the people are made to forget the evil things that have already been done, or if these things are referred to again they’re conveniently distorted and distorted with impunity, because there will be no opposition to contradict.”

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27423.1

A government out of order

The Public Order Act, which was just passed in Parliament on Monday, got me wondering just how far the PAP will go to thumb its nose at the Constitution to serve its narrow political interests.

Among some “highlights” of the law are:

* A demonstration by a lone person is called an “assembly”.
* Two persons walking together form for a common cause is a “procession”.
* Assemblies and processions both need permits from the Commissioner of Police.
* Cause-related activities (i.e., political activities) require permits regardless of the number of persons involved. (I guess that means that zero-person activities can also be banned.)
* An entry-level policeman has the power to order people to “move on” away from an area, even if they are not committing an offence. Those people have to comply, even if that policeman is in the wrong.
* The police have the power to ban ordinary citizens from filming them as they work.

Government lawyers were obviously mindful of Article 14 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to assembly but allows laws to be passed that restrict that right in the interest of public order. This Public Order Act was specifically named and worded to exploit the full letter — but not the spirit — of that provision.

While I may acquiesce to this restriction on civil liberties if it were genuinely for the sake of public security, I am convinced that the purpose of this law is not public security, but to make life easier for the police and to save their political masters from any embarrassment resulting from political protests.

How in the world can a one-man assembly wreck such havoc that we need such a draconian law to deal with him? If I walk hand-in-hand with my wife to commemorate an event, I would be taking part in a procession which needs prior approval from the Commissioner of Police.

It is plain to me that this law was drafted with one event and one person in mind: APEC and Chee Soon Juan.

Firstly, they want APEC to go so smoothly that the delegates, including Presidents Barack Obama and Hu Jintao, will see nothing but happy, smiling faces as evidence of how happy Singaporeans are with our government.

Secondly, they will not have Chee Soon Juan and his people (all 20 of them) ruin their APEC glory by stealing media attention away from them, like they did during the 2006 IMF-World Bank meetings.

Just how much more discretionary powers do the police need to maintain law and order during this “special event”? As far as I’m concerned, the job of a policeman in Singapore is already a walk in the park compared with his counterparts in other countries, including developed countries. Now we need to make it even easier, and in the process curtail our civil liberties even further?

Is President Obama’s psyche so delicate that he will faint if just one person holds up an anti-US placard? Will he really extend his praise to Singapore for clamping down on freedom of assembly just so nobody says nasty things about him?

Or is the government trying to demonstrate to China’s Hu Jintao how well we can implement authoritarianism through “rule of law”, so that he’ll send more of his officials to learn from us?

So what if Chee and his colleagues decide to go on some freedom march during APEC? Are his activities so violent and detrimental to public order that they warrant enacting a whole new law just to deal with him? In fact, I think that devoting police resources to try to contain his movements — with or without this Public Order Act — will unnecessarily divert resources away from the meeting venue.

And finally, the prohibition on filming police in action is clearly meant to prevent films like Martyn See’s Speakers Cornered from being filmed, not to prevent people from filming security forces carrying out an anti-terrorist operation. Do we have such a rambunctious media that will dare to film and broadcast on live TV footage of commandos rappelling down buildings?

I really scratch my head in amazement at how our “brilliant” policymakers can come up with such ridiculous laws. This is not just hardline. It is laughable the kind of somersaults the minister and his MPs had to perform in Parliament to justify this law. To use the situation in Thailand to justify this law shows how shallow an understanding they have (or choose to have) about democracy and freedom of expression.

Please stop making my country a laughing stock in the rest of the world!

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27085.1

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Lessons from Ian Tomlinson’s death: Implications of the new Public Order Act giving police powers to stop filming of ongoing “security” operations

Lessons from Ian Tomlinson’s death: Implications of the new Public Order Act giving police powers to stop filming of ongoing “security” operations

Under the new Public Order Act, the police will have powers to stop the filming of ongoing security operations and seize such materials so that operations are not compromised.

Police could even 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. (read report here)

The law was put in place to prevent filming of police using force to apprehend unarmed, peaceful protestors which have greatly embarrassed the Singapore police in the past as during the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign and IMF meeting where clips depicting the police’s arrest of SDP protestors were widely circulated on the internet.

