Main Stories, Top Story - Written on Tuesday, April 14, 2009 20:31 - 42 Comments
TOC Editorial: Muzzling the madding crowd
The government’s arguments for the Public Order Bill are unconvincing
Over the objections of the opposition and not a few concerned queries from ruling party MPs, Parliament passed the Public Order Act on Monday to rationalise the existing Public Entertainments and Meetings Act and the Miscellaneous Offences Act.
In presenting the government’s case, Law Minister and Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam tried to square two contradictory motives. On one hand, he presented the Act as a step forward in liberalisation, part of the government’s efforts to adjust its policies to balance the individual’s political space with the need for security and order. To this end Mr Shanmugam cited the Act’s liberal aspects, such as a rationalisation of the permits regime that would do away with the need for permits for “50 per cent” of public activities.
On the other hand, the Act introduces potentially draconian powers, chiefly in the form of so-called “move-on” powers, which enable the police to order a person to leave an area if they think that he is about to break the law. Mr Shanmugam argued that these are necessitated by the examples of disturbances elsewhere in the world.
Unfortunately, Mr Shanmugam’s arguments is unconvincing. Like the new Films Act passed some weeks earlier, the Public Order Act introduces enough ambiguity and powers to – in effect – constrict civil liberties even as it retains a visage of liberalisation that allows the government to self-righteously argue that it is taking a positive step.
For example, the rationalisation of the permits regime will do away with the need for permits for commercial, recreational and sporting activities organised by statutory boards and recognised charities. That is hardly liberalisation, since it has long been clear that activities of such nature were never a threat to public order. Notably, political parties were excluded, which allows the government to retain discretion over the opposition’s activities – last year an application from the Worker’s Party to hold a cycling event was turned down even as the ruling party went ahead with a similar activity just some months later.
Furthermore, the government has hazed the definition of the crowd size that would invite police action by removing a stipulation that a gathering of five or more persons would be deemed illegal. In the face of queries from MPs, Mr Shanmugam argued that it was better to focus on the nature of the activity rather than the numbers involved. True perhaps, but the resulting ambiguity – some MPs pointed out that a one-person assembly could be deemed illegal under the new Act – is certainly not reassuring, particularly given the government’s known proclivity for pursuing the letter rather than the spirit of the law when this suits its political purposes.
But it is with the introduction of the “move-on” powers that the government is on truly weak grounds. First, Mr Shanmugam’s rather opportunistic mention of the turmoil in Thailand to justify the new powers does not obscure the fact that there is no precedent to show how Singapore’s existing laws are insufficient to the task of handling public disorder. The 2006 World Bank and IMF meetings hosted by Singapore went by without a hitch and benefited more from the government’s willingness to close down large swathes of the city-centre than from any sort of crowd-control legislation. In any case, the superseded Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, with its wide-ranging powers, was more than adequate for the purpose of keeping order.
Second, there is reason to doubt the effectiveness of the “move-on” powers. As this editorial previously pointed out, “move-on” powers are unlikely to discourage serious protesters from trying to make their point, which would force the police to arrest them anyway. That will defeat Mr Shanmugam’s stated purpose for introducing “move-on” powers, which is to avoid the police having to make arrests. In fact, one opposition MP has pointed out that the number of arrests actually went up in Australia – which is where the government is basing its Act on – after it introduced “move-on” powers. It is also difficult to see how “move-on” powers help with combating terrorism – the government too seems to realise this and there was no mention of the spurious argument from its brief two weeks ago that the Act would help strengthen its ability to protect events from terrorists by preventing its forces from being “distracted” by “political activists, militants or mischief-makers seeking to exploit the media and political attention”.
