PHOTOGRAPHER HANDCUFFED AT FLOOD SITE

PHOTOGRAPHER HANDCUFFED AT FLOOD SITE: 10.

Dr Ong Seh Hong asked the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the facts and circumstances of the arrest and handcuffing of the Lianhe Wanbao chief photographer over taking of photographs of the flood in Bukit Timah on 16th July 2010; (b) what are the guidelines for police officers when dealing with journalists and the general public taking photographs at public places where there are floods or other accidents; and (c) what are the guidelines for handcuffing them.

The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam) (for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs): Mr Speaker, Sir, the case in question happened in the morning of 17th July 2010, along Bukit Timah Road near Maplewood Condominium. It was raining heavily and the rain had caused a road divider, which had been excavated, to be flooded. Usually, the construction work would have been surrounded by safety barriers but unfortunately in this case the safety barriers had been washed away due to the floods. Motorists driving along the road were not able to see the depression. As a result, three cars landed in the depression.

Column: 869

Under these difficult conditions, the Lianhe Wanbao photographer had stopped his car illegally along the road at about 7.40 am to take the photographs, causing an obstruction to other motorists. There was clear danger not only to the photographer but to other motorists as well. A police officer at the scene therefore asked him to move away, which he did after he was told a second time.

However, the photographer returned shortly after and stood on the covered manhole within the flooded central divider to take photographs. This was dangerous as there was moving traffic on both sides of the divider. The police officer therefore advised him to move to the pavement where it was safer for him to take photographs.

According to the police officer, the photographer moved off only after repeated advice. The photographer, however, recalled only being told to move off once before he complied. Be that as it may, when he moved off from the central divider, he did not go onto the pavement but instead walked along the road next to the flooded divider and continued to take photographs. The police officer advised him against doing so again. He did not heed the advice. Up to this point, he did not have his media pass on nor did he identify himself as a reporter. The officer decided he had to intervene directly. The officer went up to him and held his arm with a view to stop him from continuing to walk along the central divider and to move him to the pavement. However, the photographer struggled free and the officer handcuffed him on one hand to restrain him and take him into custody. Upon reaching the pavement, the photographer had calmed down and produced his media pass for verification and identified himself as a photographer from the media. He was uncuffed after his identity was verified.

Column: 870

The Member asked about guidelines for police officers when dealing with journalists and the general public taking photographs at public places where there are floods or other accidents. The Police generally do not interfere with the media or members of the public taking photographs of floods so long as it does not obstruct Police operations and so long as this does not pose a danger to others or themselves. In this particular case, the issue was not about the photographer taking pictures of the flood but about public safety. The Police had taken action as, in its judgement, public safety was involved.

The Member also asked about the guidelines for the use of handcuffs. Police officers are trained to assess the situation when exercising discretion in using handcuffs. Depending on the officer’s risk assessment, handcuffs may be used if a suspect is violent or if there is flight risk, or if a serious offence had been committed. In this case, although it was not intended to be an arrest, the police officer assessed that it was necessary to use handcuffs to restrain the photographer and stop him from continuing an action which the officer felt posed a danger to others and the photographer himself. The moment the need for such restraint had passed when the photographer had ceased such an action and had been moved to the safety of the pavement, the officer rightly removed the handcuffs and decided not to arrest the photographer for obstructing a police officer in the course of performing his duty after it became clear that the photographer was from the media and was trying to do his job.

Both the Police and the media have important roles to play. While the Police respect and understand the role the media has to play, the Police have a duty to ensure public safety and security. We cannot allow our officers on the ground when performing their duty to ensure

Column: 871

public safety and security to have their directions ignored. Anyone who disagrees with or feels aggrieved by any such directions by a public servant doing his job can make complaint later and it will be thoroughly looked into. But he must first comply with such directions or be liable to face arrest and possible prosecution.

Looking at this incident with the benefit of hindsight, I think both parties could have handled the situation better. Nevertheless, I am glad to know that the Police and the media have discussed the incident dispassionately and have amicably resolved it.

Dr Ong Seh Hong (Marine Parade): Sir, I thank the Minister for giving this detailed account of what happened because there were discrepancies in the newspaper reports in the accounts by Mr Goh as well as the Police. However, I would like to ask the Minister how does the Police ascertain whether personal safety is being compromised. In this incident, the photographer is someone with experience. Although he did not display his journalist pass, he probably would have taken all the necessary steps to protect himself from falling into the water. How was this judgement made on the ground? I think people are worried that they may be stopped unnecessarily by the Police.

Secondly, I would like to find out what are the steps or measures that have been taken to prevent such incidents from happening again to prevent misunderstanding and unhappiness in the public as well as the media.

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, if I could take the second question first. As regards misunderstanding and unhappiness, as the Member would appreciate, it requires both parties to behave appropriately. There will be misunderstanding and unhappiness if a member of the public does not listen to

Column: 872

sensible directions given to him or her by the police officer, as in this case. The primary function and duty of the police officer is to ensure public safety, security, smooth flow of traffic, all of which they were trying to do. But as I have acknowledged, I think both parties could have handled it better.

As regards the first question and whether there would also be actions taken to prevent such future incidents, the Police has clear guidelines on when restraint can be imposed and the guidelines are known throughout the world, more or less in civilised Police systems: you stop a person and you restrain him if there is a flight risk or a possibility of danger to either himself or the other members of the public, or if a serious offence has been committed. In this case, the Member would appreciate from the facts that I have set out, there was a flooding, there were cars which were being blocked and there was a manhole that was covered with water. Unless the photographer has prescience or omniscience, it was entirely possible that he could have fallen into it. And, he was walking along a divider with cars on both sides, not the best of situations. The police officer was perfectly correct to have advised him to go onto the pavement, not to stop him from photographing. I think the issue has been mischaracterised. There was no question of stopping him from taking photographs. First, direction was given to get him to move his car and not to block others, which he should not have done in the first place. Second, to get him on to the pavement and protect himself – I do not think that was wrong.

Mr Viswa Sadasivan (Nominated Member): As the hon. Minister has highlighted, there has been a misrepresentation of sorts. This incident has caused a fair bit of concern on the ground, and I appreciate the Minister's explanation which comes across fairly

Column: 873

reasonable. My question is why was this explanation not provided until now?

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, the Police came out with their statement, setting out the facts immediately. Perhaps it did not receive the kind of prominence it should have, and I cannot answer the Member's question beyond that. [ Laughter. ]