With the passing of the new law, third parties who are not part of the protest proper risked being arrested and charged themselves if they are caught filming the police “operations”.

The recent death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in London illustrates why this law leaves too much power in the hands of the police:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ

Ian Tomlinson, a 47 year old newspaper seller had been on his way home from work when he was confronted by lines of riot police near the Bank of England.

He was attacked from behind and thrown to the ground by a baton-wielding police officer in riot gear, dramatic footage obtained by the ­Guardian shows. Moments after the assault on ­Tomlinson was captured on video, he ­suffered a heart attack and died.

However, in an official statement on the night of Tomlinson’s death, the Metropolitan police made no reference to any ­contact with officers and described attempts by police medics and an ambulance crew to save his life after he collapsed – efforts which they said were marred by ­protesters throwing missiles as first aid was ­administered .

Peter Smyth, the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, referred to Tomlinson’s death as “one small incident” on the BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

The video was shot by a 27 year old fund manager who submitted it to The Guardian. A day after the video was published, the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) began managing an investigation by City of London police into the ­circumstances of ­Tomlinson’s death.

The Ian Tomlinson case has sparked widespread outrage in England with many bloggers writing in to their MPs to pressurize the police to take action against the culprits.

Had filming of ongoing security “operations” been disallowed on the grounds of “compromising” them, the truth about Ian Tomlinson’s death would never be revealed and he would have died in vain.

If the police had acted professionally at all times, then it should not be afraid of having its security “operations” recorded on film.

The new Public Order Act will make it easier for police to cover up for any abuse of power and there will be nothing the victims can do to seek redress.

Mr K Shan’s use of the Mumbai terrorist incident to justify the law is both inappropriate and misleading. In the Mumbai attack, the mainstream media was the one which filmed and leaked the positions of security forces to the terrorists.

It is improbable that films taken by third parties or passer-bys will be aired simultaneously by the state-controlled media to “jeopardize” ongoing security operations. The law should be tweaked to disallow journalists from the mainstream media to film the event instead of a blanket ban on all filming.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26984.1


Political space further limited with new Public Order Act

Political space further limited with new Public Order Act

Second Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam claimed that the space for political expression in Singapore has expanded substantially since 2000, and it is in this context that the new public order rules should be viewed. (read article here)

He said this when responding to Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong on the Public Order Bill which gives police more effective powers to maintain public order.

I beg to differ. Short of expanding the limited space for political expression faced by Singaporeans, the new law will further curb civil liberties and activism.

I am most perturbed by Mr K Shan’s warped logic that the new public order rules should be viewed in the context of recent moves by the government to “liberalize” the political landscape.

The setting up of Speakers’ Corner in 2000 and the recent move last year to allow ”rallies and protests to be conducted there without a police permit have often been used by the PAP to counter criticisms of its repressive laws.

Short of increasing the scope for political expression, these half-hearted measures represent a step backward as they allow the PAP to define and delineate the boundaries for political expression according to their own contorted world view.

Political expression can take place through the mainstream media, public speeches, internet or physical forms of activism such as silent vigils, rallies, marches and demonstrations.

With the mainstream media tightly controlled by the ruling party, political expression in public as exemplified by civil disobedience in its various forms remain the sole conduit through which political pressure can be exerted.

Restriction of political expression in public to Hong Lim Park alone will significantly lessen the impact of the intended message.

The new laws are passed just in time for the APEC summit in November this year to prevent possible small group protestors from certain quarters, in particular the Singapore Democratic Party, from disrupting the hustlings and embarrassing the government.

Though it will have minimal impact on ordinary Singaporeans who are too timid to express their dissatisfaction with the government in public anyway, it will nevertheless mark a regression in the country’s own political development.

The past 9 years have also seen the PAP tightening the screws on political dissent. To quote a few examples:

1. SDP duo Chee Soon Juan and Chee Siok Chin were sued by the Singapore government for libel over an article in the party’s newsletter which alleged that it is corrupted.

2. 18 peaceful “Tak Boleh Tahan” protestors were charged for participating in an illegal procession when they tried marching from Parliament House to the city.

3. Blogger Gopalan Nair was arrested and jailed for three months for allegedly insulting the judiciary.

4. 3 SDP members were jailed for wearing kangaroo T-shirts outside the court whcih was construed as casting aspersions on the integrity of the judiciary.