It therefore seems that, contrary to Mr Shanmugan’s assertion that his Bill will not reduce the rights that Singaporeans currently enjoy, the new law is an unwarranted constriction of a citizen’s already restricted constitutional right to expression and assembly. Yet it is hard to discern why the government has chosen to do so. Perhaps it is to further curtail the ability of Dr Chee Soon Juan to embarrass it at high-profile international events to be held in Singapore; Dr Chee, an opposition figure that is a perennial thorn for the government, had some mild success at previous events. It might even be a sign of the government’s anxiety that worsening economic conditions could spill over into the streets, particularly since Singaporeans have made enthusiastic use of their Speakers’ Corner in recent instances.
Whatever the case, one thing is quite clear: Mr Shanmugan said that the Act will allow the police to act “without people being able to argue about it”. Worse, there will be no judicial review of a move-on order: the home minister alone can decide on an appeal.
That leaves too much room for politicisation: for a potentially intrusive Act of this nature, the courts should have been allowed to decide the legality of a move-on order at the very least, particularly since Mr Shanmugan himself has made so much about the impartiality and non-partisan nature of the judiciary in recent months. In winding up his arguments, Mr Shanmugam rhetorically asked the House whether the government had struck the right balance between protecting the individual’s political space and the public’s need for security – the answer is an unequivocal “no”.
—-
Related posts:
42 Comments
when the law was tabled a month ago, i sent an email to my MP, Chan Soo Sen to ask him if the police could use the “move on” legislation to drive the prostitutes soliciting on the streets of Joo Chiat out of the area, since it is obvious that these scantily clad Vietnamese women are there for reasons not including a high school reunion or tour group excursion.
I have not yet received any reply.
#2:
U wrote in english? next time includes a dictionary!
Another law to safeguard an insecure despotic regime !
Such a strategy can be a two edge sword to incumbents who are booted out.
Just cross my mind. The “move on” powers for the police is a natural extension of the powers exercised by our politicians. “Honest mistake. Let’s move on.”
Aiya, the news report havoc in thailand because of protest leh.
i could not imagine the bill not passed given 81:3. But then this is my uneducated guess only.
Seriously, if the PAP now regrets legalising protests at Speakers’ Corner, why not just make protest there illegal again? The PAP represents 81 out of 89 seats in the Parliament, so what’s stopping them? Why must come out with a Public Order Bill instead?
This law is silly and curtail freedom of speech if there is any. It brings back the police state of the 1960s.
I am not surprised if Speakers’ Corner may be limited too in future.
This is simply too much for the people to bear. It iis also wise of them to bring this law out during this economic crisis as many will be more concerned with their rice bowl than a silly act.
I believe many more will be arrested with this law.
Theer is a reason for their action.
Let us go Speakers’ Corner fast before they close it dowN!!!
If we have 30 oppositions in parliament then they will think twice in passing the law.
can’t see my earlier post, so here it is again.
it could be that this bill will be interpreted to include webcam based online conference gathering. becareful with the webcam.
what is the quantifiable effect of 3 opposition members?
i mean since the People of Singapore, that is Citizens,
for 40 over years DENY the Growth of opposition in the ‘house’,
even when there were opposition parties who took part in elections,
why are they allowing just 3 to be in the house to speak up for the People for alternative points of views?
I mean, why not DENY ALL opposition ? I mean, what effect , if any, when only there is 3 ?
My question goes out to the majority, who should know fully well who they are, IF they are reading. Internet squad, pls rely message if they not reading. would appreciate their generosity in replying my question.
whatever bill, how can it be denied or so-called VETO’d when there are only 3 ?
This is a question. Only if you have the answer should you attempt to reply.
10) Web Cam Conference on April 14th, 2009 11.24 pm
Good suggestion.
But this suggestion is now in the public domain. kekekekeke.
Anyways, i suspect a new bill can always come up in future, where necessary. ;)
what a great piece, i enjoyed readng it. analytical and in depth, very well done.
the act was of course positively covered in the ST, one MP even called it the liberalization of citizen rights that will contribute to opening up Singapore.. I almost choked on my lunch when i heard that. It’s a farce.
Thanks to the TOC for providing alternative viewpoints and analysis once again.
