PUBLIC ORDER BILL

PUBLIC ORDER BILL: Order for Second Reading read.

2.37 pm

The Second Minister for Home Affairs (Mr K Shanmugam): Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg

Column: 3657

to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mr Zainul commented that there is a much larger number of speakers on this Bill compared with the earlier Bill. I would tell him that I would be quite happy to share some speakers with my colleague, RAdm Lui.

Sir, this Bill covers, broadly, three main and two supplementary areas. The main areas are as follows:

(a) Part II contains provisions which rationalise the current rules for public assemblies and processions;

(b) Part III sets out the rules applying to special events which require high security; and

(c) Part IV sets out powers for the Police to give "move-on" orders.

The two further supplementary features are: the power to prohibit filming in specific situations, and the requirement that property owners exercise greater responsibility in respect of certain activities on their premises.

This Bill is part of the continuum of purposive and measured changes to our framework for political space, evolving in tandem with development in our economic and social landscape. It is being brought to this House, in the context of major international events which are going to be held in Singapore, including the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meetings later this year. The backdrop of current events in Thailand with international leaders leaving the conference by helicopters hurriedly show very tellingly the need for this legislation. Singapore cannot afford the luxury of having these meetings disrupted.

Column: 3658

The key philosophy underlying the Bill is that there must be (a) adequate space for the individual’s rights of political expression; (b) without compromising society’s needs for order and stability.

As a statement of principle, that would be unexceptionable to most people. The key practical issue is: how do you get that balance right?

Many of us recognise that it is possible to make a nod to the principle, and at the same time either cut out completely most forms of political expression as a way of controlling political space; or alternatively at the other extreme, have complete chaos and little respect for law and order, in the name of political freedom. We have seen both happen in other countries.

Neither outcome would be good for the development of a prosperous, stable democracy.

We also recognise that there can and will be legitimate debate on how the right balance should be struck.

In determining the right balance, in this Bill, the following factors were key:

First, population density/population mix of Singapore. We have one of the highest population densities in the world – over 6,800 persons per square kilometre. We also have a diverse racial and religious mix. Several other countries also have a diverse mix, but few have them in as compressed a space as ours. Every action by one group of people, however small, can have an impact – physically or emotionally – on another group. Race, language and religion remain potentially explosive issues. Those who think otherwise can look at recent history, including the history of countries in South-East Asia.

Column: 3659

The second factor we took into account is stability. We believe that stability for us is an existential issue – both economically and as a society. If key facilities were to be shut down as a result of instability, the impact on us would be far greater and far more corrosive than it would be in larger countries.

As a result of our intense focus on stability, we rank highly on international surveys which assess countries’ political risk. The Political and Economic Risk Consultancy and World Bank Institute have constantly featured safety and security as key competitive advantages of Singapore. This matters to the companies which put billions of dollars into Singapore.

When Las Vegas Sands, Genting, Exxon-Mobil and Shell amongst others, invest billions, they assess the country’s stability over the several decades it will take to recoup their investments.

This is a really no-brainer. A chaotic socio-political situation will preclude sustained economic growth for us. Recent events, including events in our region, show that we cannot take stability for granted, and the incalculable damage that can arise from instability.

This is not to say that references to "stability" alone can justify any and every restriction on political freedoms. As I have stated earlier, the correct approach would be to find the optimal balance: to ensure proper space for the exercise of political rights without compromising stability, in a diversely and densely populated little island. But given our limitations in size, structure of our society, and the geo-strategic situation, stability has to be given greater weight in deciding what is the optimal balance.

The third factor we took into account is the need for greater political space. Our society is continually evolving. We

Column: 3660

now have a highly literate, largely well-educated population. Civil society is growing; and there is now a more active citizenry.

This evolution and the concomitant need for greater space for political expression must also be factored in. In this context, I will come back later to the way political space has evolved over the last few years.

The fourth factor we took into account is

we have now become an increasingly popular venue for major international events. In 2006, we hosted the International Olympic Committee (IOC) meeting as well as International Monetary Fund World Bank Annual Meetings. This involved over 20,000 participants, including Government and business leaders from all around the world. In 2007, Singapore hosted the ASEAN Summit.

In 2008, we hosted the first ever Formula One Grand Prix night race. Singapore was beamed "live" to about 400 million people worldwide.

This year, we will be hosting the 2009 APEC meetings which will set a new record for the number of international participants for an event held in Singapore. This is one of the most important international events of the year and we will do everything to make it succeed. As I have stated earlier, this meeting is a key reason for introducing the Bill at this stage.

Next year, Singapore will host the Youth Olympics.

According to STB, Business Travel and MICE visitors constituted approximately 29% or close to three million of our total visitor arrivals in 2007. This amounted to over $5 billion or 39% of our total tourism receipts. This industry will only grow in importance and its value by 2015 is expected to be $10.5 billion.

Column: 3661

For Singapore, being a host to such events has a number of very substantial benefits:

(i) It increases our international profile and diplomatic space which is important to protect our sovereignty; and

(ii) There are considerable economic benefits, both direct and indirect.

But being a host of such events brings with it a set of challenges:

(i) Each event needs to be successfully held; and

(ii) We have a duty to ensure the safety and security of the event, as well as that of the delegates.

Before I deal with the Bill, I will touch on how our political space has evolved in recent years, so that the Bill can be seen in context.

The increasing liberalisation of political space

Since 2000, there have been a series of changes which have liberalised our political space, as part of a continuing process.

In 2000, we launched the Speakers' Corner which allows citizens to speak freely without the need to seek Police approval, except when the subject concerns race and religion.

That same year, we announced in Parliament changes to policy for the Police to grant public entertainment licences, for MPs to make speeches in their own constituencies if their speech is part of a constituency event organised for the benefit of the constituents and where the intended participants are from that constituency.

Column: 3662

In 2001, constituency activities organised by or on behalf of MPs and held in the constituency represented by that MP in Parliament were exempted if they wholly comprised performance of music, singing or dancing, or any other similar shows, transmission of recorded music or organised competition.

In 2004, the Speakers' Corner exemptions were extended to performances and exhibitions. Indoor political activities by citizens were also exempted. That year, the Societies Act was also amended to allow automatic registration of non-specified societies. Previously, such societies seeking registration had to seek the Registrar's prior approval before becoming a registered society.

In 2008, we exempted outdoor political demonstrations in the Speakers' Corner. Citizens who organise indoor demonstrations similarly do not now need a permit.

In March 2009, the Films Act was amended to allow for certain types of films which were previously considered party political films. They can now be produced and screened, including political party manifestos and factual documentaries.

I come back to the central theme I mentioned earlier: the approach is to seek the optimal balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety and security and not affecting stability.

Have we gotten the balance right? Well, ask yourself two questions: in our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 50s and 60s, which country would you rather be in? The answer to these two questions will answer the main question I asked.

Column: 3663

With that background, let me now turn to the Bill. I will first deal with Part I.

Part I – Definitions

Part I contains the definitions of the terms used in the Bill.

Under the Bill, assemblies and processions are defined in clause 2 as a gathering or meeting of persons the purpose or purposes of which may be to:

(a) demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government;

(b) publicise a cause or campaign; or

(c) mark or commemorate any event.

These three limbs are adopted from the existing framework under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (MOA).

Under the MOA, all activities falling within any one of the above criteria require permits, unless exempted.

In addition, any activity by one or more persons will require a licence under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA), if the activity amounts to public entertainment.

The activities which are now exempted from the MOA and PEMA will continue to be exempted in the Bill. In addition, the Public Order Act (POA) will allow for Subsidiary Legislation which will create additional exceptions. There will be a further relaxation from the current position, to exempt commercial and sporting and recreational activities carried out by Statutory Boards and charities with IPC status. To qualify for the exemption, the primary purpose of the activity must be a commercial or sporting/recreational one.

The exempted organisations will need to adhere to basic and minimal conditions

Column: 3664

relating to the safety and security in respect of the activities they organise. For instance, they cannot hold their activities anywhere within 500 metres of schools or places of worship. The exempted activity must also not pose any serious disruption or nuisance to the surrounding community.

The approach we have taken in respect of assemblies and processions can be summarised as follows:

(a) We have rationalised the approaches under PEMA and MOA and have set them out in the POA;

(b) The activities covered by the POA are similar to those covered under the MOA – really cause-based activities are regulated;

(c) Such activities can be carried out indoors without restrictions, in the Speakers' Corner, or in any other proposed exempted area without permits. But if they relate to race and religion then permits are needed; and

(d) In other outdoor areas, such activities will need permits.

This approach seeks to balance the desire of any individual or group to carry out a cause-based activity in a public area, with the interests of other users of that space, as well as public security. The individual or group can apply for a permit and the Police will have to decide on the application in accordance with the principles set out in the Bill. This moves away from a proscription based on the number of participants in the activity. Instead, the focus is on the activity itself and whether, regardless of the number of participants, it may have a disruptive effect on the public.

The net effect of these changes will, as I have stated earlier, be a substantial relaxation from the current position: our

Column: 3665

proposed approach to exempt sporting and recreational activities organised by certain organisations, will, in real practical terms, mean that about 50% of the activities that now require permits will no longer require permits.

Part II – Assemblies and processions

Part II sets out the framework for regulating public assemblies and processions. Compared to the PEMA and MOA, the Bill makes clearer the application requirements, the public order grounds for approving, rejecting or cancelling an application, and the procedures for appeal to the Minister.

Under the Public Order Act, an assembly and procession may take place if a permit has been applied for and granted by the police.

Clause 7 states that the Commissioner of Police may refuse to grant a permit on public order grounds. The reasons include causing damage to property, hostility, obstructing roads, glorifying or instigating terrorism or the commission of an offence, or if held in a prohibited area. Clause 8 allows for permit conditions to be imposed on persons organising and on persons taking part in that assembly or procession.

The Commissioner of Police can cancel permits if the events or facts as set out in clause 10 exist.

A person has a right of appeal to the Minister under clause 11 against the Commissioner's decisions.

Clause 12 provides for the establishment of prohibited areas, in which there can be no holding of any public assembly or public procession or both. Such areas have to be designated by the Minister by way of an order published in the Gazette .

The Public Order Bill also empowers the Minister and Commissioner of Police

Column: 3666

to prohibit public assemblies and processions in direct response to specific public order and security developments – clause 13. That clause also provides that the Commissioner of Police may prohibit all public assemblies or public processions or both for up to 28 days in a particular public place, if it is necessary in the public interest to do so. The factors that may be taken into account are set out in that clause.

Both the Minister's order and the Commissioner's notification will have the effect of cancelling any previous permit granted. It will be an offence to organise or participate in an assembly or a procession in contravention of such an order or notification.

Clause 14 provides for unrestricted areas, whereby no advance notice and no permit, subject to basic and minimal conditions, will be required for the holding of assemblies or processions or both in such areas, for example, the Speakers' Corner. Any contravention of any condition will be an offence.

By reference to the MOA, we have updated the penalties for organising and participating in unlawful assemblies and processions. Under the new regime, we have two sets of penalties; one for first-time offenders and the other for repeat offenders. We have lowered the penalties for first-time offenders by removing the jail term for organisers. Conversely, we have provided stiffer penalties for repeat offenders. This is a recalibration of the penalty system in accordance with the individual's regard for the rule of law.

A person organising or taking part in an assembly or a procession, who knowingly fails to comply with any direction of a senior police officer at the scene, may also be guilty of an offence under clause 16.

Obstructing the free passage of any ambulance, fire engine vehicle, police

Column: 3667

vehicle, or inciting others to do so, will be an offence under clause 18. Such an obstruction could mean the difference between life and death.

Part III – Special events security

I will now deal with Part III of the Bill, which relates to special events security.

In the current security climate, all major international events are trophy targets for terrorists. We cannot afford to take our eye off security.

Several of our provisions in this Part have been drawn from Australia's APEC law passed in 2007 as well as the Australian Capital Territory's Major Events Security Act 2000.

Members should note that Australia's APEC law allowed Australian law enforcement agencies to serve notices on persons at their homes to prohibit them from going near APEC meeting venues. The UK's Anti-Social Behaviour Act allows the Police to remove people back to their residences. We have decided against adopting these additional powers.

Under Part III of the POA, the Minister may make an order declaring an event to be a special event after considering certain criteria. Only events that are of national importance will be so declared. The Minister must be satisfied that it is necessary for preserving public order and the safety of people and for the avoidance of disruptions to the event. Additionally, the Minister must be satisfied that there is a reasonable likelihood that the event may be disrupted if the powers in this Part are not exercised, there is a need to protect persons involved in or at the event, there is a reasonable likelihood that the event, because of its nature, might be at risk of an act of terrorism, or that the exercise of the powers is required as a condition for holding the event in Singapore. The Minister may take into account certain features of the event before declaring it to be a Special Event.

Column: 3668

Under clauses 24 to 29, powers of inspection are given to police officers, whether or not in uniform, and approved persons. Police will be allowed to search persons and personal property, prohibit certain items from being brought into the special event area, request reasons for entry from suspicious persons and refuse entry to specific persons to the special event area. Failure to comply with any request or direction will be an offence.

To ensure the safety and security of the event participants, the Commissioner of Police has the power to issue directions to event organisers of special events and owners or occupiers of premises within a special event area to take or not take certain actions. The directions may be issued only during the period the declaration relating to that special event is in force.

An event organiser who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with any such written direction shall be guilty of an offence under clause 30.

However, an event organiser may avoid liability for failing to comply with a direction if he is not the owner of, and within seven days after he is given notice alleging that he has been guilty of the offence, he furnishes by declaration to the Commissioner, the name and address of the person who is the owner of the infrastructure or property, as the case may be.

The Commissioner of Police then may, with the approval of the Minister and during the period the declaration relating to that special event is in force, give another written direction to the person named in the declaration as the owner of the property or infrastructure. If the owner fails, without reasonable excuse, to comply with this other direction to him within seven days from the date of the written direction, the owner will be guilty of an offence.

Column: 3669

The Act also prescribes the offence of interfering with a special event under clause 32. This involves a person engaging in violent behaviour, or disrupting, interfering with, delaying or obstructing the conduct of a special event.

As an added security measure during special events, all public assemblies and processions within a special event area will require a permit. A public assembly or procession that is exempted from advance notice and permit requirements, or one taking place in an unrestricted area, or one that is excluded from any prohibition in a prohibited area, would still require a permit if the place of the public assembly or procession is within any special event area during such period as the declaration relating to the special event area is in force.

I will now deal with Part IV of the Bill dealing with move-on powers.

Part IV – Move-on powers

Under existing laws, where a person is committing an offence which is not seizable, Police can observe and warn that person that he has committed an offence and follow up with post-event investigations. Alternatively, the police may arrest the person on the spot if his actions amount to a seizable offence.

Both options have their shortcomings. The first option is unsatisfactory as it essentially allows an illegal situation to continue and presents very limited scope for our enforcement officers to stop an incident from escalating further and causing further damage. The second option, however, gives no flexibility to the Police in cases where the person or group does not pose a substantial threat and they are amenable to counsel.

We have studied other jurisdictions and found the Australian model of move-

Column: 3670

on powers to be useful. Such powers would allow pre-emptive action to defuse a situation or disrupt the continuance of an illegal act. The British recently made all offences seizable to give their police extra powers. We do not want to go in that direction.

Part IV confers powers on police officers (whether or not in uniform) which are necessary for effective modern policing and law enforcement.

A police officer may exercise move-on powers under clause 36 in relation to any person at or near a regulated place if a police officer reasonably suspects the person’s behaviour is of such a nature as described in that clause.

A police officer in those instances may give a person or group of persons any reasonable direction. There are restrictions under clause 36 on giving a move-on direction, as it interferes with a person’s right of peaceful assembly. No such direction may be given unless it is in the interests of public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons.

A direction may remain in force for a maximum of 24 hours, and it can include a distance and direction a person must move, or a distance from a place which the person must not enter for a maximum period of 24 hours. An offence will occur only when a person, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with any direction of a police officer.

If a person complies with the order and leaves the designated area, no offence will be made out against him. The order is not treated as a Police warning and there is no record of adverse antecedent against the person. By giving the person in the first instance, an opportunity to cooperate with the law enforcement authorities, the move-on

Column: 3671

powers bridge the current gap of 'doing nothing' and 'outright arrest'. This achieves our aim of taking a more calibrated approach.

Although our provisions are similar to those of Queensland, our provisions are more narrowly scoped as we decided not to have move-on powers in relation to the very presence of a person. Our provisions will only apply to a person’s actual behaviour, and not his mere presence. We have also decided not to allow move-on powers to be applied when a person’s behaviour causes anxiety to another person. That may be too broad.