As usual, the PAP has defended its latest law on the grounds of concerns for public safety and order. The fear for social unrest tearing our vulnerable nation apart has been so tactfully instilled in every Singaporean over the years that most have accepted it as a trade-off for a stable government, peaceful environment and economic prosperity.

What Singaporeans are unaware of is that forfeiting of such basic human rights will only further entrench the PAP in power which put us forever at its mercy.

Under the PAP system of governance, Singaporeans have no say in the way the country is run and has to content themselves from being herded around by a small group of elites.

Singapore’s political system was deliberately planned and cleverly manipulated to perpetuate one-party rule and to prevent the emergence of an alternative center of power.

That’s why opposition leaders who are willing to play according to the rules set by the PAP are tolerated to a certain extent while those seeking to dismantle its system will soon find themselves bankrupted or exiled.

Without meaningful channels for political expression in public, it is an uphill task to raise the political awareness of Singaporeans and to educate them on their rights as citizens.

The present status quo, namely the “master-slave” relation between the government and the people can only be changed if there is sufficient political awakening in the populace leading to more Singaporeans stepping forward to offer themselves as alternatives to the PAP and to demand for reforms of the system.

Further restriction of political space with the Public Order Act will only breed more cynicism, frustration and disgruntlement especially the younger generation clamoring for a more inclusive and liberal government which truly understand their concerns and aspirations.

Though it may serve the partisan interests of the PAP temporarily, it will prove to be detrimental to both the party and the state in the long run as apathetic Singaporeans continue to shun from active citzenry and politics.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=26982.1

Public Order Act: Hail BB?

Public Order Act: Hail BB?

Parliament passed the Public Order Act on 13/04/09, which was 2 days ago. Out of 84 MPs and NMPs, 81 said ‘Aye’ and 3 said ‘Nay’. The 3 person, Mr. Siew Kum Hong, Mr. Low Thia Khiang and Ms. Sylvia Lim voted no. For that, I’m grateful that there are still independent souls in the parliament. I applaud them for standing for what they perceived as excessive power delegation. For the 81, I wish that you will be able to sleep well at night.
What is the big fuss about Public Order Act? Look at the Move-On Power and Order on Filming.

Purpose of the move-on power is to prevent certain undesirable individual from creating trouble during major event in Singapore. Which beg me to ask the question, are they targeting Dr. Chee and his so call undesirable associate? If the undesirable individual is a foreigner, shouldn’t he/she be barred from entering Singapore? UEFA and FIFA conduct selective barring for notorious English hooligan, why can’t it be done this way unless… the threat is from within? Are the government so afraid?

What about order on filming? The Law Minister is right! We shouldn’t be aiding potential terrorist like what happen in Mumbai! Well dear, that is because you have only been fed half the story by the 144th placed ST! What happen in Mumbai? The terrorist are able to see the movement of the police from the TV in the hold-up buildings. From the TV dear. It’s from the mainstream journalist. Obviously the government is barking up the wrong tree. How could the video from passer-bys be aired simultaneously by the mainstream media which is state-controlled by the way, meaning there is no rogue TV company out to ream the ass of the police. IF the government is sincere to prevent a Mumbai 2, it should be looking at the direction of mainstream journalist. Or are they afraid of having to explain this…


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECMVdl-9SQ


This was taken during the recently concluded G20 meeting in London. Had not a passer-by taken a video of this. No one will know how did Ian Tomlinson died. I did not buy Mr. Shanmugam’s explanation:

For example, on the issue of the police potentially abusing their powers in stopping a person from filming, he said: 'Mr Siew's perception is that all police officers will behave illegally. They'll be smart and they'll direct deletion because they don't want a record of what they have just done.

'I come from the opposite perspective. I think we come from the perspective that our officers are fundamentally honest...'

Link: Straits Time

Is this a joke? Fundamentally honest? Explain this to me.

Sir, the only way you can prove to the whole of Singapore that what you said above was true is to show us that every policemen in Singapore is God Almighty himself! The policemen in UK is not different than the policemen in Singapore. Human and prone to abuses. Prove it to me that every single policemen is God Almighty himself and I’ll rest my case and support you!

What surprise me is the blanket hush hush by MSM on another side of the POA. Now, one is enough to get you arrested. One I mean is one person demonstrating. Don’t believe me? See this:

The new laws apply even if it is a one-person demonstration. The previous Public Entertainments and Meetings Act had governed groups of four or less, and the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, groups of five or more.


