PUBLIC ORDER BILL

PUBLIC ORDER BILL: Debate resumed.

Ms Sylvia Lim: Sir, first, may I make a few clarifications regarding what the Minister commented about my speech. First point, Sir, is relating to the regulation of assemblies and permits. The point that I was making in relation to the experience from IMF is that we do recall that there were some public statements made by the organisers of the IMF then, to say that Singapore had agreed to provide a space for protestors, and so on, and had reneged from that agreement. So my point was whether this permit regime is actually made in order to ensure that Singapore could continue to be a venue for such international summits.

The second clarification, Sir, is in relation to consumer rights. My point was that consumers could have legitimate grievances against traders, and the mere fact that they returned to or near the place of trade to seek some answers from the trader may displease the trader and the trader may ask the Police to exercise move-on powers. So why is that a legitimate exercise when the consumers are merely going back for some answers, which is something quite legitimate?

Third clarification, Sir, is that as far as special events are concerned, I have said in my speech, we can understand why there is a need for heightened security during special events/activities. So we

Column: 3762

generally have no issue with regard to that.

Fourthly, the Minister asked what issues I have with rationalising the PEMA regime and the MOA. Even though he says that this is only, in a sense, very similar to the current position, this is really not so because as he himself pointed out, currently under the MOA, if four persons or less are going to organise an activity and it does not amount to public entertainment, they do not need a permit at all. So this rationalisation, in fact, results in the tightening up on small groups.

Fifth clarification, Sir, with regard to filming. Even though the Minister says that the filming provisions are targeted at protecting terrorists' operations, the section is clearly not worded as such. And does the Minister not agree with what I have said earlier that the wording is so wide that it actually can cover routine law enforcement operations, which is what the section actually says?

Last of all, perhaps I should ask the Minister to clarify what he did not clarify and that is that in relation to local activists, particularly political groups, is there really any change in the sense that will we be allowed to organise activities outdoors, apart from stadiums and Hong Lim Park, or is it status quo .

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, dealing with those points in order. First, as regards IMF and what had happened, my own understanding, and I will stand corrected, was that we did provide venues for protestors. They may not have been extremely happy with the venues that were provided, but venues were provided.

Second, the Member's point about consumers having a legitimate concern and going back to the shop to ask questions. I think she puts it very nicely, "going back to ask some questions", I

Column: 3763

think if they go back to ask some questions, no one will complain and the Police will not need to get involved. Whether the Police need to get involved really depends on whether it turns into a law and order situation. The law and the Bill set out fairly clear criteria as to when the Police can exercise their move-on powers, and when permits will be required if they become cause-based activities. For example, if they gather a group to demonstrate in front of a shop, that would be an activity that would require a permit and the Police would have to decide. But if they choose to go there and ask some questions, that is not something that would be within the Act.

Third, as regards rationalising the PEMA and the MOA, I took some pains to point out the current structure, it is almost a lattice structure. You have the Miscellaneous Offences Act which covers gatherings of five or more with the definitions that are set out in the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Less than five, you have public entertainment, but the definition of public entertainment is important. It covers lectures and meetings. So, my point is, the current situation under the POA is not very different from the situation under the PEMA and the MOA. And with the exceptions that are going to be made, and which I have talked about in Parliament in some detail, in fact, it is a substantial relaxation from the current position.

Fourthly, on filming, whether it covers routine law enforcement activities, we will relook at the definition. I have indicated what the intention is. The idea is that we must have the law in such a way that it gives the Police the power to act in the two situations that I have outlined, without people being able to argue about it. But at the same time, it must not prevent the filming of routine police activities or abuse by the Police. Now, to some extent, no one can control what happens on the ground but we have to try and find the medium to express those

Column: 3764

aims accurately in legislation. We think we have tried to do that but we will certainly relook at what Ms Lim has said in this context.

Finally, the point about whether Workers' Party would be given or any party would be given specific permits. Mr Deputy Speaker, it is a bit difficult to answer these questions in a vacuum without knowing what the activity is, what the purpose of the activity is, and what the effect is going to be. But the law is there, the Bill is there, and Ms Lim can read it, and one has got to look at each situation separately.