Unlike the Australians, we also do not intend to use move-on powers to address social disamenities such as the creation of noise or loitering in housing estates. Such actions, in our view, should be addressed through existing laws and community solutions that involve Town Councils, grassroots bodies and mediation councils.

The Move-On Order will be in the form of a written notice that will state the area and time period, up to 24 hours, within which the subject is prohibited from re-entering. Having the order in a written form promotes clarity and certainty and will ensure a certain level of formality in the issuing of an order and accountability on the part of the person issuing it.

If a person thinks he has been wrongfully issued with an order, he must nevertheless comply with it first but is later free to make a case to the officers’ Commanding Officer or the Commissioner of Police. As an added measure of accountability, the power can only be used by a police officer of or above the rank of sergeant.

Filming of security operations

There are also specific situations where recording an on-going incident can potentially jeopardise the success of

Column: 3672

security operations or the safety of officers. The recent Mumbai terrorist incident is a case in point, where journalists and private individuals were able to film the operations of security forces as the events unfolded. Potentially, indiscriminate filming could give information to the terrorists about what security forces were doing or planning to do, jeopardise rescue operations, and harm the lives of the victims and the officers conducting the rescue.

Likewise, a covert officer’s cover can be blown by a video recording disseminated on the Internet. Not only will the officer be unable to continue working covertly, he may even become a target for retaliation.

Clause 38 allows a law enforcement officer to direct any person to stop filming, or take photographs or exhibit or communicate any film or picture which may prejudice the effective conduct of an ongoing law enforcement operation or investigation or any intelligence operation, or may endanger or will endanger the safety of any law enforcement officer in such an ongoing operation or investigation, or any intelligence operation.

The officers who can give these directions are any police officer of or above the rank of sergeant, CPIB officers, narcotics officers, intelligence officer and immigration officers. Any person who fails to comply with such a direction will be guilty of an offence.

An enforcement officer may also, under clause 38, without warrant, search any person or place as set out in that clause for the relevant film and related items.

The officer can also take into custody any person reasonably believed to be in possession of such a film or picture.

Column: 3673

These powers are not intended to be used to prohibit the filming of routine Police work or events. These powers are only intended to provide protection to officers and preserve the integrity of sensitive operations. If a police officer is misconducting himself, our approach is that the public can film such acts of misconduct. The film will be relied upon for investigation and disciplinary action if warranted.

We have decided at this stage not to have a general offence for filming. Our provision is therefore scoped more narrowly than the recent UK amendments to the Terrorism Act 2000, which criminalise upfront the eliciting or communication of information likely to be useful in preparing or committing a terrorist act which has raised concerns that the filming or photographing of any police officer will be regarded as an offence.

This limited approach is taken in favour of starting immediately with a more sweeping general offence for filming like the UK model. We prefer to see how our provisions work for the law enforcement officers and review if need be, in time.

There has been some confusion on the intent and scope of the filming provision among the public. The Straits Times published an article by Ms Clarissa Oon on 27th March 2009, commenting on recent amendments to the Films Act. The writer in that article suggested in relation to the filming provision in the POA, that "it is not unreasonable to infer, as many netizens have, that those who film civil disobedience acts and share the videos are liable to prosecution – even if they do not know if what they are filming is illegal, or how it might interfere with police operations."

Column: 3674

This is not accurate on a number of counts. First, the provision relating to filming is not targeted at acts of civil disobedience at all. The powers are tightly scoped to where a security operation can be prejudiced or the life of the officer is endangered. The power cannot be used to prevent filming of police abuse or civil activist events.

Further, a person who films a relevant activity commits an offence only when he is directed to stop filming and refuses to do so, or if he is directed to surrender a film and fails to do so. There is no question of a person filming an activity or circulating it, without knowing that he is not supposed to do so, and being prosecuted for it. The Act does not provide for that.

Property owners

Under clause 42, if an owner or occupier of a property is given notice by any police officer that the assembly or procession is unlawful before the assembly or procession takes place, and such assembly or procession does take place on his premises, the owner or occupier of those premises could be guilty of an offence if he does not take reasonable steps to prevent it from taking place.

Other miscellaneous provisions

Due to the nature of their work, police officers face more danger in their line of work compared to other civil servants. To protect them, we are making it an offence under clause 39 for a person to obstruct a police officer when he is attempting to arrest and detain an unauthorised person from re-entering a special event area, and when he is issuing a filming prohibition order or exercising powers of search, seizure and arrest in relation to a filming prohibition order.

Column: 3675

At the same time the Public Order Act is enacted, MHA intends to repeal section 5 of the MOA which regulates public assemblies and public processions. The subsisting subsidiary legislation under the repealed provisions will be re-enacted under this Bill. A minor change will be made to section 18 of the Police Force Act (Cap. 235) as a consequence of the repeal of section 5 of the MOA. Finally, the definition of "public entertainment" in the PEMA will be amended by removing the reference to lectures, talks, addresses, debates or discussions in public places. Such lectures, talks, addresses, debates or discussions in public places will no longer require a separate permit under the PEMA.

This Bill represents a major step in the continuous review of our public order management framework which seeks to balance the interests of national security, public safety, community rights to law and order and the legitimate interests of individuals seeking to pursue political activities to express their views through lawful and legitimate means. The Act will provide a framework that can then be evolved over time as our society evolves, even as we preserve the key principles that have brought us safety, security and communal peace so far.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

3.13 pm

Dr Teo Ho Pin (Bukit Panjang): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise in support of the Bill. Sir, very often, seemingly peaceful assemblies or processions in public places can turn violent, resulting in damage to property, human injuries and, sometimes, deaths. The recent peaceful protest in Thailand which ended with attacks on the motorcade of the Thai Prime Minister is a clear example of how peaceful protest

Column: 3676

could result in violence, thus raising public order and safety concerns.

Sir, in a democratic society, there would always be calls for exercising of human rights and freedom of speech, especially in public places. As such, it is important to provide a clear and transparent legal framework to balance between exercising rights and protection of public safety.

Sir, I wish to highlight four areas of the Bill for the Minister's clarifications.

First, public assemblies and processions. Sir, we need to clearly distinguish between political and cause-related activities from recreational and social activities. In multi-racial and multi-religious Singapore, there are many outdoor assemblies and processions organised by many organisations. For example, Chingay Parade, Thaipusam procession, family and community days, and countdown parties. Sir, these social and recreational activities generally do not pose high public order risks, and thus should be placed on a "Green Lane" permit regime or given full exemption to encourage self-regulation. I would urge the Minister to consider providing a "Green Lane" permit regime or permit exemption for regular and responsible organisers of such festivals, social or recreational activities.

Sir, based on the experience in other countries, political or cause-related assemblies and processions tend to be more emotionally charged, and thus should be subjected to a "Red Lane" regime which requires a more detailed public order risk assessment before permit is granted. In this aspect, I hope the Ministry could develop a risk assessment framework to measure the public order risks as stated in clause 7 of the Bill. This would provide a more systematic, quantifiable and transparent legal framework when approving or rejecting a permit

Column: 3677

application instead of relying on the apprehension by the Police Commissioner, as stated in the Bill.

Sir, I support clause 35 which empowers the Police to exercise move-on powers to de-escalate situations which may cause significant law and order threats. Although the Bill has restricted the criteria in which Move-On Orders can be exercised, there is still subjective judgement to be made by the officer assessing the situation on the ground. Therefore, it is necessary for an experienced officer to assess the ground situation before issuing such order. I support the empowerment of the written Move-On Order to an officer above the rank of Sergeant.

But, Sir, I am puzzled to note that clause 35 also states that Move-On Order can be exercised if the person’s behaviour shows that he has just committed an offence or is committing an offence. I would presume that the officer would have taken enforcement action against the offender under such circumstances instead of issuing Move-On Order. Can the Minister clarify as to why Move-On Order is issued instead of enforcement action against such offender?

Sir, the penalty of $20,000 or imprisonment of 12 months or both, as stated in clause 37, for persons who fail to comply with the Move-On Order is rather harsh, especially for first-time offender. Sir, many public assemblies or processions attract many people. Some could be curious bystanders who are not related to the cause-related activities. Under such circumstances, it would be challenging for the Police to effectively communicate the written Move-On Order to every single person present at the assembly or procession. If such order is not personally addressed, it would be

Column: 3678

unfair for the authority to penalise the offenders with such harsh punishment.

I support clause 38 which confers special powers on our law enforcement officers to direct any person to stop filming, making picture, exhibiting or communicating any film or picture which would jeopardise security operations or the safety of our officers. But I doubt the effectiveness of this clause in stopping individuals from filming security operations especially in our built-up environment.

Sir, the recent Mumbai terrorist attack had witnessed the filming of videos by various parties. This had affected the security operations and safety of both the law enforcement officers and the hostages. In such situations, it could be difficult to stop persons from filming and communicating their films or pictures. I would thus propose that the Minister be empowered to issue a written Order to stop all filming within the security operation area and its operations. This Order could be conveyed through the media to inform the general public of such security operations in progress so that no one will take films or pictures to compromise security operations.

Sir, clause 42 makes it an offence for an owner or occupier of any premises upon which any unlawful assembly or procession takes place. Although an owner and occupier of premises have a part to play in ensuring public order, it would be unfair to impose such heavy burden on them to prevent unlawful assemblies or processions. For example, unlawful assemblies or processions can happen in any part of a public housing town. Does it mean that Town Councils will be held liable for such activities? It is difficult for the Town Councils to implement all reasonable measures or exercise all due diligence to prevent such activities as the common areas of the public housing estates or towns are easily accessible to anyone.

Column: 3679

Sir, the Bill is also not clear as to what will be considered as "all reasonable measures and exercise all due diligence" to prevent the assembly or procession from taking place. I would urge the Minister to list out all the reasonable measures and all the due diligence which an owner or occupier must comply when served with a notice to disallow unlawful assembly or procession.

Sir, as the security landscape becomes more complex, it is necessary to review our Public Order legal framework in order to safeguard the interests of our people, and yet protect people's right to gather and voice their opinions. The proposed Bill is a step in the right direction in enhancing public order in Singapore.

Sir, I support the Bill.

3.22 pm

Mr Alvin Yeo (Hong Kah): Mr Speaker, Sir, the current regime for dealing with assemblies or gatherings and processions or marches in public places, leaves something to be desired. First, there is an arbitrary distinction drawn between assemblies and processions involving five or more persons, and less than that number. Secondly, activities held to promote a particular cause or campaign are not differentiated from recreational, social and commercial activities, where the considerations of public order are clearly different.

This Bill seeks to address those anomalies. It provides a separate framework for regulating assemblies and processions which are organised for the purpose of promoting a cause or campaign, regardless of the number of persons involved. In that regard, it affords a more rational and transparent platform to manage public order and security concerns that arise from such activities.

Column: 3680

At the same time, by segregating the regulation of such cause-related activities, it in effect liberalises the regime governing recreational and social activities, which carry a lower level of security and public order risks in general. In that regard, I am heartened to note the Minister informing the House that 50% of the activities currently requiring a permit, primarily recreational and social, will no longer require a permit under the new regime.

Nor does this Bill seek to regulate cause-related activities with a blanket, heavy hand. There are a number of measures to calibrate the approach. Although the general requirement for assemblies and processions is for advance notice to be given and a permit to be obtained, there is now provision for "unrestricted areas" where such activities can be organised without a permit, and without even having to give advance notice. Again, although the Minister has the power to issue prohibitions of cause-related activities, that power must be exercised by reference to particular areas, particular periods of time or even to a particular assembly or procession, which the power can then be tailored to the specific risks that are envisaged.

Further, where previously a police officer had only the option on occasion of arresting someone who was threatening to commit an offence, he will now have the additional power to direct that person to move along. This has the advantage of defusing a potential confrontation which can arise when the person being arrested, or his supporters, feel that some grave injustice is being perpetrated. Or that they have nothing to lose by escalating the situation.

This is not to say that there is no room for refinement in this Bill. Allow me to cite just two key areas. The first relates to the crucial definition of the purpose behind the activity, which makes it cause-related and hence subject to regulation

Column: 3681

under the Bill. There are three limbs to this definition:

(i) to demonstrate support or opposition to the views of any person, group or government,

(ii) to publicise a cause or campaign; or

(iii) to mark or commemorate any event.

This is more or less taken from the Miscellaneous Offences Act, which is one of the two current governing legislations.

While one can see the basis for including the first two limbs of the definition, I question if the third – to commemorate any event – really adds anything to the rationale behind the Bill. The event to be commemorated may have nothing to do with any cause or campaign, or with a group championing such a cause. Indeed, it is wide enough to be construed as covering a whole range of activities that would not be considered by most people to be cause-related. This undermines the transparency and logic behind this Bill, and thus will detract from its acceptance by the public. Nor, in my view, is it required to achieve the objectives of maintaining public order and security. If the commemoration of an event is really intended to support a particular cause, the first or second limb of the definition will capture it sufficiently. So I do invite the Minister to review the definition section and see if the third limb is really necessary.

The second area I highlight relates to the right of appeal to the Minister, against the refusal, or revocation, of a permit. This is the only and final right of appeal. However, the Bill is silent on whether reasons must be given by the Police for the decision being appealed against. Yet

Column: 3682

the person appealing must specify the grounds on which the appeal is being made.

How can he do that effectively, if he does not know the reasons for the refusal or revocation? It should be borne in mind that the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act requires such reasons to be provided where a permit is refused. Under the Miscellaneous Offences Act, reasons have to be given where a permit is revoked. So having to provide reasons under the Bill will not be ground-breaking, and it will allow for more effective appeal process. In this way, it will assuage the concerns of those who see the Bill as a clamping down on assemblies and processions.

Which brings me to my final point, as regards the perceived impact of this Bill on freedom of expression or, more correctly, the freedom to gather or march with others to express support for a particular cause.

It is sometimes fashionable, but over-simplistic, to treat such a freedom as an unmitigated right, which exists in some abstract state lording over such menial concerns like public order and national security. But even our very own Singapore Constitution provides in Article 14 that the freedom of speech and the right to assemble peaceably is subject to such restrictions as Parliament may consider necessary in the interests of national security and to maintain public order.

One need only look at recent events nearby to see what can happen when the right to demonstrate goes awry. The recent procession, or invasion, of the "red-shirts" in Pattaya has caused an important regional summit to be postponed and untold damage to Thailand’s reputation. It comes after earlier invasions of the Parliament building and the airport in Bangkok by the "yellow-shirts", which

Column: 3683

caused death and damage and brought about the overthrow of a government.

Demonstrators and protest marchers often seek to do more than just express their views. They strive to create such disruption and disturbance in order to gain more currency for their views then they could rightfully achieve at the ballot box, or on the sheer merits of their arguments. The right to express one’s views is an important one,

nay a vital one. But it must still be balanced by other people’s rights not to have their lives disrupted or their safety threatened or to have the political process perverted. This Bill strives to achieve that balance, and that is why I support the Bill.

Mr Speaker: Order. I propose to take the break now. I suspend the Sitting and will take the Chair again at 3.55 pm.

Sitting accordingly suspended

at 3.31 pm until 3.55 pm.

Sitting resumed at 3.55 pm

Column: 3683

** [Mr Speaker in the Chair] **

PUBLIC ORDER BILL: Debate resumed.

Mr Chiam See Tong (Potong Pasir): Sir, I am not really making a speech but I want a clarification from the Minister. This problem concerns my party directly.

At every election, at the end of an opposition election rally, some supporters would rush up to the stage, and chair one or two speakers and walk around the field where the rally was held. When they move, a crowd will follow them and soon a recognisable procession will be formed, and the police can take action against them if there are any offences committed. There are no organisers for such processions, these are spontaneous processions and neither are they planned. Usually, the

Column: 3684

party that organised the election rally will have to take responsibility of the so-called illegal procession.

Since 1984, I have experienced such incidents. The ones I experienced, though noisy, were orderly and well-behaved. Their behaviour was nowhere near the rowdy crowd of "red-shirts" that went on a rampage in Pattaya, which stopped the ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on 10th April 2009. In my view, such behaviour will never happen in Singapore because Singaporeans are educated and well aware that holding of international conferences in our country is a source of revenue and will not do anything to impede such an event from taking place. Singaporeans, in fact, will go all the way to welcome visitors to such prestigious meetings.

Sir, I would like the Minister to clarify that such processions arose on its own. There are no organisers, they are not planned and they are spontaneous. I would like the Minister to clarify what is his position on such spontaneous processions during the election rally. Are they illegal and do they need a permit, or can they be exempted from permits, because this affects me personally? Often, it does happen where people just carry you and off they go. I notice that an offence, under this Act, can be a $10,000 fine or a six-month imprisonment, which I understand, can disqualify a candidate from taking part in future elections.