Thus, the change would “move away from a proscription based on the number of participants”, to focus on the nature of the activity – that is, whether it is disruptive, Mr Shanmugam, who is also Law Minister, explained.


But several MPs took issue with the fact that the new laws would apply to even a single person, which Non-Constituency MP Sylvia Lim felt was tantamount to “giving the state complete control over an individual citizen’s freedoms”.

Link: Singapore Law Watch

I see now that one person demonstration is perceived as dangerous. I see. I didn’t know the government so ??? we all Singaporean who are famous for being such pussy whips that one person is enough to create havoc and chaos! Or are the government just afraid? Why are you afraid when you’ve done nothing wrong?

In his conclusion, Mr. Shanmugam argued that it boils down to how much Singaporean “trust” the government. I see, like…

Trust the government to blow away billions of dollars away?
Trust the government that organ trading is ok?
Trust the government to suggest dumping the elderly at JB?
Trust the government to let a terrorist escape(if he really did…)?
Trust the government to dish out obscene bonus?
Thanks but no thanks. The government can keep it’s trust to itself and I’ll keep mine to myself.

Oh, Mr. Shanmugam also raised that space for political expression has expanded substantially since 2000. Noted. True only if you’re either Ah Tiongs or Ang Mohs. But if you’re a Singaporean wearing a kangaroo shirt outside Supreme Court, you get this.

Being a vigilant citizen, I got to report that the US State Department have impugn on the reputation of our country judicial system! The incriminating evidence can be found here! How dare America insult my country esteemed judiciary! Singapore! What are you waiting for? Summon the whole of the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor to Singapore to stand trial like the 3 idiots who wear the kangaroo shirt!

http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27065.1

More Laws for Public Order....

More Laws for Public Order....

Singapore has passed a new set of laws for public order:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/singaporelocalnews/view/422051/1/.html

Not that the old set wasn't working. It is just that we have to be more vigilant given the rising unemployment, bigger income gap and growing number of people disenfranchised so a new set of laws are required. Hungry people ought to be saving their energy by staying at home instead of protesting on the streets....and jobless people ought to be looking for jobs and people who disagree and want to change the system should just shut-up. What better way to achieve greater order.

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 publicises a cause or campaign; and those that mark or commemorate any event.

You will now need a permit to "commemorate any event". What has public order got to do with commemorating something?

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.

The Act will also prohibit the film of law enforcement operations.

How was the abuse of power by police discovered and presecuted? 90% of the time by people who happened to have film the incident - be it the Rodney King case or the most recent use of violence against protestors during the G20 [Link]- these incidents were all caught on film. We have better policemen that the rest of the world? They use secret edge tactics that cannot be filmed?

The ultimate justification given by Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam:

"Have we gotten that balance right? Well, ask yourselves two questions. In our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 60s, which country would you rather be in?"

The answer is simple. In this region I rather be in Singapore not because of its draconian public order laws but because it is my home and it is a modern city. Let me turn around to ask this question if Singaporeans want these draconian laws that repress the populace even more making it difficult for people to protest for worthy causes and injustice, why are so many Singaporeans lining up and waiting to emigrate to US, Australia, UK and New Zealand which do not have such draconian laws and allow protests. There are more people in Singapore whose security are adversely affected by loan sharks(10,000 counting just official reports last year) that terrorise the HDB dwellers than by peaceful protestors - you don't see the PAP govt proactively enacting laws to protect Singaporeans from loan sharks. These set of public order laws have little to do with the people's safety or security and every thing to do with preserving the system that allows the PAP thrive, hang on to power and repressing dissent and stopping much needed changes in our society....


http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27052.1


Tuesday, April 14, 2009

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

  • Monday, March 23, 2009

    Overview of The Public Order Act

    23 March 2009
    Overview of The Public Order Act

    MHA has introduced the Public Order Bill during the Parliamentary Session on 23 Mar 2009. The proposed Public Order Act (POA) seeks to create a more effective framework which is formal, transparent and coherent for the management of public order by the Police.