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Sir, I have four clarifications for the Minister.

My first clarification, Sir, is that he mentioned my point about the right to freedom of assembly having been emasculated. I just want to clarify that, in my view, it has been emasculated even under the current system. So I take his point that there is no difference between the MOA regime and the new POA regime, and that is why it continues to be emasculated.

Sir, my second point. The Minister has referred to a group of persons who insist in engaging what the Minister has described as farcical activities, and he has taken that as a reason to explain why move-on powers are required. Sir, my question is: how will move-on powers actually change their behaviour. Let us just think through the scenarios. If this group of persons are engaged deliberately in civil disobedience – by definition, "civil disobedience" means deliberate flouting and contravention of laws, committing an offence that they disagree with – then they are already breaking the law and are committing an offence. And it is perfectly open for the Police to issue a warning to them to cease and desist, failing which they will be arrested and charged for the offence. If they are not committing an offence, then what is the harm in allowing

Column: 3765

them to continue to do what they do? The introduction of the move-on powers instead creates an offence. If they are doing something which does not constitute an offence right now and yet they are issued with a move-on order, and then they do not move on, then they would have committed an offence. So, Sir, the loophole is not in the enforcement powers of the Police, the loophole is in the substantive offences that are out there. So I would just like the Minister to clarify that point when he says that there is a loophole in the enforcement powers, when I think it is really a loophole in the substantive offences.

Sir, my third clarification. In my speech, I did propose that the Bill be sent to a Select Committee given that it has only been three weeks since it was first published and first made available to the public until the Second Reading today. So I hope the Minister can respond to that.

My last point, Sir, is that the Minister has stated that films that are seized can be destroyed only by order of the Commissioner. I think he said that twice in his response. From my reading of section 38, that position is correct only insofar as the films were seized in the first place under section 38(3). However, Sir, I would like to draw the Minister's attention to section 38(2)(a), and if I may just read it out, Sir, an officer may "direct the person reasonably believed to be making, exhibiting or communicating a film or picture, or about to do so, to immediately cease making, exhibiting or communicating the film, and either to immediately delete, erase or otherwise destroy the film or picture, or to surrender the film or picture to the officer". In short, Sir, what section 38(2)(a) says is that an officer has the power at the immediate point to compel a person to destroy the film. And in that scenario, how would we know what the film was, and on what

Column: 3766

basis can aggrieved person make a complaint?

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, on the first point, whether it continues to be emasculated or being newly emasculated, I hope Mr Siew will be generous enough to accept that I made the point that since 2000, there have been a series of changes that have substantially liberalised the political space. He also fails to acknowledge the impact of the Speakers' Corner and how useful it has been for those with a genuine cause.

The real difference between Mr Siew and ourselves is that, really, as a matter of philosophy, people should be allowed to demonstrate whenever they like, without permits, because that is a fundamental right, and that is a fundamental freedom. I think even those who have expressed some concern about this provision will sound very extreme, and they have said so. For example, Prof. Thio acknowledged that you cannot have these rights in vacuo, without concomitant responsibilities. That is a fairly basic point that most lawyers will appreciate.

Second point – Mr Siew asked what is the problem if four persons or fewer come together and carry out activities, which are not illegal per se. I gave a specific example in my responses to the MPs, which is during the ASEAN Summit in 2007, we had this farcical group – groups of four – who played catch-and-mouse game with the Police while the Police were engaged in very high security operation of protecting and making sure the Summit was successful. As Singaporeans, do we really want to face up to this? Or do we want to give the Police the power to ask these people to move on? It is as simple as that. We have to live in a real world with people who do those things.

Mr Siew asked if the Bill is going to be sent to a Select Committee – I think if the answer was not clear to him – it is not

Column: 3767

going to be sent to the Select Committee. We do not see a need to.