Sir, I hope that the Minister could give a clear clarification on this type of spontaneous processions.

3.59 pm

Ms Sylvia Lim (Non-Constituency Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Workers' Party opposes this Bill. The policing of public order has been the subject of contentious debate in democratic countries. How far should State power be

Column: 3685

used to restrict citizens from free movement and expressing their beliefs or grievances to the point of using force, even lethal force?

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". However, that Article also allows Parliament to place some restrictions on these for the sake of security and public order. Nevertheless, the primary assumption is that such freedoms are fundamental rights of citizens. Has this Bill crossed the line asking Singaporeans to give up too much vis-a-vis the State?

First, special events security.

The Public Order Bill is tabled ahead of the APEC Meeting to be held here in November. Singapore is obliged to ensure that such events proceed according to schedule and without untoward incident to world leaders. To ask Singaporeans to subject themselves to stringent checks to enter the Special Events area, for only the duration of the event, is a compromise on individual rights that people can understand.

However, there are several disturbing aspects of the Bill. The three aspects most glaring are the changes relating to:

(a) Public assemblies and processions;

(b) Move-on powers; and

(c) Prohibition of filming of law enforcement operations.

First, public assemblies and processions. The Bill repeals section 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act and takes over the police permit regime under

Column: 3686

section 5. Activists and political parties such as we in the Workers' Party are very familiar with having our applications for police permits for outdoor activities rejected under that regime, due to so-called potential law and order problems. Such rejections were Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) up to as recently as 2007, when the Party's application to hold a cycling event at East Coast Park to commemorate our 50th Anniversary was dismissed out of hand.

The Bill now suggests that outdoor assemblies and processions may be allowed, even if cause-based, ie, with political content. Does this mean that political parties in Singapore will now get approval to organise outdoor activities at venues besides Hong Lim Park and stadiums? Or is this designed to please the international audience and to save the Government from further embarrassment? We all remember in 2006 when Singapore hosted the IMF and World Bank meetings here. Twenty-seven foreign activists were blacklisted and 22 of them later de-listed, and a badminton court was designated as protest space, leading NGOs to go to Batam to protest, making us a laughing stock internationally.

The change in definition of "assembly" and "procession" is more disturbing. As the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says, these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of five 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.

First, to say that one person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word. Secondly, is the Government making the change because there had been incidents involving less than five persons which had disrupted public life? Unless there is compelling evidence to prove to us that expanding the definition of assembly and procession

Column: 3687

is needed, this expansion does not deserve our support.

Regarding indoor political activities, MHA has said that these will continue to be exempted so long as organised by and for Singaporeans. Why is this exemption not written into the Bill, but left to regulations? Regulations can be amended as and when the Government likes. In the Explanatory Statement, it mentioned that the "current exemptions under the MOA may retain their status" under the POA. Does this mean that the Government is not prepared to commit to opening up to allow Singaporeans to discuss current issues even indoors, since it does not write this exemption into the Bill but continues to leave Singaporeans at the mercy of the Government?

Next, move-on powers. Clauses 34 to 37 give the Police a new power to order people to leave a place for up to 24 hours. The rationale for this is supposed to be public safety, public order or to protect the rights and freedoms of others. This is a convenient option for law enforcement to diffuse potential law and order problems, if not for the fact that such a move-on direction conflicts with the right of peaceful assembly enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution. Indeed, the Government is well aware of this infringement of the rights under the Constitution, as clause 36(2) expressly recognises this.

Looking at clause 36, the persons who are directed to move-on need not have been committing any offence, so long as the police officer believes it is reasonably necessary for them to move-on in the interests of good order. Disobeying such a direction itself becomes a criminal offence.

To illustrate, the police can order a group of persons outside a business or shop to disperse because the owner has complained that they are interfering with trade by, for example, standing at the

Column: 3688

entrance of the shop. Could this become a pro-business Act of the Government at the expense of consumers' rights? There could be situations where these persons could have a legitimate claim against a business, eg, deaths or food poisoning from consuming contaminated food, or even bank customers who have lost their savings due to mis-selling of products. So long as the public are not committing or intending to commit any offences, why should they be told to disperse? The Explanatory Statement gives other examples such as people preventing others from leaving a place or people disrupting an event. But in such cases, we already have existing laws under which they can be charged, eg, with wrongful restraint under the Penal Code or disorderly behaviour under the Miscellaneous Offences Act.

MHA claims that our Bill is narrower than the Australian law, specifically the Queensland legislation, because our Bill targets behaviour rather than the mere presence of persons at a particular place. To me, this is a minor difference, as a person's mere presence could easily be classified as behaviour, for example, loitering by mere presence can be considered a kind of behaviour. There are also some Australian legislation which are much narrower. For example, in the Australian Capital Territory, move-on powers are only to be exercised when violence is imminent.

Further, one important feature of the Queensland legislation totally absent in the Bill is how police directions to move-on will be monitored and reviewed outside the SPF. The Minister earlier mentioned internal checks such as the requirement for the rank of Sergeant but this is really an entry level rank for fresh recruits holding A-Levels and Diplomas. By contrast, in the Queensland Police Powers and Responsibilities Act 2000, section 49 provides for a Crime and Misconduct Commission (CMC) which reports to the

Column: 3689

Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The CMC must conduct a review of police orders to move-on and prepare a report, which must be submitted to the Speaker to be tabled at the Legislative Assembly. Where is the provision for review under this Bill? Indeed, in MHA's overview, there is mention of internal accountability, but nothing on public accountability.

MHA has argued that move-on powers would give police an intermediate option and allow people to avoid being arrested. However, Australian research has shown that this was not true there – issuing move-on directions did not result in fewer arrests in public spaces. In fact, issuing move-on directions resulted in more charges for public space offences as reported in an article in the New South Wales Law Journal, 2007 .

Sir, the Penal Code already allows us to charge people with criminal conspiracy for merely agreeing to commit an offence, and for attempting to commit offences, even if the act is not complete. The Criminal Procedure Code gives the police powers to prevent offences before they occur. The Miscellaneous Offences Act already criminalises many forms of anti-social behaviour, such as abusive language and disorderly behaviour. Such an approach forces the police to take a strict and disciplined approach to proceed only when they have evidence of offences.

The Minister earlier mentioned the international ratings of Singapore being high for stability and that we should enact this Bill in order to ensure that happens. But my argument is this: if we have maintained those ratings, does that not suggest that the current regime is adequate for that purpose?

Overall, I am not convinced that our existing arsenal of laws has hampered the

Column: 3690

police in law enforcement and the policing of public order. Move-on powers have been very problematic in other countries due to the wide discretion given to police, to even order law abiding citizens to move-on. Our regime does not even provide for any independent oversight of such actions. Move-on powers are dangerous in leaving citizens in limbo over how they can move and seek legitimate redress.

Next, Sir, filming of law enforcement activities. Clause 38 allows police officers to stop a person from filming law enforcement activities. The Minister earlier said that this provision was targeted at security operations and not ordinary law enforcement activities. But is that what the clause says? Clause 38(5) defines "law enforcement" activities as "activities carried on by law enforcement officers in the exercise of any function, power or duty of such an officer in accordance with law". Therefore, clause 38(1) will allow a police officer to stop someone filming any law enforcement activity if he thinks it will prejudice the conduct of an ongoing law enforcement operation or investigation. The Minister's interpretation that it applies to security operations only does not seem to be borne out by the wording of the section. Law enforcement operation or investigation could well include crowd control, crime investigation or other routine matters.

With such wide wording, what is the potential cost of this to accountability for the exercise of State powers and protecting fundamental rights of citizens?

A good illustration is the recent incident in London involving Mr Ian Tomlinson which took place on 1st April, the eve of the G-20 meeting. Tomlinson was apparently on his way home after work when he had to pass through an area where there were some protestors. Police were on duty, obviously, on some sort of

Column: 3691

law enforcement operations. Tomlinson collapsed and died of a heart attack on the way home. As questions were being asked about why Tomlinson died, the police initially said that there was no indication that he had had any altercation with the police prior to his death. However, this position became untenable when a video taken by a New Yorker in London on business showed the police violently pushing Tomlinson to the ground when he was doing nothing but walking away from the area peaceably. The revelation of this footage, together with other eye witness accounts, has now triggered an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission into the circumstances of Tomlinson's death.

The question the Government must answer is this: does it not agree that a wide, discretionary power to ban films of law enforcement activities will make the police less accountable to the public for its actions? If the video taken by the New Yorker in London never came to light, the circumstances of Tomlinson's death may have been covered up.

If the above case were to happen here, how does the Government expect truth and justice to prevail without the presence of footage recorded by public-spirited citizens? The Government may say it does not tolerate abuses by law enforcement officers but it cannot possibly believe that such abuses will not happen here. Even if we were to talk about covert officers' identities, if I happen to film intelligence officers beating up someone excessively, am I to be silenced simply to protect their identities? What about the victim of excessive violence – where is his justice?

As I have said before, citizen journalists have important roles to play to counterbalance the edited reports of the mainstream media. At long last, ordinary citizens can harness new technology to

Column: 3692

secure evidence against the all-powerful State, something impossible before. In Singapore, this is particularly valuable as we still do not have any Freedom of Information Act, and there are wide provisions under the Official Secrets Act and Evidence Act to prevent disclosure of information relating to Government actions. We do not even have any independent watchdog body to monitor law enforcement agency actions.

Sir, the Government has already banned political films which are not totally factual under the Films Act. Must it also ban non-political films which faithfully record actual events? If the concern is not to prejudice ongoing operations, why is there no provision to return the films after the operation is over, instead of providing for the films to be destroyed altogether as in clause 38(3)?

Instead of having such a blanket provision, can our law enforcement agencies not find other ways to ensure operational effectiveness? During any operation, it already has discretion to physically cordon off areas if this is needed for operational reasons or public safety. This will limit the proximity of the public to such areas.

If we are to claim that our law enforcement agencies are world-class, we should not tarnish the image of the agencies by disregarding the fundamental rights enshrined in the Constitution. We believe world-class status should be achieved not by way of curtailing legitimate rights of individual citizens; public accountability must be in the equation as well.

Earlier, the Minister, as well as some Members, mentioned the current situation in Thailand.

The problem in Thailand involves constitutional issues. The legitimacy of the each subsequent government after the

Column: 3693

2006 military coup has always been in question since. Each camp believes it has a legal claim to power. The messages from both camps are similar. They want to force the existing government to call for fresh elections to ensure legitimacy.

If there is a lesson to be learnt from Thailand, it is about upholding democracy.

It is not about consequences of having weak public order laws. It is because the Thai people feel cheated. The Thai police and army are not weak either. They are more battle-hardened than our equivalent as they have been fighting Muslim separatists for many years. Many of these security people are just sympathetic to the red-shirt cause. Does the Government think that slapping a Move-On Order on 100,000 Thais will work? The Singapore Government should not take advantage of this situation in Thailand to justify the implementation of draconian laws to inhibit the basic rights of Singaporeans further. The Thais may be exercising their basic human rights to the extreme. On the other hand, Singaporeans have done nothing remotely close to what the Thais are doing and are being penalised for doing nothing. As long as this Government respects and upholds democracy, the problem we are seeing now in Thailand will not happen here. But if the Government wants to tinker with individual freedom and democracy to an oppressive level, it will actually become the source of public order problems.

Sir, on balance, the Bill as a whole will give the State carte blanche to control citizen activity and further erode whatever little powers Singaporeans have to pursue legitimate causes. This is contrary to the Workers' Party's belief in "power to the people". And for all these reasons, we oppose the Bill.

Mr Christopher de Souza (Holland-Bukit Timah): Mr Speaker, Sir, I rise to support

Column: 3694

the Bill not only because it provides a framework to facilitate continued public order in Singapore but also because its introduction is timely and relevant. The Pattaya experience over the past weekend underscores the continuing importance of possessing sophisticated legislation to handle potentially dangerous public demonstrating.

I wish to concentrate on Part IV of the Bill, ie, the new powers to preserve and maintain public order.

First, the move-on power. Here, the broad collective effect of sections 34, 35, 36 and 37 of the Bill is to give Police Officers above the rank of Sergeant a new type of power: the power to (a) direct a person to vacate or move on from his location and (b) mandate that he not return to that location for 24 hours provided (c) the police officer reasonably suspects the person’s behaviour to fall under any of the four types of behaviour in section 35 and provided also (d) the move-on direction is reasonably necessary in the interests of public safety, public order or the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons, these being limited to the enjoyment of the place in question and the carrying on of the lawful business at that place. No court order is required.

Given this new situation, I seek the Minister’s clarification on two points. The first is that move-on powers should not translate into an increase in 999 calls for non-urgent cases. Mr Speaker, Sir, Police manpower is limited. There has been public awareness generated on the opportunity cost of calling 999 for non-urgent cases. 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

Column: 3695

cases involving, for example, neighbourhood noise. I wish to seek clarification from the Minister on one aspect. Could the Minister clarify the types of behaviour that will attract move-on directions? The explanatory statement to the Bill explains part of section 35 of the Bill in the following way:

"A group of persons may be deliberately stepping in front of someone who is attempting to enter or leave a late-night store."

It seems a move-on direction can be issued against that group if "the complaint about the behaviour is made by the occupier of the place."

It surely cannot be the case that all late-night store holders can seek a Police Officer’s intervention in the hope that a move-on direction will be issued. If this were the case, the Police Force will be stretched even more, inundated with an even higher number of 999 calls. Therefore, the Minister’s clarification on the type of behaviour he actually envisions move-on directions will be used for will assist Singaporeans to better decide whether to call 999 for a move-on direction. This would in turn assist in deterring a spike in 999 calls.

The second aspect of the legislation I wish to concentrate on, Mr Speaker, is in relation to deterring prejudicial filming of law enforcement activities. Sections 38 and 39 in Part IV of the Bill, which seek to introduce provisions to deter and punish the filming of law enforcement activities where it prejudices the effective conduct of the activities or endangers the safety of law enforcement officers, are worth scrutinising. A case in point is the "live" television footage of the Mumbai terrorist incident. This likely adversely affected attempts by Indian special forces to free the hostages, since the terrorists themselves were likely able to watch the footage. While this is a type of situation which new sections 38 and 39 obviously

Column: 3696

seek to deter, there are other types of situations which should attract the same penalties. These include law enforcement activities which do not have any anti-terrorist element, for example, an undercover anti-drug operation, or a Police intelligence gathering exercise. Would the Minister confirm that if a person was to film such activities, and that such filming exposed the identities of undercover law enforcement agents, the person will be liable to destroy the film if directed to do so by the officer under section 38(2)(a), and failure to comply with such a direction will constitute an offence under the new law? Additionally, would the Minister confirm that the Police Officer will be empowered to seize the film without warrant under section 38(2)(d)? I believe from the reading of the Bill that section 38 does apply to undercover police activities, and I believe that such a position is consistent with the wording of section 38 which seeks to protect, in particular, narcotics and intelligence officers. Would the Minister clarify this point?

In conclusion, Sir, I rise to support the Bill not only because it provides a framework to facilitate the continued public order we enjoy in Singapore but also because its introduction is timely and relevant.

Mr Siew Kum Hong (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, as the name suggests, this Bill deals with public order. In particular, it seeks to regulate public assemblies and public processions; to deal with the control and protection of special events in Singapore; to introduce the move-on powers that I spoke about in the Committee of Supply debate earlier this year; and to criminalise the filming of law enforcement activities in certain circumstances.

I will first touch on the proper framework for considering laws such as this Bill, that curtail Singaporeans' civil

Column: 3697

liberties in the name of ensuring security and public order, before considering the provisions of this Bill in greater detail.

Sir, this Bill will have the effect of introducing new limitations on the constitutional rights of Singaporeans. So the starting point in considering the Bill must be the Constitution.

I start with Article 13(2), which provides that Singaporean citizens have the right to move freely throughout Singapore, subject to any law relating to security, public order, public health or the punishment of offenders. This Bill clearly purports to be such a law.

Article 14(1)(b) provides for another right, the right of Singaporeans to assemble peaceably. This right is subject to such restrictions as Parliament considers to be necessary or expedient, in the interest of security or public order.

So even as the Constitution provides for Singaporeans' rights to freedom of movement and freedom of peaceful assembly, it nevertheless recognises that those rights are not absolute and that there can be a legitimate need to limit those rights in the interest of security or public order. A balancing exercise is therefore necessary and I am glad to note that the Minister acknowledges the need for a calibrated, balancing approach.