    2 It is necessary to update our legal framework governing public order, and differentiate political and cause-related activities from recreational and social activities. As our social, political and security environment becomes more complex, we also need to squarely address gaps in the current framework, to enhance the ability of the Police to ensure security during major events, and to maintain public order in a manner which will ensure the general level of safety and security in Singapore that we enjoy today.

    3 The POA is part of a continuous review of the larger framework for autonomous and regulated space. The liberalisation of the permit regime governing indoor political activities and to provide exemption for such, and more recently, the change to the use of Speakers’ Corner to allow for outdoor demonstrations without permit, is part of this larger review. In 2000, Speakers’ Corner was launched to allow Singapore citizens to speak freely in an outdoor setting without having to seek prior police approval. In 2004, the exemption at Speakers’ Corner was extended to performances and exhibitions. Similar activities held indoors were also exempted. With effect from 1 Sep 2008, political demonstrations held indoors or at Speakers’ Corner are also exempted from the permit regime[1].

    4 The POA is aimed at distinguishing between types of activities in outdoor settings, separating those assessed to be inherently higher and those with lower public order risks. It will empower Police to effectively intervene and de-escalate dynamic situations on the ground with the options to calibrate such interventions in an appropriate, measured and balanced manner. In doing so, it will allow us to take further steps to expand the list of activities that pose less public order concerns and exempt them from the permit regime under the POA. MHA is studying the types of recreational, social and commercial activities which were previously regulated under the old PEMA and MOA permit regime with a view, wherever practicable, to be self-regulating and exempt from permit requirements, subject to a minimum set of conditions. This review is underway[2].


    Key Features of the Public Order Act

    Consolidated Permit Regime

    5 Currently, cause-related activities are regulated together with recreational, social and commercial activities under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) and Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (MOA). Under the POA, the relevant portions of these two regulatory regimes will be consolidated for cause-related assemblies and processions. Specifically, this will mean that cause-related activities will be regulated by permit regardless of the number of persons involved or the format they are conducted in. This rationalises the current approach of regulating groups of five or more under the MOA and groups of four or less under the PEMA, (where there is public entertainment).

    6 Under the POA, there will be different penalties to distinguish between first-time and repeat or recalcitrant offenders. The jail term for first time offender in the present penalty schedule has been removed. Penalties for repeat offenders on the other hand have been enhanced.

    Enhancing Security during Major Events

    7 Major international events are trophy targets for terrorists. As Singapore increasingly plays host to major international events and continues to promote the business of Singapore as an international meeting and convention hub, our priority must be to ensure the safety and security of the delegates and our people during such events.

    8 To do so, our security forces cannot afford to be distracted from their security deployment or allow the level of security measures in place on site to be diminished by the disruption of political activists, militants or mischief-makers seeking to exploit the media and political attention attending the event. The POA comprises provisions to enhance security during such major events. Under the POA, Minister will be able to declare via gazette a certain event as a special event which will then allow Police to exercise powers to preserve public order and safety of the individuals involved in the event. Within the special event area where typically the security-threat level is higher if not highest, Police can exercise enhanced powers such as prohibition of items, stop and search, arrests, security screening, request reasons for entry from suspicious persons, and denial of entry. Persons who refuse to comply with Police orders or interfere with the conduct of the event will be committing an offence. This is the result of careful study of Australia’s APEC 2007 laws and the Australia Capital Territory’s Major Events laws.

    Move-On Powers

    9 The POA will broaden the repertoire of Police powers in dealing with public order incidents. Currently, in the face of an illegal assembly or march, Police will have to either prosecute after the offending action is over or arrest to prevent an escalation of the incident. A move-on order, gives the Police an additional intervening instrument to engage the offender and give him a chance to stop his unlawful activity without involving arrest. It allows Police to de-escalate an activity which can potentially cause significant law and order threats by ordering the person to leave. If the person complies, there will be no arrest and the threat will be removed.

    10 To enhance internal accountabilities, the move-on orders will be issued by a police officer of or above the rank of sergeant on the explicit authorization of a senior Police officer. It will be in the form of a written notice that will state the area, and the time period (up to 24 hours) within which the subject is prohibited from re-entering. Unlike the Australian model, we have scoped the application of our move-on orders narrower so that our move-on powers can be used only in cases where the Police assess that the person’s behaviour fits within certain specified criteria as appended below:

    a) interferes with trade or business at the place by obstructing, hindering or impeding someone entering, at or leaving the place;
    b) is or has been disorderly, indecent, offensive, or threatening to someone entering, at or leaving the place;
    c) is or has been disrupting the peaceable and orderly conduct of any event, entertainment or gathering at the place; or
    d) shows that he is just about to commit an offence or has just committed or is committing an offence.