Finally, as regards his point on section 38, the answer I was giving was to the question as to what happened if the film was taken by the Police and there it could be deleted only on the order of the Commissioner. Mr Siew is referring to a situation where the Police is not on the ground to direct the deletion. Sir, I explained the dilemma that we had. These are sometimes fast-moving operations, and the police officers have to make decisions on-the-spot because a film that is taken of an operation that is ongoing, if left alone without being seized, could very easily go throughout the world within a matter of minutes. So, it is always this balance that we have to worry about. And when looking at this legislation – people like Mr Siew look at all the extreme possibilities where there could be abuse by the Police – we also have to look at all the other situations where there could be abuse by the individual, and then we have to draw a line somewhere. This is where we have drawn the line. I hope Members can appreciate that these are all difficult situations, and we have to protect both the society and the Police and not look at every Police action as possibly being illegal.

Mr Siew Kum Hong: May I make two points? My first point, Sir, is with the Minister's explanation on the powers under section 38(2)(a). He mentioned that is to address a difficult decision the officer has to make on the ground. Will the Minister not agree then that in every scenario, a smart officer – and I hope all our officers are smart – will then demand that a picture be deleted, instead of seizing it and then submitting it for the Commissioner to decide what to do? Because if he orders for the film to be deleted on the spot, then he does not have to run the risk of being second-guessed subsequently or being found out

Column: 3768

to have made a wrongful order. That is my first question for the Minister.

My second point, Sir, is with reference to the Minister's response to my first clarification where he says I take an extreme view. I think if the Minister reviews my speech, he will find that I do not think I took an extreme view, in fact, it is a nuanced view. If I may just reiterate, it is not an absolute right to demonstrate anywhere at any time, as Singaporeans please. I advocate a position where Singaporeans have the right to demonstrate but they have to notify the Police and there are certain prohibited classes of processions/assemblies which should not be permitted. If there are any public safety or law and order concerns, then the Police can ask for changes to be made. That is a position which I do not think is extreme at all.

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, on the first point, I think there is a fundamental disagreement. Mr Siew's perception is that all police officers will behave illegally. They will be smart and they will direct deletion because they do not want a record of what they have just done. I come from the opposite perspective. We come from the perspective that our officers are fundamentally honest. It does not mean that no abuses ever take place, but they are fundamentally honest and I do not believe that each time an officer will direct the deletion on-the-spot to prevent a record from existing. And, do not forget, the Act sets out the criteria on which these directions can be given – an officer has to justify why did he direct the deletion on-the-spot as opposed to preserving the evidence.

Second, as regards Mr Siew's point about whether he is being extreme, I think the fact is that he comes from the philosophy that there must be a right to demonstrate and a right to assemble wherever one likes, subject to some restrictions. And he is fundamentally

Column: 3769

opposed to an imposition of a permit regime where if you want to do so outside of the prescribed areas, you have to apply for a permit. That is where we differ philosophically , and I am not sure I can take the debate much further.

Ms Irene Ng Phek Hoong: The Minister said that the net effect of the Bill and the amendments will be a substantial relaxation from the current situation. He mentioned about 50% of the current permits will no longer be needed. I feel more focus should be given on this. Can I ask the Minister which groups or activities would benefit from this liberalisation and can look forward to it?

Mr Shanmugam: Sir, Ms Ng wants the precise details. We have to go back into the records of last year. But, in broad terms, I explained what the restrictions will cover – sporting/recreational type of activities, organised by statutory boards or charities with IPC status – and they broadly form 50% of the permits we had given out last year.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Some hon. Members: No.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Mr Siew, do you want your vote to be recorded?

Mr Siew Kum Hong: Yes, Sir.

Mr Deputy Speaker: Ms Sylvia Lim, Mr Low Thia Khiang. Three "Noes". I think the "Ayes" have it, the "Ayes" have it.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Mr Shanmugam].

Column: 3770

Bill considered in Committee; and reported without amendment.

Question put, "That the Bill be now read a Third time".

Some hon. Members: No [ Mr Siew Kum Hong, Ms Sylvia Lim and Mr Low Thia Khiang ].

Mr Deputy Speaker: Three "No" votes. The "Ayes" have it, the "Ayes" have it.

Bill accordingly read a Third time and passed.