When we debate legislation that purports to limit Singaporeans' constitutional rights in the name of security and public order, we have to consider whether the law in question strikes the correct balance between these competing interests. To my mind, due and proper respect for our fundamental liberties in the Constitution requires Parliament to ensure that the law curtails Singaporeans' rights to the minimal extent necessary to ensure security and public order, and no more.

Column: 3698

Anything further, any overly broad wording that could permit actions not required by legitimate security or public order concerns, is not justifiable and goes too far.

With these principles in mind, I will now touch on the provisions pertaining to the objectives of the Bill.

Sir, Part II of the Bill seeks to regulate public assemblies, which include public talks and lectures, and public processions. In principle, I do not agree with the premise that all public assemblies and processions should require prior approval from the authorities. This emasculates our constitutional right of peaceful assembly – how can it be a right when it is subject to the approval by a bureaucrat? A right to do something necessarily means that the person entitled to the right can do the thing, without having to ask for prior approval. Otherwise, it is not a right. A system based on prior approvals and permits does not strike the correct balance in terms of respecting Singaporeans' constitutional rights to peaceful assembly.

Furthermore, this system of permits and prior approvals opens the door to perceptions and allegations of abuse for political purposes. Singaporeans have strong reservations about how this system has operated in the past, and I must confess that I share at least some of these reservations.

Ms Sylvia Lim has already mentioned an example that was debated in this House last September. Let me just elaborate a little. I had filed a Parliamentary Question (PQ) on the rules governing the organisation of outdoor events by political parties and organisations affiliated with political parties. Ms Sylvia Lim filed a related PQ. The Senior Minister of State, responding to my and Ms Lim's PQs, reiterated that the police will not grant permits for outdoor political events, on

Column: 3699

the basis of the risk of public disorder inherent in such events. The Senior Minister of State then explained that an outdoor event organised by the PAP Community Foundation (PCF) was not viewed by the Police as an outdoor political event, and hence was permissible, even though the PCF is an arm of the PAP and the guest-of-honour was the Prime Minister, and other PAP politicians were also present. With all due respect to the Senior Minister of State, I – and I believe many, if not most Singaporeans – do not find that distinction convincing in the least. It may comply with the technical letter of the law but certainly is difficult to accept as being true to the spirit of freedom of movement and assembly.

If we want to have a proper balance where Singaporeans' right of peaceful assembly is respected and preserved, while remaining mindful of the need for public order and security, then the starting point should be that all assemblies and processions are by default permissible, unless they fall into some prohibited categories, unlike the current system which is the opposite. So the organisers of an assembly or procession should provide advance notice to the Police with appropriate details, not for approval, but to allow the Police to assess the public order and safety implications of the march and its proposed route of the assembly, and to require the organisers to find an alternative venue, or to take an alternative route where reasonably necessary to preserve public order. The only permissible exceptions should be with respect to special events – and we will come to that shortly – or where an assembly or procession promotes an unlawful cause or is unjustifiably provocative, or is reasonably likely to lead to violence. Anything further would simply render Article 14(1)(b) of the Constitution an empty shell.

The Minister has referred to events in other countries, such as the unfortunate

Column: 3700

events in Pattaya and Bangkok this past weekend to justify this Bill, which has resulted in a country where such events simply do not take place. I do understand the attraction in such an argument. But there is a danger of the pendulum swinging too far in the opposite direction, and I do believe that by requiring all public assemblies and public processions to be subject to prior police approvals, we have gone too far in the past and we continue to go too far in undermining our constitutional rights.

Be that as it may, the Bill before us today preserves this system of prior approvals, for better or for worse. That being the case, I would like to ask the Minister to clarify why the exemption for indoor meetings and talks, in other words, indoor public assemblies, that have only speakers who are Singaporeans, is not explicitly set out in the Bill itself.

Sir, Part III of the Bill relates to the security of special events, which are events that the Minister declares to be such having regard to their nature, the number and kind of expected attendees, Singapore's obligations for holding the event, and other relevant matters. The upcoming APEC summit in November this year would be an example of such a special event.

Members would have seen the shocking footage from Pattaya and Bangkok this past weekend. No doubt, the political divisions in Thailand contributed the problems there. In particular, the reluctance of Thai security forces to enforce the law had aggravated the severity of the situation. But it does provide a timely reminder that if special events go wrong, they could irreparably damage a country's image and reputation. So I would support the principle that special events could justify extraordinary measures and temporary restrictions on Singaporeans' rights of free movement

Column: 3701

and peaceful assembly provided they are limited to the minimum extent, period and area necessary to prevent disruption of the event and to protect individuals involved in the event.

And in this regard, we have done well in the past. It is a testament to this country's, and, yes, this Government's organisational and security capabilities that we have in recent years held major international events here with minimal or no disruption. So I would like to ask the Minister to clarify why it is necessary to introduce this new Part III of the Bill when the existing system based on the Protected Areas and Protected Places Act has worked. Just looking at last year, the ASEAN Regional Forum at the Shangri-la Hotel, the National Day Parade, the National Day Rally and the Formula One race were all declared as protected areas under that Act, and all of them were events that went off without any security problems.

Furthermore, I would like to ask the Minister whether the scope of the powers to declare an event to be a special event is too broad. I am concerned with the new section 21(3)(b)(iv) in particular, which allows the Minister to declare an event to be a special event where "there is a reasonable likelihood that the event because of its nature might be at risk of an act of terrorism". That is a very broad definition, and any large gathering of persons in Singapore could potentially be seen as being at risk of an act of terrorism. The Explanatory Statement on section 21 does expand on the relevant factors for determining whether an event should be declared as a special event. But I hope that the Minister could specifically clarify whether the intent is to allow a large gathering of persons to be declared as a special event, simply because there are many people present.

Column: 3702

My last point on Part III, Sir, relates to the new sections 21(5) and 21(6). The declaration of a special event must be gazetted, and sub-section (5) requires the Minister to publish a notice of the making of the declaration "in such manner as will secure adequate publicity for the declaration". The Minister has to do this, within seven days of the making of the declaration and before the date the declaration comes into force. The Explanatory Statement helpfully explains that this includes the publication of the notice in newspapers.

But sub-section (6) then goes on to state that failure to comply with sub-section (5) does not invalidate the declaration itself. It is easy to fathom the rationale for sub-section (5), but difficult to understand the reason for sub-section (6). Where an event is declared to be a special event, various restrictions on Singaporeans' fundamental liberties come into force. So Singaporeans naturally have a strong interest in knowing that such a declaration has been made. This makes absolute sense. But why then have sub-section (6), which renders sub-section (5) nugatory? Because, then, the Minister could simply ignore sub-section (5), without having to justify his actions and without any consequences. The Minister is given plenty of time, seven days, in fact, to publish the notice in the newspapers. So I hope that the Minister can explain the reasoning behind section 21(6).

I now turn to the new move-on powers, which I had spoken about in the Committee of Supply this year. Given that such powers limit citizens' right to freedom of movement, they have to be limited to the bare minimum extent necessary to preserve public order. We also have to bear in mind that an abuse or a wrongful use of these powers will result in irreparable loss and damage to citizens. For instance, if a person is unlawfully ordered by a police officer to move on,

Column: 3703

then that person has lost the opportunity to be present at a certain place at a certain time, and it is impossible to remedy that loss.

In the first place, it does not seem to me that there is a convincing justification for the introduction of these new powers. In an interview published in the Straits Times in January this year, the Deputy Prime Minister had sought to justify these move-on powers on the basis that the police needed new powers to deal with political activists engaged in civil disobedience. But let us look closely at the acts of civil disobedience that we have seen in Singapore to date. They have taken a form of either an assembly or a procession which would be regulated under Part II of this Bill. In this regard, I note that the offences under Part II of this Bill are seizable offences. So there is no lacuna in the police's powers. These move-on powers will be necessary only if there are some loopholes or gaps in the provisions on public assemblies and processions that need to be plugged. But I see no such loopholes.

The Minister in his Second Reading speech said that there was a gap in police powers between post and incident investigations and arrest while the incident is on-going. But, practically speaking, it is always open to Police Officers to give a verbal warning to cease and desist before arresting a person. And I presume that that is what they will usually do in practice. The only thing that these powers do with respect to civil disobedience activists is to add a further offence to the list of offences committed, but ensuring a multiplicity of offences and hence penalties is not a legitimate reason for introducing yet another offence.

In any case, the move-on powers extend far beyond what is needed to deal with civil disobedience. Section 36, as currently worded, with its reference to disorderly behaviour, could extend to

Column: 3704

situations like teenagers loitering around a void deck, or even the skateboarders and inline-skaters who hang out at the underground plaza at the Esplanade on weekends. They generally cause no harm to anyone. But an overzealous Police Officer may seek to clamp down on what is, in truth, simply boisterous teenage behaviour. Given the ease and expediency with which move-on orders may be given, this is an undesirable outcome that is sadly almost inevitable.

Be that as it may, these move-on powers will become law. In the Committee of Supply debate, I made some suggestions which have unfortunately not been taken up. At the time, the Minister had said that it was premature to deal with those issues, as the Bill was not before the House. That being the case, I hope that the Minister will now explain why these suggestions have not been accepted. I will briefly recap those suggestions.

Firstly, I had stated that the legislation in question should target the objectionable conduct of a person, and not the mere fact that he was in a certain location. And I note from the Minister's speech that he has stated the same position. But if that is the case, if a person behaved offensively in a certain location, and a police officer directs him to move on, and the citizen then ceases the offensive conduct, then the Move-On order should cease to have effect. While the new section 35 makes it clear that the subject of a Move-On Order has to be behaving objectionably before the order can be issued, there is no corresponding provision to state that the Move-On Order ceases to have effect if the objectionable behaviour ends. Instead, the subject of an order has to leave the vicinity; otherwise he commits an offence. This is regardless of how he continues to behave.

Secondly, I note that the new section 36(1) requires Move-On Orders to be in

Column: 3705

writing, which is what I had suggested in the Committee of Supply debate. That is positive. But I did make another suggestion, for all Move-On Orders to be recorded in a public register, as is the case in Australian territories, like in Queensland, which the Minister has stated was used as a model. This suggestion has not been taken in. But a register is useful to ensure transparency and accountability in how Police Officers use their move-on powers. We have said that we are following the Australian example in introducing such powers, yet studies in Australia have shown a history of abuse of these powers by Police Officers. An official register recording the use of such powers, that is open to the public, could provide a powerful tool for ensuring accountability and for allowing Singaporeans to satisfy themselves that these powers are not being abused, by subjecting the exercise of these powers to public scrutiny.

Thirdly, I had proposed an appeal mechanism, where any person aggrieved by a Move-On Order can challenge it. But the Bill does not provide for any such mechanism. The Minister has mentioned the possibility of a complaint to the Commanding Officer. But that would presumably trigger an internal investigation at most, which is not transparent and may not be perceived as being fair and independent. In the Straits Times' interview that I referred to earlier, the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged the need to ensure that aggrieved persons are able to seek redress from the Minister or the Attorney-General's Chambers. Unfortunately, that need has not been met in the present Bill, in respect of the move-on powers.

I come to the final part of my speech, on the new section 38, which deals with the filming of law enforcement activities. This provision has been justified on the

Column: 3706

basis of the media coverage of the Mumbai terror attacks last November, where the terrorists themselves were able to watch law enforcement operations unfold on Indian TV stations. That is obviously an undesirable state of affairs, and I would support a law to prevent that situation from taking place in Singapore.

Preventing what happened in Mumbai means preventing footage, or indeed any news, about ongoing security operations from being disseminated, where such footage or news could jeopardise the success of the operation or otherwise compromise the safety of law enforcement officers. This objective cannot be objectionable to anyone.

But even as we try to protect law enforcement, we have to ensure that citizens are not prevented from legitimate filming, and especially filming of law enforcement officers engaging in abusive or unlawful behaviour. Ms Sylvia Lim has referred to the recent incident in London involving Mr Ian Tomlinson. So I will not speak further on that.

If there are abuses by law enforcement officers, then surely citizens have the right to know, and to film and record these acts as evidence. The case from London involving Mr Ian Tomlinson shows the importance of this, to prevent cover-ups from taking place. If the other passer-by had been prevented from filming the pushing incident, who knows whether or when the truth would have come to light? I am comforted by the Minister's assurance that the filming of law enforcement abuses is not prohibited by this provision. Yet, there are no explicit controls or checks on how law enforcement officers may exercise that power under section 38, and as with the move-on powers, no formal avenue of recourse for citizens aggrieved by an order made against him.

Imagine a situation such as that of Mr Tomlinson in London. In the midst of a

Column: 3707

riot, an abuse takes place against an innocent bystander. The duty officer demands that a bystander who films the incident surrender his camera, claiming that the film shows his identity and therefore threatens his safety. What, then, is this innocent bystander to do? The offence in section 38(4) does not contain a defence of reasonable excuse for not complying with an order, unlike in section 37 in relation to non-compliance with move-on orders. In such a situation, the person who made the film of the abuse by law enforcement would have no choice but to surrender the film, otherwise he runs a very likely risk of being charged and prosecuted.

Indeed, section 38(2)(a) empowers law enforcement to require a person to delete the film that is made – but if that is the case, then how is that person, or the police itself, able to subsequently evaluate or verify whether the deletion had been lawfully ordered, without knowing for sure what the content was? It should be adequate that the film be seized, to prevent it from being disseminated.

Furthermore, the new section 38(3) very clearly goes beyond what is legitimately necessary for the objective of protecting law enforcement activities. Section 38(3) permits law enforcement to forfeit any film equipment that has been seized, and to destroy it or dispose of it in such manner as the Commissioner of Police may decide. While seizure of equipment may further the objective of avoiding a compromise of ongoing security operations, the forfeiture and destruction of equipment after the fact do not. Instead, it is simply punitive and, hence, is not reasonable at all. It, therefore, seems to me that section 38, as currently worded, overreaches and goes far beyond what is needed to prevent media coverage from compromising ongoing law enforcement activities and the safety of officers.

Column: 3708

Sir, I have taken great pains to point out the flaws in this Bill as I see them. I do think that they are major flaws, with the potential to greatly affect Singaporeans' lives and their constitutional rights for the worse. That being the case, I would propose that this Bill be sent to a Select Committee for further consideration.

When this House amended the Penal Code in late 2007, there had been extensive public consultations, even though Members would remember that I had strong objections to certain aspects of the Bill and eventually voted against it. Similarly, the proposed amendments to the Criminal Procedure Code had recently undergone a public consultation. In contrast, there was no public consultation at all on this Bill, even though it directly affects Singaporeans' fundamental liberties under the Constitution and also has the potential to greatly impact our day-to-day lives, especially in relation to the new move-on powers. The fact that 12 Members of this House have decided to speak on the Bill shows that it is of immense public interest. Yet, it has only been three weeks or so, since the Bill was first made available to the public after its First Reading in Parliament. Because of all this, it would make great sense for this Bill to be sent to a Select Committee, so that the public can be given an opportunity to comment on the Bill.

Sir, for all the reasons that I have mentioned in my speech, I have no choice but to oppose the Public Order Bill in its present form.

4.44 pm

Ms Ellen Lee: Mr Speaker, Sir, I support this Bill as it will give the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) more effective powers to maintain public order and safety during major events such as the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

Column: 3709

summit which Singapore will host in November this year and others to follow. The IMF meeting experience a few years back has shown that protests and terrorist actions could threaten mega events that Singapore is increasingly hosting. I support this Bill as it is imperative to ensure peace and order during Singapore’s hosting of major international conferences of high global signature. This is to ensure that our reputation as one of the safest cities in the world is maintained. Having seen the protests taking place in Thailand in the past few days during the ASEAN Summit, I am sure most Singaporeans and foreigners alike would not want a repeat of such violence here.

I welcome this continuous review of public order laws to keep them up to date with a progressively more complex security environment, especially when this Bill focuses on outdoor activities.

Consolidating relevant portions of the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act and the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act into this Bill is timely. However, this new Bill has stark similarities with the Public Order (Preservation) Act, Cap. 258, especially with its key provisions. I therefore hope that MHA will consider clarifying and rationalising them.

Several commonly used words and definitions have been given new meanings.

For the purpose of this Bill, "assembly" can now refer to one person alone marching or carrying out a procession solely. This is a stark departure from the definition of an "unlawful assembly" in the Penal Code which is five or more. This also further blurs the line on when and under what circumstances a person is legitimately demonstrating or carrying out an illegal march, a demonstration or procession in any given case. How would the police avoid

Column: 3710

mistaking a curious bystander as a protester?