    Order on Filming

    11 There are specific practical situations where the recording of an on-going incident can potentially jeopardise the success of security operations or the safety of the officers. For instance, in a counter-terrorism operation, real time coverage of the storming operation can expose the special forces and the hostages to great risks as it can undermine the element of surprise critical to such missions. There are also other instances whereby the identities of an officer carrying out such sensitive covert operations can be compromised by the dissemination of video-recording of the operation.

    12 The POA empowers law enforcement officers to prohibit persons from filming, communicating and exhibiting films of law enforcement activities which if exhibited will either endanger the safety of officers or prejudice the effective conduct of an operation. It will be an offence if a person willfully disobeys the prohibition order given to him. [3]

    Responsibility of Property Owners

    13 Property owners have a responsibility to ensure that their properties are not used for unlawful activities. However it is recognised that it may not always be practical to expect the property owner to be aware of an unlawful activity being conducted or about to be conducted in their premises. Hence under the POA, they will be required to take reasonable action to prevent illegal assemblies and processions from taking place on their property when they are so notified by the Police.

    Ministry of Home Affairs
    23 March 2009

    [1] Organisers of exempted activities at Speakers’ Corner and indoors are subject to a minimum set of conditions. This includes the requirement that they must be Singapore citizens and that the subject matter may not concern race or religion. If the event does not meet these conditions, the organisers must apply for a police permit.

    [2] The details will be announced when the review is completed and enacted through subsidiary legislation when the Act is passed.

    [3] It is recognised that such a provision may not eliminate all risks of such exposure. However in the face of having an alternative of criminalizing such actions per se rather than actions in violation of the specific prohibition given, the decision was to adopt the latter, more conservative approach and review if necessary going forward. It is also recognised that in the case of the media which has a role to play to keep the public informed, mutual engagement would be pursued to achieve the security objectives of the state as well as the professional objectives of the media, e.g. ensuring the observation of prohibition to apply to real-time dissemination rather than filming per se.

    http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=27065.3

    Public Order Act introduced

    Public Order Act introduced to examine new realities in managing security
    By S Ramesh, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 23 March 2009 1833 hrs



    Photos



    K Shanmugam



    Video
    Public Order Act introduced to examine new realities in managing security

    SINGAPORE: Singapore's Home Affairs Ministry wants to create a more effective legal framework when managing public order - one that is formal, coherent and transparent.

    To achieve this, Law and Second Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam introduced a new Public Order Act in Parliament on Monday. It examines new global realities in managing security and consolidates existing laws which regulate the conduct of activities.

    The Public Order Act aims to distinguish between types of activities in outdoor settings - separating those assessed to be inherently higher than those with lower public order risks.

    Presently, activities held for a certain cause are regulated together with recreational, social and commercial ones under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act and the Miscellaneous Offences Act.

    Under the new Public Order Act, cause-related activities will be regulated by permit, regardless of the number of persons involved or the format they are conducted in.

    The Act will broaden police powers in dealing with public order incidents. Currently, in the face of an illegal assembly, police can either prosecute or arrest to prevent the incident from escalating.

    In the Act, there will be a "move on order" clause. This allows the police to engage the offender and give him a chance to stop his unlawful activity without involving arrest. The order will be issued in writing.

    The Home Affairs Ministry emphasised that major international events are trophy targets for terrorists.

    As Singapore plays host to more of such events, the priority must be to ensure the security and safety of the delegates and Singaporeans. One key event this year is the APEC Leaders' Meeting in November.

    Under the new Act, the minister can declare through a gazette notice certain events as special. This will then allow the police to exercise powers to preserve public order and the safety of those involved.

    Finally, the Act also has orders on filming. The ministry said there are specific situations where the recording of an ongoing incident can jeopardise the success of security operations or the safety of officers.

    So the Act empowers officers to prohibit persons from filming, communicating and exhibiting films of such activities.

    Parliament will debate provisions of the Bill at its next sitting.

    - CNA/yt

    http://forums.delphiforums.com/sunkopitiam/messages?msg=24859.1