The definition of "public place" is ambiguous. This Bill defines it to mean any place, open air or otherwise, to which members of public have access as of right or by virtue of permission, including when a payment of a fee is made. Apparently, this expression is extended to include private premises that the occupier of the place allows members of the public to enter, but only while the place is ordinarily open to the public. In more ways than one, the dichotomy between a public and private place is further obscured. What may be a "private place", eg, a private club or hotel ballroom, by normal definition now becomes a "public place" in the eyes of this piece of legislation.

This Bill can rope in property owners to help maintain public order. Property owners would undertake the onerous burden of taking "reasonable action" to prevent illegal assemblies and processions on their premises when they are notified by the police. Then, again, who is the actual "property owner" becomes questionable especially when the assemblies/processions cut across numerous properties and localities.

Another proposed clause includes giving police enhanced powers during events declared as special events, as well as letting law enforcement officers stop people from filming, distributing or exhibiting films of law enforcement activities. What is defined as a "law enforcement activity" requires greater clarity. Will filming Police Officers on patrol amount to a breach of this provision resulting in indictment? A good example would be the Picture Story in today's edition of the New Paper taken by a resident in Bishan showing a group of policemen trying to arrest a man below his block.

The introduction of Move-On Orders for better crowd control appears to be a

Column: 3711

calibrated approach. However, the Police should exercise restraint when using this Bill's penal provisions in incidents happening within Singapore that are not major international events, such as campaigning during the General Elections. I see this Bill as continuing the process of opening up that has 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.

4.48 pm

Prof. Thio Li-ann (Nominated Member): Mr Speaker, Sir, the Public Order Bill is a major piece of public law legislation. It shapes the contours of the fundamental liberties of free expression and peaceful assembly enshrined in Article 14 of the Constitution.

While the law protects many interests, only the most vital interests enjoy the status of constitutional rights. To be more than " zi lao hu " or paper tigers, constitutional rights must be given due respect and not treated as disposable interests.

However, rights are not absolute. Article 14(2) expressly allows Parliament to impose restrictions on assembly rights which it considers "necessary or expedient" in the interests of the "security of Singapore" and "public order". However, there should be a freedom-friendly standard of necessity.

It is trite that rights cannot exist without order, in the face of anarchy and lawlessness. However, we do not just want "order", we want a just order, one befitting the aspirations of a democratic, not autocratic society. Excessive order is tyrannical; an excessive focus on rights breeds an unhealthy narcissistic indi

Column: 3712

vidualism which disregards the rights of others and the common good. Our goal is not to be lop-sided rights fundamentalists or authoritarian apologists but to seek the via media of ordered liberty, a balance between freedom and necessary restraints.

Are the regulations and restrictions in this Bill reasonable or repressive?

I think none of us would have a problem with banning outdoor activities which glorify terrorism or precipitate collective violence which robs us of a secure environment where we can live peaceful lives. So, too, innocuous activities like cultural processions should be facilitated.

The difficulty relates to political or cause-related assemblies, processions, demonstrations. How do we strike an appropriate balance between liberty and security?

Peaceful assemblies are a potentially effective method of communication and integral to extra-parliamentary politics. They are an important, if blunt, way for civil society to participate in public life by expressing ideals or highlighting grievances, perhaps through slogans rather than reasoned debate. A responsive government may value this as a barometer of public sentiment.

I remember as an undergraduate in England, demonstrations were a regular occurrence, whether against the Poll Tax, Apartheid or cries to "Free Mandela” which kind of dates me. Other righteous causes such as toppling dictators such as Ceaucescu in Romania or Marcos in the Philippines were also a product of large-scale people power demonstrations.

In this light, it is good that the Public Order Bill squarely addresses the issue of political demonstrations and assemblies – in the past under the Public Enter

Column: 3713

tainments and Meeting Act, "any lecture, talk, address, debate or discussion", including those of a political bent, were defined as "public entertainment" and grouped together with funfairs and peep shows, which I always thought was ludicrous, trivialising political communication.

Conversely, demonstrations can trigger violence where the right to peaceful protest is abused by militant activists wanting to forcefully impose their views on other people. Demonstrations may champion noxious causes, like the march of Neo-Nazis through a village where many Holocaust survivors resided, which is a famous example of how assembly rights can disrupt the even tempo of community life. Demonstrations may cause great offence and give rise to counter-demonstrations, escalating social tensions. Closer to home, the events of the past few days where demonstrations scuttled an ASEAN summit in Pattaya are sobering. Indeed, Part III of this Bill creates a 'Special Events' regime which will help the hosting of major international events.

We are not hermits but citizens who share a common space. Rights carry responsibilities. Article 29(2) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights states that rights such as peaceful assembly are subject to legal limitations designed to secure "recognition of the rights of others" and to meet "the just requirements of morality, public order and the general welfare in a democratic society."

Has the Public Order Bill managed to strike a happy equilibrium where rights are meaningfully enjoyed rather than illusory? The Bill may be assessed against three main criteria, aside from the objectives of ensuring effective policing powers.

First, based on the virtues of the rule of law. The Bill confers broad discretion

Column: 3714

ary powers on the Minister, Commissioner and Police which curtail rights of expression, assembly and personal liberty, through arrest and move-on powers.

(a) Does the Bill provide clear guidance on how to exercise discretion so as to avoid arbitrariness and to realise the Act's purposes? The law must be clear enough to guide and enable citizens to plan their actions within its stable framework.

(b) Is the decision-making process sufficiently transparent? Must decisions be rendered within specified time limits?

(c) Are there mechanisms for holding decision-makers accountable, such as appeal processes or judicial review? All power has legal limits and should not be unfettered. Who will guard the guardians who guard our public order? What if public powers are abused? Does the law provide for this contingency?

Second, is the principle of individual dignity – how is the individual respected in the way he is treated?

(a) Are there limits on how far rights can be limited? Is mere convenience a good enough reason to restrict rights or must restrictions satisfy a localised standard of reasonableness or proportionality, to ensure against the exception gobbling up the norm?

(b) Is a decision-maker obliged to give reasons to a citizen when making an adverse decision, or is the citizen curtly dismissed?

Third, does the Bill hinder or facilitate participatory democracy, which is sustained by freedoms of speech and assembly? Any regulatory regime must appreciate the need for reasonably hearing differing views in a peaceful environment.

Politics is not only for politicians but for all citizens, within and without formal

Column: 3715

processes. This encompasses peaceful protests and citizen journalism, which clause 38 might hinder by authorising the seizure of films of law enforcement activities, such as shots of security officers attending opposition political rallies which some have uploaded on the Internet as a sort of 'show and shame' strategy. Of course, there are valid and sensitive policing activities relating to terrorism or civil unrest. If these are filmed, I am sympathetic towards having powers to order someone to cease and desist filming, to facilitate on-the-spot checks and to require footage to be surrendered. However, broad powers can be abused for non-security reasons, particularly when powers go beyond seizing films to banging down doors "by night or by day" without a warrant, in search of suspected footage. This is perhaps over-extensive.

Let me turn to the Bill proper and my concerns with certain clause 2 definitions.

First, is there any precedent for defining as an "assembly" or "procession" a demonstration or march by one person in aid of any one of three stipulated purposes, such as to publicise a cause or oppose the Government? Why is the number of participants treated as irrelevant given that in notifying the Commissioner under clause 6(c)(iii), information about the number of persons likely to participate in a assembly or procession is required?

A common law assembly consists of three persons; an unlawful assembly under the Penal Code relates to five or more persons. When the 1986 English Public Order Bill was debated, the original number of three persons was raised to 10 and eventually 20. In densely populated Hong Kong, a public procession needs more than 30 persons, whereas only two are needed in Singapore. Is not an assembly of one or procession of two

Column: 3716

much too wide and extreme a definition, too restrictive of civil liberties?

Further, what does "to mark or commemorate any event" encompass? Will a birthday celebration in a public restaurant require a permit? This overly wide provision should be more restrictively formulated.

The Bill contains powers to exempt places or persons from its operation. Sir, could the Minister indicate what types of persons, assemblies or processions clause 46 may apply to? What criteria will be used to identify exceptional cases?

Also, in relation to unrestricted areas under clause 14, geographical spaces are exempt from the notice and permit requirement, which is a good move. Aside from Hong Lim Park, are there plans to introduce more 'Speakers' Corners'? Location is key to whether a demonstration will be occasion for effective communication. While we do not expect a Speakers' Corner to be carved out of Orchard Road, will future corners only be allowed in ulu or more remote areas? Who will police observance of conditions?

Under clause 12, the Minister may delineate prohibited areas where all assemblies and processions are banned. These may include vital public institutions like the Istana or Parliament House, which activists might consider the most effective site for demonstrations. Those who conduct demonstrations within such areas may be fined up to $5,000 and $10,000 for participants and organisers respectively.

How were these benchmarks arrived at? Does the Minister consider this a moderate or steep criminal sanction?

Also, are there plans to include foreign missions under clause 12, for example?

An organiser must give the Commissioner advance notice of intention

Column: 3717

to organise a public assembly or procession under clause 6(1) within the prescribed period which I presume will be provided for in regulations to be adopted under clause 47.

Prior notice enables the authorities to take the necessary measures to facilitate demonstrations by settling routes, regulating traffic, to reduce the risk of disorder. Could the Minister give an indication of what the prescribed period for notice will be – whether six hours as in Finland or seven days as in Hong Kong?

This is important where time is of the essence, such as where organisers hope to commemorate the birthday of some important personage. Will regulations also provide for a specified time period within which the Commissioner must decide on whether to grant a permit and formally communicate that decision to the applicant?

Sometimes, the effectiveness of a demonstration springs from its spontaneity such as gatherings springing from an outpouring of grief for a public figure's death or national tragedy. Will allowances be made for this? Under clause 6(5), the Commissioner has discretion to accept shorter notice where "reasonably satisfied" earlier notice could not have been given. Could the Minister indicate what might be an acceptable timeframe for shorter notices? Guidelines help regulate discretion.

There is no Ministerial appeal where the Commissioner decides not to accept shorter notice. Why is this?

Sir, the use of the term "reasonable satisfaction" in clause 6(4) is significant in indicating that decisions must rest on an objective factual basis. Does judicial review lie?

Column: 3718

There is a difference between a fundamental right and a mere state grant which the state may take away where expediency rears its pragmatic head. To better reflect the constitutional status of the right to peaceful assembly, I suggest clause 6(4) be redrafted to replace the word "may" with "must" so that the Commissioner "must" accept shorter notice where evidence indicates "it is not reasonably practicable to give advance notice." Unless the Commissioner is reasonably satisfied that shorter notice be rejected, the presumption should incline towards facilitating the better enjoyment of a fundamental liberty.

Should the Commissioner reject shorter notice, he must inform the affected person in writing "as soon as practicable", certainly before the intended activity takes place. Clause 6 should be amended to require the Commissioner to furnish adequate reasons rather than merely give a bare notification of decision.

Clause 6(c)(viii) refers to "other particulars and information" relating to a particular assembly which the Commissioner may require. These cannot be known by a person before giving prior notification to the Commissioner so it must be something required after notice is given. This clause is so broad it is wide enough to include a request for extraneous political matters,such as whether assembly participants are members of any political party, for example, or to stipulate their religious affiliation. Are these relevant public order considerations?

The Commissioner may refuse to grant a permit under clause 7 if he has reasonable grounds for apprehending that the proposed assembly or procession may bring about any of the seven consequences listed in clause 7(2)(a) to (g). These objective factors and the word reasonable indicates that this decision is subject to judicial review.

Column: 3719

These seven consequences are important as the need to avoid them may shape the conditions accompanying a permit under clause 8(2) as well as provide a possible ground for cancelling permits under clause 10(2)(d).

The Commissioner should be obliged to give adequate reasons for not granting a permit, and not merely identify a bald conclusion; or, at least to cite the specified ground for rejection. Otherwise, a disappointed party will be disadvantaged should he invoke the ministerial appeal procedure under clause 11(2). This should similarly apply to clause 10 powers in relation to cancelling permits. While courts may imply a duty to give reasons as a facet of natural justice where the justice of the common law supplies legislative deficiencies, it is better that Parliament lead the way by framing clear statutory duties to promote good administration.

The consequences listed in clause 7(2) require some clarifications as to what they entail or mean.

First, clause 7(2)(a) refers to when proposed assemblies might cause Public Disorder or property damage. Is public order the flip side of public disorder?

Public order is a narrower concept than law and order, which is breached whenever law is breached. Public order does not affect specific individuals in localised incidents but rather, the community or public at large; it is threatened where public tranquility is disturbed and human life and safety endangered. In some conceptions, Public order relates to the fundamental principles which organise society, including respect for rights. Extremely broad conceptions of public order have emerged in our case law, as where public order is said to be threatened by inaccurate information alleging the financial impropriety of public

Column: 3720

institutions. In what sense is public order being understood here?

Clause 7(2)(b) refers to Public Nuisance, which a judge has described as the Proteus of Public Order founded in contempt for the rights of others. How is public nuisance to be defined? Will it drawn from statutes like section 13A of Miscellaneous Offences Act in relation to using threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour which cause harassment or distress?

Clause 7(2)(c) relates to obstructions in any public road as does the degree of obstruction matter. Whether it is something we can walk around or is not susceptible to circumvention? A procession may slow down traffic, is this sufficient reason for denying a permit?

Clause 7(2)(d) refers to placing the safety of any person in jeopardy. Does this mean just one person or a group of person? Does this refer to the demonstrators or observers? Or all?

Clause 7(2)(e) refers to feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different groups in Singapore. Other statutes have typically referred to hostile feelings between different religious groups or between different races.

This appears to recognise a new source of social instability stemming from inter-group hostility, spurred by militant activists defined along secular or non-racial lines. Ideological conflict, particularly over morally controversial issues, can precipitate social disharmony. Is this the drafter's intent? If so, can the Minister elaborate on what kinds of scenarios or groups clause 7(2)(e) might cover?

Clause 8 provides that conditions may be imposed on the organisers or participants taking part in a static or mobile demonstration which in the

Column: 3721

Commissioner's opinion is necessary to prevent the situations enumerated in clause 7(2)(a) to (g). What if the conditions imposed are unreasonable or make it impossible to effectively carry out the assembly? I note that the Commissioner's decisions to impose conditions is subject to ministerial appeal under clause 11(1)(c) and, presumably, to judicial review as well. Is this reading correct?

A uniform condition is the organiser of the assembly or his nominee must be present throughout its duration, the intent being to ensure good order and public safety as clause 8(1)(b) states. Thus, imposed conditions must advance this purpose and conditions unrelated to good order and public safety would be ultra vires or invalid. Why should the police regulate the number and size of banners, placards under clause 8(3)(b)? How does that affect public order? Furthermore the requirement under 8(3)(c) to engage sufficient marshals to keep order is onerous in terms of responsibility and cost on venue operators. Is this fair?

The Minister, under clause 11, may hear appeals against certain decisions of the Commissioner. The Minister's decision is final but High Court supervision is not precluded as there is no provision that this shall not be called into question in any court of law. Is this correct?

The Minister can allow or reject the appeal or substitute it with his decision. Under clause 11(3)(d), the Minister can direct the Commissioner to reconsider his decision. I find this a bit odd, given that the Minister's decision is final. Such a power approximates that of judicial review where courts will not touch on the merits of a case. If the Commissioner reconsiders the case and maintains his original decision, is there any other mode of recourse for the person affected by this later decision?

Column: 3722

Sir, by dint of clause 13, the Minister has powers to ban ad hoc a proposed public assembly or procession. If the Commissioner had granted a permit, the Minister can effectively veto this if of the opinion that it is necessary in the public interest. Public interest also triggers the clause 12 ministerial powers to identify prohibited areas. Presumably, exercises of ministerial powers in the public interest are reviewable, while public interest is a wide term, it cannot be so wide as to encompass anything under the sun.

What then falls under the ambit of public interest in relation to clauses 12 and 13? Public interest is a broader category than public order. In a persuasive Malaysian case ( Re Tan Boon Liat [1976] 2 MLJ 83 ), public interest was identified as having many facets such as public order, public health, public security or safety or public morals. Restraints on assembly for us must be within the Article 14(2) constitutional framework.

Could the Minister clarify the types of situations where, regarding any public place, the Commissioner under clause 13(2) may if necessary in the public interest prohibit the holding of all public assemblies or processions, or those of a certain description, for up to 28 days? The exercise of this power must relate not to the threat of public disorder, but to serious public disorder or serious public nuisance. What differentiates public disorder from serious public disorder? Could the Minister give some illustrations?

Further, why is this power needed when there are already ministerial powers to prohibit processions and assemblies on an ad hoc basis?

Sir, I am concerned with the wording of each person who takes part in a public assembly or procession under clause 16(2) for instance. This is vague and warrants more careful definition. Does mere presence at the assembly suffice, or

Column: 3723

must the person act positively to show he took part in the assembly? What if the person is a passer-by who was at the wrong place at the wrong time?

Sir, under Part IV, clause 36 enlarges police powers by giving the police move-on powers in relation to any person at or near a regulated place if a police officer reasonably suspects the person's behaviour has certain undesirable effects. Four sorts of undesirable behaviour are identified in clause 35(1)(a) to (d), such as disrupting a gathering or displaying behaviour which is disorderly, indecent, offensive or threatening to someone entering or leaving a regulated place under clause 35(1)(b).

Move-on powers may be aptly used to promote safe streets and public spaces, such as where menacing youths threatening people at MRT stations are instructed to move on. Freedom from fear is a primary social good. However, one ground that triggers move-on powers is when someone is just about to or has committed an offence under clause 35(1)(d). Why would the police want to exercise a move-on power rather than to arrest the criminal?

There are some important safeguards which condition the exercise of police move-on powers to prevent their arbitrary or over-exuberant misusage.

First, the police officer must have a reasonable rather than a bare suspicion that the undesirable behaviour listed in clause 35 has been or is taking place. The word reasonable indicates objective review, which promotes accountability.

Second, the police officer must be at least a sergeant and must issue a written direction that is reasonable in the circumstances. This could include directing a person to leave the regulated place for a stated reasonable time of 24 hours

Column: 3724

maximum or to remove to a stated reasonable distance under clause 36(4).

Clause 36(2) is to be commended as it strikingly acknowledges that a citizen's right to peaceful assembly is involved and cannot be brushed aside for reasons of efficiency. Indeed, the police are enjoined not to give a clause 36 direction unless it is reasonably necessary to serve three identified interests, which indicates a holistic approach towards balancing goods and rights.

These include public safety and public order. Usually, public safety relates to the security of the public or their freedom from danger, which includes dangers to public health. Public order is not necessarily antithetical to disorder and is wide enough to include considerations of public safety within its ambit. If public safety is a part of the wider concept of public order, is there a specific need to differentiate these grounds here? Or is public order being used here to indicate prevention of a disorder of a grave nature, beyond maintaining ordinary law and order?

In addition, the protection of the rights and freedoms of other persons must be considered. These may include the right to carry on lawful business and, perhaps, other rights like the right to be free from harassment. A pretty hefty fine of up to $20,000 is imposed on any person contravening any clause 36 order without reasonable excuse under clause 37 but, presumably, if the direction is oral rather than in writing, it is invalid. So an unreasonable direction is also invalid and presumably open to challenge before the courts on grounds of Wednesbury unreasonableness. Could the Minister confirm this?

Finally, a drafting point in relation to clause 40 which gives powers of arrest without warrant to any police officer who "in his view" offends any provisions of

Column: 3725

this Act. This is similar to section 40 of the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Although "in his view" is subjectively couched, the courts have construed such clauses not to preclude objective judicial review. It would be preferable to substitute the phrase "has reason to believe" for "in his view" to underscore the commitment to a government of laws, not of man.

Despite the efficient quality of this Parliament, I would urge the Minister not to let the Second Reading debates be a formality but to consider incorporating these amendments to the Bill or even calling or putting it before a Select Committee before submitting it for Third Reading.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: First, I would like to thank the Minister for a thoughtful speech. I welcome the Minister's calibrated approach in managing public order. We live in an age where mass protests are a common sight in many cities around the world. Indeed, for some, it has become a way of life. We need not look far. In Thailand, political protests have choked Bangkok since the military coup in 2006. We witnessed a spectacular display of public disorder just over the weekend when the 'red shirts' flooded Pattaya and derailed the ASEAN Summit. The people who suffer most from these political protests are the Thais themselves, with the country's economy and credibility at stake. I cite this example not as a rationale or a justification for this Bill, but as a description of the reality of the effect of public protest gone out of control.

Before the Pattaya incident, we also saw violent demonstrations in London as it hosted the G20 meeting. The Metropolitan Police, said to be among the best public order officers in the world, were pushed back in some areas by the sheer force of the demonstrators. I saw

Column: 3726

snippets of the demonstrations on videos on the website of The Guardian newspaper. What started off as a peaceful protest – and it is almost like a street party in some areas – ended up in angry violence.

I also saw the video of a bystander, Mr Ian Tomlinson – as mentioned by some Members in this House – who was not part of the demonstration, being pushed to the ground by the police. He died shortly after from a heart attack.

The videos are instructive. Even these highly-experienced police, used to dealing with protests and riots, have trouble ensuring that mass protests stay peaceful. And innocent bystanders, who want nothing to do with the demonstrations, can become the victims of a tense situation with a highly keyed-up police force. While we may not be comfortable with such scenes in Singapore, we have to recognise that, for better or worse, mass protests have become a part of the landscape at big international conferences involving world leaders. Radical anti-capitalism and anti-globalisation groups, environmentalists, and anarchists fly in from different parts of the world to take part in demonstrations in the city hosting these meetings. These include APEC meetings.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: 5.12 pm

For example, at the APEC meeting in Santiago in 2004, thousands of protestors took to the streets. While most demonstrators were peaceful, there were several hundred who stormed police positions, throwing rocks and petrol bombs. Similar scenes disrupted Korea, which hosted the APEC meeting in 2005. Singapore will be hosting the APEC meeting in November. How are we geared up for it? The spotlight will be on

Column: 3727

Singapore, on how it manages mass protests and demonstrations.

While we do not want our city to be crippled by uncontrollable mass protests, we should not swing to the other extreme and make it overly onerous for groups to carry out peaceful demonstrations outdoors. Singapore already has a reputation for being tough. This toughness was on display when Singapore hosted the IMF/World Bank meeting in 2006. While delegates might be impressed with the efficiency of the country, its international image was marred somewhat by the negative publicity over Singapore's strictness on outdoor demonstrations. While I welcome the Minister's point that the net effect of the Bill will, in fact, be a substantial relaxation from the current situation – about 50% of the current permits will no longer be needed – some international press reports and some Members of this House have portrayed the proposed amendments as making our laws on public protests even tougher.

Can I ask the Minister to clarify for the record, whether this is a tightening up or a relaxation when it comes to the right to freedom of assembly, which includes the right to protest peacefully?

Sir, we have to be consistent in how we deal with public protests, regardless of who is demonstrating. We have to adapt to the changing circumstances and allow the different groups the space to protest and shout slogans and, at the same time, ensure that things do not get out of hand and become violent.

We have been fairly successful with the experiment at the Speakers' Corner. The protests there have been peaceful thus far. It is presently an unrestricted area, which requires no permit for holding assemblies or processions.

We should take the experiment further and allow certain streets, which lead up to the Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park, to be designated safe for processions – not

Column: 3728

completely unrestricted as in the Speakers’ Corner, but less restricted in that approvals are granted more easily. The procession route so designated should pose minimum disruption to the public and have permanent security cameras mounted along the streets.

If we do not facilitate the people’s right to hold a peaceful procession, sooner or later, some groups would only proceed without permits, and make a show of breaking the law. They want to be locked up, so that they get to look like political martyrs, fighting for their freedom of assembly. Why should we give them that satisfaction?

While we want to preserve our reputation for peace and security and the right of the people to enjoy the benefits of law and order, I do not think Singapore will fall apart or become a nation of rioters by allowing a group of people to hold processions peacefully in a safe environment outdoors.

There is a fine line, of course, between peaceful public protests and violent ones. A peaceful protest can turn violent with just one demonstrator throwing a brick or a punch. I know this will be a challenge to our law enforcement officers, particularly if the group is intent on staging a confrontation with the Police for maximum political mileage with the international media present. Such individuals or groups, proven to have such an anarchic bent or with a record for violence, can be justifiably blacklisted. For this, having good intelligence is important. It is equally important for our police officers to be well-trained in handling mobs and agitators in a tense situation and to react appropriately.

Policing mass protests are, by its nature, noisy and messy affairs. Police officers often risk their lives to keep order when violence erupts. It is human for them to be on edge and sometimes over-

Column: 3729

react to situations. They need to develop a good feel of what counts as a peaceful if lively protest, and what is a violent one.

This brings me to another amendment in the Bill: The redefinition of "assembly" to include a demonstration by a person alone. It seems over-the-top. While I understand the concern with ensuring public order with large groups, I am puzzled why even a lone person is now also to be considered a threat to public order and has to apply for a permit to protest?

The Minister says it is to rationalise the current provisions in other Acts and to focus on the activities and not on the number of people involved. On the face of it, this is sensible. But in practical terms, does it mean that one person will be accused of illegal assembly if he shouts into his mobile phone to protest about some political issue?

I have another objection to this: it commits violence against the English language. In every respectable English dictionary I refer to, "assembly" means a number of people gathered together. You cannot have a one-man assembly. It is a contradiction in terms. It is unlike the language in the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA) which says that any activity by one or more persons will require a licence, if the activity amounts to public entertainment. This is because you can have a one-man performance, or a one-man lecture, it makes sense to say "one man". But you cannot take the PEMA provision for one person for public entertainment into the POA for public assembly and say you can have a one-man assembly. This is just odd.

My final reservation relates to the special powers conferred on law enforcement officers to direct any person to stop filming, taking photos, and to, without a

Column: 3730

warrant, search any person believed to possess such films and photos and to seize these materials and their equipment.

I am glad to hear the Minister’s assurance that these powers are not intended to be used to prohibit the filming of routine police work or events and are tightly scoped for anti-terrorist activities. But can the Minister clarify if routine police work includes controlling mass demonstrations? It is important to make explicit, and as explicit as possible, if not in the Bill, then in the explanatory statement, to assure the public that these powers are very well defined and can be only used in certain situations, and cannot be abused by the Police.

In conclusion, like many Singaporeans, I would like Singapore to remain safe and peaceful. We do not want mass protests to be a way of life in Singapore or to disrupt our everyday life.

In general, Singaporeans get agitated if their bus or MRT train gets held up by even 10 minutes, whatever the reason. They have a low tolerance for road closures. But at the same time, given the changing times, we have to make more space for people to exercise their right to peaceful assembly.

While I may have reservations on some details, I support the principle that necessary measures must be taken to ensure that public order can be maintained during public protests, and that the security of country is not put at risk.

With that, I support the Bill.

5.19 pm

Mr Baey Yam Keng (Tanjong Pagar): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I welcome and support the Ministry's decision to liberalise the permit regime governing outdoor non-political and non-cause-related activities. This is a significant and

Column: 3731

timely step befitting a more educated, mature and increasingly sophisticated population in a first-world city state.

Expanding the current list of exempted activities under POA to include sporting, recreational, commercial and constituency events will be beneficial to our efforts to build a more dynamic and creative society. Lifting such restrictions will promote active citizenry as Singaporeans, young and old, use the "new space" to initiate and organise activities of interest to them. Such "ground-up" initiatives are essential to building a lasting sense of belonging and ownership among Singaporeans.

The Ministry wants to differentiate political and cause-related activities from recreational, social and commercial activities, so that wherever practicable, the latter may be exempt from permit requirements. However, the definition of "cause-related activities" is not always clear or easy. For example, a condom company decides to hold a large-scale outdoor activity to raise funds for AIDS patients. Would this require a permit? On the surface, it is a social activity, a charitable activity 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 also be viewed as a cause-related activity, promoting a certain kind of lifestyle which may go against the society’s more conservative values.

Definition and interpretation of causes can be subjective. If the company in this example were to proceed without a permit because it has interpreted it to be a social or commercial activity, would it have run foul of the law?

I hope the Minister could elaborate on the framework for assessing causes.

Over the weekend, as we watched the protests in Pattaya which led to the

Column: 3732

cancellation of the ASEAN Summit, the immediacy of enhanced security for major events strikes us. Outdoor assemblies and protests can pose public order and security threats. Singapore will be hosting more such high-profile international events, like the upcoming Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) meeting in November. We have to ensure that activists or protesters do not hijack the programmes or disrupt the schedules. We have to guard against terrorists and mischief-makers.

In today’s turbulent times, hosting such special events is becoming, increasingly, a riskier and costlier business. Our continued success in MICE and tourism rests on our reputation for security, safety and efficiency – none of which can exist without the other. Therefore, more than ever, we need to enhance our security measures so that visitors will continue to feel safe coming here, and residents will find that Singapore is one of the best places in the world to live, work and play.

In fact, when Hong Kong star Edison Chen came to Singapore for his first and second public promotional appearances after the sex photo scandal was exposed, it was reported in entertainment news that he chose Singapore precisely because of our good track record of safety and security. Thus, the introduction of the new section for special events security, enabling the Minister to declare, via gazette , a certain event as a special event is timely.

In a sense, such provisions are nothing new – they are merely putting into legislation what the police and security personnel are already doing at their discretion. With legislation to support and empower them, they can go about their duties with more confidence and be more effective. For example, security personnel have no power of search or arrest.

Column: 3733

However, they do have authority based on the "house" rule. And we all accept that. When we go to certain sites, we may have to submit our possessions to be searched before entering the "house". This is a condition set by the management of the "house", which is not explicitly supported by the law, but which we seldom challenge.

With the POA, security personnel guarding special events have something concrete to fall back on. Not all major events are organised by the Government authorities. As we promote more entrepreneurship, there could be private organisers of large-scale events. Will there be instances where such events require the Minister to declare, via gazette , as a special event? Is there a choice for the organiser to determine whether they need a special gazette? If otherwise, will there be special security requirements and, hence, additional costs to the event organisers?

All over the world, wherever special events are held, especially when they involve political leaders, security measures have caused major inconvenience to the man-in-the-street and is a bane for businesses in the areas affected. Normally, this is not a major issue, as some retailers, resigned to their fate, and out of patriotism, view this as a "National Service". But in view of the current economic downturn, shop owners and business owners may be less tolerant and accommodating. Having a special event at their doorstep may be akin to adding frost to snow, as the Chinese saying goes "雪上加霜". Government agencies organising such events have to be more sensitive and understanding of their positions. For some businesses, it will not be just a case of less business. Rather, it could be a case of no business – their very survival could be at stake.

Column: 3734

During the International Monetary Fund-World Bank meetings in September 2006, business for shop and restaurant owners from Clarke Quay to Suntec plummeted. Some outlets around Suntec City complained that their revenue went down to almost nothing.

When the International Olympics Committee met at Raffles City Convention Centre in July 2005, the same happened. Shoppers avoided the area, put off by the tight security and road closures.

Singapore is not the only country which faces such challenges when hosting special events. The tight security measures for the Asia-Pacific Economic Co-operation (APEC) Forum Summit in Sydney in 2007 turned it, in the words of a journalist, into a ghost town. I quote, from a 4th September 2007 Straits Times report, "The disruption caused by the largest domestic security operation in Australia's history has angered business owners."

So the crucial question is: how do we balance the restrictive requirements of security against the contradictory ones for freedom of movement which is necessary for the functioning in any urban environment?

This is a security and enforcement issue. But because of its very nature and impact on businesses, the lifeblood of our economy, this aspect, which is a side-effect, has to be seriously examined and addressed.

Furthermore, with future developments around Marina Bay, including residential units such as The Sail and recreational destinations such as Gardens by the Bay, we must be mindful of the impact of such events on not only businesses, but also residents, families, workers and tourists.

It may be challenging to come up with security arrangements for special events

Column: 3735

which are unobtrusive and seamless. But I believe that it can be done and any inconvenience and disruption can be further minimised with every event we hold as we gain more experience in this field.

We may want to give the affected business owners or households sufficient channels and opportunities to voice their concerns in advance, and to invite them to contribute their views. Their input can be useful and may even highlight blind spots not obvious to the organisers and security personnel engaged for the events. It is important, however, that it be made very clear to the affected parties that organisers are not obligated to adopt suggestions as security constraints may be an issue. They may acknowledge but not necessarily respond to certain queries as this would entail explanations which may compromise security. After all, the very nature of security operations has to be covert for maximum effect, which makes explanations and justifications difficult. Tough and inconvenient measures may have to be taken. Nonetheless, I believe that valuable contributions can emerge from such an exercise.

Finally, a couple of clarifications.

Firstly, I notice that the auxiliary police force is only mentioned in Part III of the Bill. Does this mean that the other sections of the Bill do not apply to them? This section empowering the auxiliary police and security officers only applies to conditions of entry, inspection of personal property, security screening, etc.

I would also like to ask the Minister about the role of the Singapore Armed Forces in protecting the VIPs as relating to this Bill. Under section 201C of the Singapore Armed Forces Act, which was introduced in May 2007, the SAF may be deployed under certain circumstances to

Column: 3736

protect dignitaries. Would the SAF be deployed and given the same powers as in the proposed Bill? I hope the Minister could clarify this.

With that, I support the Bill.

5.28 pm

Er Lee Bee Wah: Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, "law is order, and good law is good order." These simple words, spoken by the great Greek philosopher Aristotle, sum up what we are trying to accomplish today.

For many, civilised behaviour comes second nature. It is to protect the majority that we need good laws like the Public Order Bill, which is at the centre of today’s debate.

While I support the broad principles of the Bill, there are sections in which I would like to raise concerns and seek clarifications, so that in the process of doing what is good, we do not over regulate to unnecessarily disrupt the freedom of those who may seek to let their voices be heard in a peaceful, democratic and civilised manner, as enshrined in our Constitution, which provides all our citizens with a "right to freedom of speech and expression". For instance, the Bill before this House has defined a "procession" such that a lone person walking down a street can be perceived as behaving in such manner if the person is believed to be demonstrating. I hope the Minister can give some clarification and assurances that in interpreting the law, the law enforcement agencies would do so with a light touch, so that the spirit of democracy will prevail in the circumstances.

We already have the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) (Assemblies and Processions) Rules made under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act which makes it

Column: 3737

necessary for a permit to be taken out for any public assembly or procession of five or more persons in any public place. Why is there a need to introduce this change in the current Bill?

My other concern is clause 36 which allows police officers to exercise move-on powers at their own discretion, granted such discretion is subject to certain conditions under clause 35. This could result in situations where people can be wrongly perceived by law enforcement officers to be threatening, even when they have no intention of causing trouble. There are lessons that we can take from the US where on 18th March, a police officer refused to allow a motorist to see his dying mother-in-law over a traffic offence until this was too late, despite all the pleadings by the various people. The officer had used his discretion without exhibiting any compassion or common sense.

Also, let me remind the House how our Police had over-reacted when Raffles Girls' School (RGS) students were warned not to sell tee-shirts with a white elephant at the opening of Buangkok MRT station, and the Home Affairs Minister had to intervene.

Another area of concern is that the onus is on the person to prove that he or she is unaware that an assembly is without a permit if the person is found participating in such an assembly. It is not easy to go round asking the organisers if they have a permit before one takes part in the assembly. I think this requirement is too stringent to the point that no one may then be taking part in any public campaign, say, a charity walk for breast cancer survivors.

Also, I would like to question the rationale behind prohibiting the taking of photographs and video-taping during any

Column: 3738

police enforcement. Why do we need to do this, unless we are worried that photographs such as those purportedly showing Chinese security personnel dragging Tibetan citizens and monks are uploaded for the world to see?

If we carry out our enforcement in a humane and civilised manner, then there should be nothing to hide. How can a video or photograph jeorpardise investigations? We must not only enforce laws, but we must do so transparently to show we respect the rule of law and justice is equal to all.

Finally, I would urge prudence in exercising enforcement of powers. By responding with force under certain circumstances, it may provoke an unnecessary violent response. We should never underestimate the unpredictable outcome of a human reaction. Thus, while the powers are vested with the law enforcement agencies, they have to use them with level-headedness. I hope this is part of their training regiment and that they are continually reminded of their responsibilities.

Sir, I would like to reiterate, "law is order and good law is good order", but please do not over-regulate or over-react. On this note, I support the Bill.

5.35 pm

Mr Sin Boon Ann (Tampines): Sir, thank you for allowing me to join in the debate. This Bill could not have come at a more appropriate time. Mental images of recent mass rioting and pitch battles fought with the police at international fora are still vivid in our minds. I have no doubt that many Singaporeans believe that we should never allow any situation in our country, short of any collapse of political legitimacy and authority, to degenerate into anarchy. This is not the mental image that we want Singapore to be associated with.

Column: 3739

Yet, the right of assembly is often seen as a universal human right. The ability of the people to collectively rise up for a cause is one reason why we are able to bring about change to our society. And for this reason, the right is enshrined in our Constitution which guarantees the right to peaceably assemble and without arms.

To be sure, the right of assembly is not an absolute right. It is often necessary to allow Parliament the right to restrict assemblies and public demonstrations in the interest of public safety and order. Just how much of that right should be curtailed is often a delicate act of balance based on the prevailing norms of the society and the political agenda of the day.

This Bill is therefore welcomed as it seeks to avoid the excesses of public demonstrations seen in recent times and yet recognises the rights of the people to gather to reflect their collective views. While I do not disagree with what the Bill tries to achieve, I do have some issues which I hope the Minister will address.

I support the approach of the Government in trying to provide a clearer and more comprehensive framework to regulate the conduct of outdoor activities. However, in trying to regulate this, one wonders whether the Government may not have gone for the overkill. Currently, under the present proposal, anyone who wishes to organise a public assembly, even if it just meant a one-man assembly, would require a permit from the Commissioner. If the concern relates to security, one wonders whether we have gone to the extreme by taking such a course of action. Surely, there are other security related instruments under our legislative armory that could have dealt with such issues than to go to such extent. Perhaps, we should just keep to the number threshold beyond which a

Column: 3740

permit from the Commissioner for public assembly is required.

Next, the Bill allows for an appeal to be made to the Minister when the Commissioner refuses to grant a permit. I submit, Sir, that such a provision may be less than ideal. Many will criticise this as placing the Government in the position of being the litigant, judge and jury at the same time. Justice must not only be done, but must be seen to be done. With globalisation, the world will also be watching us. There must be some comfort given, not just to us, but to the outside world that the process of review is seen to be fair and impartial. Nothing short of provision for judicial review for the decision of the Commissioner, I believe, will meet the standards that one can expect to have, particularly when the issues behind the organising of the public assembly may be highly politically charged. There must be some assurance that the authorities have acted reasonably and that the process of decision making and appeal is not biased or seen to be biased in any way.

In the current Bill, the right and discretion to grant a permit for public assembly and procession is at the discretion of the Commissioner, who may take into account concerns of public security and law and order issues when deciding. Sir, such drafting does not give anyone who intends to organise outdoor rallies the comfort of knowing for certain whether his application will indeed be granted. Rather than leave the decision entirely to the discretion of the Commissioner, a better approach could perhaps be to ensure that the application for permits to hold public assemblies or public processions be granted as a matter of right unless and until the Commissioner is satisfied that issues of national security or law and enforcement will be an issue. By taking this approach, there is greater certainty on the outcome of the application and this will prevent the

Column: 3741

process from being hijacked by the government of the day to serve a different agenda. Setting a default mode to having permits granted automatically would also resonate well with the provision in our Constitution that guarantees the right and freedom of assembly.

Perhaps what is more surprising about the Bill is the provision in clause 38 that allows a law enforcement officer the right to stop anyone from making any video or taking any pictures that inter alia may have an effect on law enforcement procedures. The provision also allows the police officer the right to confiscate and destroy such videos and pictures. In the run up to the debate on the Bill, the general view in respect of the policy behind this clause relates to the need to maintain the integrity of security operations in critical situation. The recent terrorist attack in Mumbai was cited as an example of how the media, when providing live coverage of the incident, had inadvertently compromised security operations that were taking place at that time.

With all due respect, Sir, I cannot see how one can draw similarities between a terrorist attack and a public assembly that, even at its worst, has gone riotous. As a layman, one would see one operation more as a planned response where secrecy is important and, in the other case, the response is seen more as a spontaneous reaction. In fact, more often than not, when a peaceful assembly turns violent even the most composed of law enforcement officers may be provoked. Police brutality often out of sheer anger, which is not an unnatural human response, cannot be a justification for taking away videos and photos on the basis that such videos and photos may affect ongoing law enforcement actions. The basis on which the Police may act under the present clause is unfortunately

Column: 3742

rather vague. Unless there is greater clarity, there will always be this concern that photos or video footages showing police heavy-handedness or, at worse, brutality, may be taken away for less than noble reasons. I would suggest that the powers to take away such media be given to a third party who can be the independent assessor of whether such records will, in fact, on the balance of probability affect police security law enforcement or security operations. Issues of speed and the need to act fast on the ground can perhaps be dealt with in other ways.

Additionally, the new Bill brings with it the right of police officers to tell the organisers of the public assembly or procession to move on, where among others, the gathering is affecting the business of the place, or disturbing the peaceable conduct of the event, or where it is interfering with the entry or exit of the place. These are rather unusual powers. I understand that the intent here is to avert any trouble or reduce the tension that may arise from participants making a nuisance of themselves in any place. Unfortunately, the proposed Bill in this instance is not clear as to how the powers of the police officers may be exercised. For instance, if the participants were asked to move on, how far they should be asked to go? Or would the police officer consider whether, on balance, asking the participants to go too far away may result in the assembly or the procession losing its impact on the ground? It is one thing to be placed at the centre stage for the performance and another to be placed at the exit end of the stage. How far should the nuisance go before the police officers will entertain a request from the people affected? Should there be a significant disturbance before the police may be called upon to intervene? The truth of the matter is that no outdoor public assembly or procession of any significant scale is going to result in no disruption to the local or business

Column: 3743

community. Should the Government clarify as to the circumstances under which it will act?

Finally, the Bill places the burden of preventing any illegal assembly or procession from taking place in any premises on the owner or the occupier. In the event that an illegal assembly or procession does take place, the owner or the occupier shall be guilty of an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine of not more than $5,000, unless he can demonstrate he has taken all reasonable measures and exercised all reasonable due diligence. Sir, this provision is indeed rather onerous on the owner/occupier of properties. First, it presupposes that the owner/occupier has advanced knowledge of any illegal assembly or procession taking place at the premises; or if it did take place at the premises, the owner/occupier would have the necessary resources to deal with such a contingency. Secondly, this may potentially be a law enforcement matter. To ask the owner/occupier to take measures on a matter that may be of public interest may be unduly onerous or unfair to the owner/occupier if the owner/occupier has to bear the cost of such measures alone. It would be equitable if the Government agrees to bear a part, if not a substantial part, of the cost in this regard.

Sir, although the right to peaceful assembly in public may be curtailed by Acts of Parliament, any act to curtail it should be carried out on the principle that it should be carried out as modestly as possible and only to the extent of absolute necessity. We must be mindful and careful not to pass laws that will eventually make a mockery of our right to peaceful assembly without arms.

With that, Sir, I support the Bill.

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, I thank the Members who joined in the debate. Let me, first, start with the point that has

Column: 3744

been made by a number of Members on assemblies and processions. Ms Irene Ng, Er Lee Bee Wah, Prof. Thio Li-ann and Mr Sin Boon Ann all have spoken about activities by a single person and whether they should be regulated. They focus on that and suggest that perhaps we have been too strict. I will make a number of points and response.

First, it is important to note that the Public Order Act applies only to cause-based activities. A large number of public activities which are not held to promote a cause will not be covered by the Act. Thus, the scope of when a permit is required under the POA has to be borne in mind. Second, the Act does not prescribe cause-based activities per se . Whether the activities are carried out by one or more persons, it only requires the getting of permits. When an application is received, the police are required to decide whether the activities could affect public security. It also allows the police to grant a permit with conditions to ensure that risks are minimised.

Third, I would emphasise this. This aspect of the POA is not quite new law. That seems to have been lost on a number of Members who have used terms like "stark departure" or that this is a completely new development. The current situation, as I took pains to explain in my Second Reading speech, is not very different from the POA, in terms both of the types of activities covered and the number of persons covered. First, the MOA applies, that is the Miscellaneous Offences Act, to assemblies and processions of five or more persons. But that Act has to be read together with the PEMA, and the PEMA applies to any activity which comes under the definition of "Public Entertainment" regardless of the number of persons involved. Thus, cause-based activities by one or more persons could be public entertainment and would be covered by PEMA, and the term "Public Entertainment" includes any

Column: 3745

lecture, talk, address, debate or discussion. Thus, it is not as if the POA seeks to cover substantially more area than what the Miscellaneous Offences Act and the PEMA currently already cover. So it is not a stark departure. It is a rationalisation that is being carried out together with a substantial relaxation of the current position, as I explained, and I will come back to that again. So what we are seeking to do is rationalise and simplify the approach where we currently have the Miscellaneous Offences Act and the PEMA overlapping each other.

In relation to Er Lee Bee Wah's point that the Public Order Act will duplicate the MOA rules on assemblies and processions, again, as I have stated in my main speech, when this Bill is enacted into law, we will repeal the MOA rules and also a part of the PEMA which regulates public lectures, talks, addresses, debates or discussions. The intention is that the POA will rationalise and regulate the entire ambit of public cause-based activities.

Fourth, the number of persons, which is five in the Miscellaneous Offences Act, has been used as a proxy for a possible disruptive effect of the activity. But it is more logical to simply focus on the activity rather than choosing an arbitrary number, for example, a group of four intend in causing disruption could pose a far greater threat than a group of 20 who wish to promote a peaceful cause. Thus, we have decided to focus on the activities and their effects, rather than the number.

I will give two illustrations. During the Hindraf incident in Malaysia, a local activist protested alone outside the Malaysian Embassy for five days. Large groups gathered, including many Malaysians who came over. Understandably, such actions would cause concern for the Embassy officials. In such

Column: 3746

situations, it is better that the Police have the power to tell the person to stop protesting and move on, if they believed that his actions could be disruptive to public order or public interest. Second illustration. During the ASEAN Summit in Singapore in 2007, groups of four persons gathered to evade the permit requirements.

Having a threshold creates an artificial numerical criterion which can lead to a cat-and-mouse game with the Police. This distracts the Police from their responsibility to secure the safety and security of the event. We debate in this House with the often implicit assumption that people behave reasonably. But the unfortunate truth is that there is always a small minority which get up to endless farcical antics outside there and the law has to deal with that. If one is too low a number, what number should be chosen? Five? Four? Three? Different countries have different regulatory regimes for outdoor activities. There are countries which have regimes similar to ours and with a threshold of three persons but it is better for us simply to focus on the effect of the activities.

Fifth, the criteria on which the Police will have to decide is set out in the Act, as opposed to the current situation where the criteria is not clearly spelt out. The Police will have to consider the possible effect of the activity.

Sixth, as I have earlier stated, the net effect of the Bill, if enacted into law, together with the proposed exemptions will, in fact, be a substantial relaxation from the current situation. About 50% of the current permits will no longer be needed.

Seventh, as I have stated in my main speech, cause-based activities can be carried out at the Speakers' Corner. Members have again debated this issue in this House without really focusing on this

Column: 3747

point about the Speakers' Corner or asking themselves why is that not adequate. Much of the debate has proceeded on the implicit assumption that there is in fact no place for demonstration. The point is not for us to prevent such activities but simply to prevent them from being disruptive to the public by requiring applications for permits if you want to have them outside of the places which are designated for them. With modern methods of filming and circulating online, any cause-based activity can be publicised, whether it is held indoors, for which no permit is needed or if it is held in the Speakers' Corner. The real question which unfortunately has not been focused on is, should people have the right to organise cause-based activity wherever they like without regard to the impact on the public or should they be required to get a permit? The Constitution does recognise and protect political freedoms, including the freedom and the right to assemble, but it also provides for appropriate safeguards and restrictions. That is why I gave some emphasis in my original speech to point out that what we are seeking is a balance. We provide places where these activities can take place without permits and elsewhere, we require a permit, and that is broadly in line with the current situation and, at the same time, we rationalise the current situation. The reality is that if people have a genuine cause, the Speakers' Corner can be an effective platform. Thus, the people affected by the Minibonds used the Speakers' Corner effectively and their views were heard. That was the very purpose for the setting up of the Speakers' Corner in the first place.

Ms Irene Ng asked if this legislation represents a tightening up. The answer is that it rationalises the Miscellaneous Offences Act and the PEMA, and read together with the exceptions that will be in the subsidiary legislation, it represents

Column: 3748

a very substantial relaxation from the current position.

Ms Ellen Lee and Prof. Thio Li-ann asked how the police will avoid mistaking a curious bystander as a protester. In the end, it is really a question of fact. And if there are any disputes, these are matters for the courts to decide.

Ms Ng also made the point that we are perceived as having tough laws and that the POA may add to that perception. A section of the international press may certainly take that view. They are usually ready to prescribe what Singaporeans need. But what is important for us is that our laws must be just and effective and supported by the people with a stake in our country. Hence, more important than what some in the international media may think, is what our own people think and also the opinions of investors who come here. They make the assessments which are relevant to us since they actually have a stake in this country.

Dr Teo, Mr de Souza and Mr Baey referred to recent events in Thailand. Some months ago, a Thai newspaper expressed the view that Singapore can learn some useful lessons in democracy from Thailand. Yes – it was said in all seriousness. But even those who hold that view will, if they are reasonable, accept that Singapore, given its much smaller size and greater limitations, will suffer far more if it has to face a situation and disruptions that Thailand has recently faced.

Members focused on what powers can be exercised by a public officer and whether too much discretion has been given to our police officers and the Minister. These questions, if they are to be dealt with head-on, really raise basic questions on the appropriate model of government. Our approach, and we have made it clear, is that the size, the nature of our state and society is such that we need to move quickly and effectively. We

Column: 3749

are really a small skiff in an ocean. Thus, the Executive needs to be given power and discretion, and the voters will judge at the end how that power has been exercised. It does not mean a rule by man as opposed to rule in accordance with the law. But it means striking the balance in such a way that quick, effective, efficient action is possible to take our country forward.

The opposite philosophical approach is that the Government is subject to a series of stringent checks and balances. That really underlines much of Prof. Thio's arguments. And the Executive's ability to act is then weak and fundamentally that approach is one that is suspicious of Executive's authority. Would that approach work for us? No. We are not a large ship that can be unaffected in storms. Our approach of giving the Executive substantial power has worked for us quite stunningly and not giving the power and subjecting the Executive to the kind of checks and balances would be a far worse alternative. It does not mean that the power would be exercised unlawfully. The manner in which the power has to be exercised has to be set out in the law and ultimately the people will have to judge whether the Government has acted properly. This is the fundamental point and the laws that are introduced, including the Public Order Act, are in keeping with that philosophy. Thus, yes, the Bill confers substantial discussion on the police but it also sets out how that discretion should be exercised.

In respect of the PEMA regime, Ms Irene Ng said, and I quote, "we have to be consistent in how we deal with mass protests in international conferences, such as APEC." We need to allow the different groups the space to protest but at the same time ensure that things do not go out of hand and become violent. It is

Column: 3750

particularly appropriate to consider that in the context of the events of the weekend. To do away with the need for permits, as some Members have suggested or philosophically are in favour of, assumes that all citizens will be law-abiding and not cause disruptions. Such an argument would be based on ideal but is it realistic? You do not really need Pattaya to remind you that such an ideal, though desirable, is quite unrealistic. The experience of major cities where international events are held give no comfort on this point. And how do we ensure that protests will always be peaceful? Can the Police always "ensure that things do not get out of hand and become violent"? For some APEC meetings, some governments have shut down the whole city. We cannot and do not want to do this. Others regulated the space for protest, for example, Sydney, and even then there was bloodshed and violence. At the WTO meeting in Hong Kong, the protests and demonstrations started out peacefully until the situation went out of control and violence ensued. Every country has to adopt its own measures in dealing with protests and demonstrations. There is no consistent way of dealing with these problems among countries. No two countries' political and social contexts are similar. But what we are sure is that we do not want violence or bloodshed. We will allow protests to take place in designated places. But the protesters cannot demand the right to disrupt the meetings or hold the protests wherever and whenever they like.

It is also worth reiterating that Singapore is a trophy target for terrorists and the terrorist threat is quite real. We cannot afford to overlook this aspect of our security landscape. When major conferences are held in Singapore, we cannot let our guard down and be distracted by protests and demonstrations. Ultimately, we have to do what we believe is right for Singapore and leave it to Singaporeans to judge our actions

Column: 3751

without worrying too much about the transient views of the international media.

Dr Teo suggested that we distinguish political activities from recreational and social activities. That is exactly what the POA seeks to achieve. As mentioned earlier, we will exempt more recreational and social activities held by the responsible organisers. Even as we manage in a more targeted manner, the potential risks to public order which outdoor political activities bare.

Mr Baey Yam Keng and Prof. Thio have commented that it is not always easy to distinguish between cause-related and non cause-related events. The existing criteria have been in place some time in the MOA. We have not encountered major problems so far and we are not introducing a new definition. In this context, let me take a specific point that Prof. Thio made. She asked what about a birthday celebration in a public place? I think it is ironic that she used the birthday celebration as an example. Let me point this out. First of all, the three limbs of the POA replicate the three limbs of the Miscellaneous Offences Act. So we are not introducing anything new. Second, I think Prof. Thio will accept

that there is a difference between a birthday celebration of a prophet in 1964 and a birthday celebration of Prof. Thio – that might be held in a public place. We can be theoretical about this but the MOA definition has stood the test of time and that is what we are relying upon. Our intention is to exempt activities which are predominantly social, recreational and commercial in nature. The details of the exempted activities that statutory boards and charities with IPC status are allowed to organise will be made clear through subsidiary legislation. Organisers can always make enquiries with the Police and check if a permit is required.

Let me address some other questions asked by Prof. Thio. First, she asked

Column: 3752

whether we will create more unrestricted areas and, if so, whether they will be in ulu locations. She cannot say that the Speakers' Corner is ulu – but it is in a central, visible and accessible location and it has been used effectively. And indoor activities, as I have pointed out, can be held anywhere.

In relation to the penalties for organising an assembly or procession without permit under clauses 16 (1) and 16(3), Prof. Thio has asked whether they are too high. The current penalty under the MOA rules is, in fact, $5,000 or imprisonment of up to three months, or both. Under the POA, we have reduced the penalty for first-time organisers to a $5,000-fine, without imprisonment. So I hope we get some credit for reducing the penalties. Repeat offenders will be liable to a higher penalty, thus, rather than raise the current penalties, we have lowered the penalty for first-time offenders.

Prof. Thio also asked about the period of advance notice required for permit applications. The required advance notice period will be stipulated in the regulations. The current notification under PEMA is seven days, while the notice period required under the MOA is four days.

In addition, clause 6(4) gives the Commissioner discretion to accept a shorter period of notice. Prof. Thio has also raised issues about the grounds for refusing to grant permits under clause 7 of the Bill. Permit applications must be assessed, in context, based on the facts of each case in accordance with the provisions of the Bill. Applicants who are aggrieved can appeal to the Minister. The Act does not preclude judicial review.

Mr Baey asked whether there is a choice for the organiser to decide whether the event should be gazetted as a special event. A special event does not have to be organised by the Government, such as

Column: 3753

Formula One Grand Prix. So long as the event meets the criteria stipulated under clause 21 of the Bill, it can be declared to be so. In deciding whether to so declare, we will take into account the organiser's views, along with other public order and security considerations. Mr Baey also asked about the role of auxiliary police under the POA. Auxiliary police force may be called upon only to supplement resource needs for special event security. Other policing functions under the Act will be conducted by the Police.

Dr Teo asked why the Police will issue a Move-On Order if the person is about to commit, is committing, or has just committed an offence. Move-on followers are intended to be pre-empted to de-escalate a situation before an offence occurs and this can be seen most clearly in the context of regulating outdoor political activities. Not every offence requires immediate police enforcement action. However, if the officer assesses that the illegal protest can escalate and post grave public order threats, he can issue a move-on order on the person. Such an option gives the person engaging in an illegal protest a chance to cooperate with the Police and leave. This recognises the right to expression without compromising on the police management of public order.

Mr de Souza has said that move-on directions should be used sparingly, and not for non-urgent cases, such as disputes between neighbours. We agree. The intention behind the powers is not, as I have stated, to deal with social disamenities. They are intended to deal with or prevent public order situations from developing mainly in the context of large-scale events and activities which may escalate into public order situations. It is not possible to scope out all the circumstances where move-on orders will be used, but I can assure the Member that

Column: 3754

the use of Move-On Orders will be governed by police protocols and they will not be issued wilfully or simply on the request of a member of the public. There must be a sufficient public order basis to justify the issue and solve an order.

Dr Teo expressed concerns that the filming-related powers under the Public Order Act may be too narrow. Indeed, this may be so. But as this is a new provision, we have decided to take a more calibrated approach. Compared to the UK, the filming-related powers will also be exercised as part of a larger security operation and crisis communication plan. We will study Dr Teo's suggestion as part of our future review of the efficacy of the Public Order Act.

Ms Irene Ng and Er Lee Bee Wah expressed concerns that the filming-related powers may be used to cover up police abuse. This should not be the case. When a film is surrendered to or seized by the Police under clause 38(3) of the Bill, the film can only be destroyed in accordance to the directions of the Commissioner. Police officers are not permitted to seize films and destroy them as they wish. Like any other item seized, a proper record will have to be kept of it and its destruction properly accounted for. Where a film is made which exposes Police wrongdoing, this can be submitted for investigation of abuse.

Ms Lee asked how could filming affect police operations. Sir, this is somewhat of a surprising question, particularly in the context that I explained. We all saw what happened in Mumbai. That is one of the situations we are seeking to prevent. Films going around the world of an ongoing security operation will prejudice the operation, the safety of the victims and the safety of the officers involved.

And the second aspect which I took particular care to explain is: we are targeting a situation where a police

Column: 3755

officer's identity is, by itself, necessary to be protected primarily because he is an intelligence or a covet police officer, and the very release of the identity could either prejudice the operations or his safety. Those are the two fixed situations that we are seeking to cover. I have heard Members' concerns about whether the definitions are too broad. We have not gone as far as the English have gone, but we will relook at it. But it is not our intention to cover, generally, all filming.

Ms Ellen Lee also asked whether filming police officers on patrol would amount to a breach of this provision. I have earlier outlined the circumstances whereby an order to prevent filming can be made – they do not include police officers out on routine patrol. Mr Christopher de Souza has asked for confirmation that the provision relating to filming would apply to cases where the identity of an undercover law enforcement officer might be exposed. As I have explained, that is indeed one of the primary motivations behind the provision.

Dr Teo expressed concerns about the liability of property owners for any unlawful assemblies on their premises. The offence is not a strict liability offence. If the premise owner is not aware, he cannot be faulted. An offence would be committed only if the owner refuses to cancel a booking and ask the event organiser to stop the event after he has been notified by the police of the unlawful activity. It does not mean that the owner has to resort to force. "Reasonable" refers to the owner's existing arrangements, should the move unwelcome individuals. It is a question of fact in every case.

Ms Ellen Lee asked MHA to rationalise the Public Orders Act with the existing Public Order Preservation Act. This issue was also recently raised by a member of the public in the ST Forum online. The existing Public Order Preservation Act was enacted to deal with emergency situations

Column: 3756

with measures like curfews in order to preserve public order. The proposed Public Order Act is intended for use in normal situations and provides power, but for more general character.

Mr Yeo raised a couple of points. He asked, by reference to the three limbs that are in the Public Order Act, the definition of events. What is the necessity of a third limb which deals with commemorating any event and would not the other two limbs cover that? Not really. Going back to Prof. Thio's example, commemorating the anniversary of a famous saint or a prophet would not be covered by the other two limbs. Nevertheless, as the Member can appreciate, it could have public order and public safety considerations. So the third limb does cover areas which are not covered by the first and second limbs.

Second, he asked if the Police have to give reasons for refusal of any permit and he compared it with the current position under the MOA and the PEMA where reasons have to be given. The approach in the POA is not to really reduce any of the rights citizens already have where the provisions are moved over. So similar requirements would be imposed by way of subsidiary legislation.

Mr Chiam asked a somewhat personalised question. He said he was concerned that in every election, some supporters would rush and chair speakers like himself and then they go around and a crowd gathers. Would he be charged? Let me assure Mr Chiam that when he applies for an elections rally permit, usually these additional actions that are incidental to the meeting would not be considered to be a breach. The conditions of the permit will specify exactly what is and is not allowed. The fact that Mr Chiam has not been charged until now shows that he has probably not breached it, so he should not have to worry. The Public Order Act is not intended to cover

Column: 3757

those types of situations. Election rallies are under the Elections Act and covered by other regulations.

Ms Sylvia Lim made a number of points. The first point she made on the amendment is a strange point. These amendments, she suggested, were 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 backhanded compliment and it is an acknowledgement that, in fact, this amounts to a relaxation of 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? Does she really think that? We are not in such a weak position nor is such conduct usually associated with this Government. I have explained the reasons why we are introducing this legislation, including the fact that we are putting in place clear and transparent powers before a major event later this year.

Secondly, she asked if the move-on powers would affect consumer rights, what about people who want to, for example, demonstrate against some shops where unhygienic products have been sold. I suppose this is referring to the recent publicity.

Now, let us go back to basics. Does the Workers' Party and Ms Sylvia Lim believe that anyone who feels aggrieved about any matter – whether it is a bad product sold in a shop or any other matter, because then we cannot draw a clear distinction – should be able to take the law into their own hands and congregate and demonstrate as they

Column: 3758

wish, wherever and whenever they like? Is that what Ms Sylvia Lim suggests? If unhygienic products are sold in a shop, the proper way to deal with it is for the authorities to take action.

In addition, there are places where you can publicise these issues like the Speakers' Corner and there is nothing to prevent an application of a permit. And where a permit is given, you go out there and you demonstrate but what you should not be asking for, is that people should be allowed to congregate and do whatever and wherever they like. For example, in a wet market or in a hawker centre, to the inconvenience and worse, possibly, seriously disrupting the activities of other people.

I asked two questions in my original speech to which I noticed Ms Lim did not answer when dealing with these fundamentals. In the context of the balancing exercise that we are seeking to do, I said, "ask yourselves, with all the balancing that we have sought to do between individual rights and the exercise of political freedom and putting in restrictions that are necessary for public safety and security, in this region, which country would you rather be in?" The second question I ask is, "among all the countries in the 1950s and 1960s that became independent, which country would you rather be in?" And I said the answer to those two questions will give you an answer as to whether this is a good law to support.

Ms Lim also asked why is there a necessity to destroy the films? What about police misconduct? And she referred to the recent events surrounding Mr Tomlinson in London. Our position, and I have repeated this several times, for routine actions is that the filming is not prohibited. Filming of misconduct is not prohibited and the film will be kept and only the Commissioner of Police can

Column: 3759

direct the film to be destroyed. So if there is misconduct and even if the film is seized, it will be available to be checked.

She also suggested that we have maintained good ratings until now in international rankings, so why do we need this Public Order Act, and that we are using Pattaya as an excuse, and the reality is that democratic rights are being curtailed in Thailand. She gave us a broadside that if rights are curtailed here, we could face similar situations. First of all, this Bill was introduced long before Pattaya. I referred to Pattaya, not so much as to justify the Bill, but to say that we do not want to get there. And I also made the point that we should not take stability for granted. Let us not play politics with stability. The rationale for each part of the Bill has been explained in great detail in the original speech and, really, at the end, what is the stand in respect of this Act? Is it that major events should not be regulated as set out in the Act? What is wrong with rationalising the Miscellaneous Offences Act and the PEMA in the way that I have set out? Are we in a situation where we want to see what has happened in Mumbai with filming going on? Should we not curtail that? Can one reasonably argue against that?

Mr Siew Kum Hong said the right of assembly being subjected to permits emasculates that right. It is again a surprising point because if you accept that, at present, permits are required, then all we are doing is continuing with the same regime. If the right has not been emasculated until now, how does the POA represent a new emasculation? He also referred to the PAP cycling event, which my colleague had answered in some detail before and I will not deal with it.

Mr Siew also wanted to know if a large gathering of persons can be gazetted

Column: 3760

as a special event. The answer is "no". It is not a large gathering of persons per se but a special event as the Act describes and as I have set out in my speech.

Mr Siew also acknowledges that there exists now a gap between seizable and non-seizable offences, but he says the Police do not really need the power to deal with the gap because now when they give friendly advice, most people accept the advice and move on, so why do you need move-on powers? But the point is, if everyone was as reasonable as Mr Siew, there would be no problem. The one thing that we all know in society is that there would always be a group which would engage in what I described as farcical antics, and would deliberately go out there and engage in a degree of lawbreaking, and we want to cover that situation as well.

He also suggested, why not have a register where all instances of move-on powers exercised will be listed. The answer is, we are really trying to keep the move-on powers in a very low-key way; we do not want to make it an offence, we do not want to even keep a register of people who have been subjected to these move-on powers. It is something that is exercised on-the-spot and we move on from it.

Sir, I think I have covered all the points or the points that I can recall. I know that Prof. Thio has made a number of drafting suggestions, and what I would say is that we take her suggestions seriously. We have gone through this Bill very carefully. We will look at the points that she made. If anything needs to be done further later on, we will always consider it. We may even check with her as to what some of the points were.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Before I allow for clarifications, Mr Mah.