The recent changes to the Films Act were to prohibit S’poreans from filming the police in action or protesters in action.
This Public Order Act is to make sure that videographers, fimmakers and protesters do not even get to protest or be at certain events.
Together, it’s a blanket ban.
And I thought we were progressing towards an “open society”?
K Sham-ugam is really a sham of a Law Minister.
What a pity.
For those PAP MP who can call this bill true liberalisation of Singapore will regret when their children go after them complaining that they were move around by police from one area to another area in orchard road and shopping malls where the police are conducting ‘move on order’. See whether their children still feel that its true liberalisation.
I am calling all youth of Singapore to reject this bill and rise from your half a century of slumber to do something about it, for this is going to be like a cancer implant by the government on the very heart of your sense of freedom as a true human being. Your whole spiritual, mental and physical well being will feel the stress and anxiety of living when you move out of your house to the public places where you most likely meet policeman who may ask you to move on whenever they like without question ask.
Its time that we send those who support this bill packing home and we shall reform the government.
Just a thought:
If one day a rogue govt comes into power – or if the PAP turns corrupt – imagine the kind of unlimited power to oppress they will have with all these draconian and blanket laws in place.
They can probably shoot you point blank just for standing in a public place and it would be legal.
Many many years ago an MP ( passed away already) said something to the effect that many a time the Government make provisions with the right figuratively to the effect of using a sledge hammer to kill a mosquito ( probably biting & drawing blood) . 30 years on, and It is 2009 now! And yet the sledge hammer is getter bigger and bigger…..
I have live long enough to see what that MM had said; he is still my hero.
Perhaps now it becomes clear why we have a new Law Minister; and very co-incidentally the boss is coming back early from Pattaya but misses parliament.
Long live the king.
Young NTUC Forum
A place to air your views on anything from kiasuism to knowledge based economies. Young NTUC Forums—-The place where the only bad opinion is none at all.
Skip to content
Advanced search Board index Change font size Register Login
Information
You have been permanently banned from this board.
Please contact the Board Administrator for more information.
Reason given for ban: Have given warnings prior to ban for unwarranted challenges to the forum admins
A ban has been issued on your username.
khek khek khek
maybe the minister should issued such a decree as above…..
Actually, it should be called a “move away” and not “move on” bill, since the objective is to move ppl away from a so called potentially threatening situation.
Now onwards, we can and will be “shooed away” at any place by any police for reasons that we’ll probably never get to know. This is worst than Orwell’s vision of 1984.
Anyone seen V for Vendetta? It’s a movie all Singaporeans should watch
Since Singapore’’s (mankind’s) dawn a handful of
Rulers (oppressors) have accepted the
responsibility over our lives, responsibility that we
should have accepted ourselves.
By doing so, they took our power.
By doing nothing, we gave it away
From the Straits Times, April 14 2009, Page B7 on Parliament debate on April 26 2009:
As for Ms Lim’s concern that the wording of the law could be read to cover filming of routine police acts, the minister said he would relook the definition.
If the wording needs to be relooked, should the law be passed at this point in time?
All the recent changes to our laws really saddens me.
Oops, sorry….. should be April 13 iso 26.
From the Straits Times, April 14 2009, Page B7 on Parliament debate on April 13 2009:
Can someone please enlighten me as to how this is liberalization?
We are certainly catching up with the standards of foreign countries such as Burma and North Korea. All we need now is all our landlines, mobilelines, internet connections to be tapped, monitored and profiled according to what you say and what you surf, anonymous reporting of your “friends/family/spouse/colleagues” if they have any anti-government sentiments which includes but not limited to, the exorbitant paychecks of the MIW, rising costs, lack of transparency and the perpetual wayang of a few and we’ll be exactly just like another “democratic” country like North Korea. Where only YOUR government knows what you need best.
Regards,
doc.
16) Andrew Loh on April 15th, 2009 12.50 am
While people may argue that such laws are not as democratic as a democratic citizen may like, I like to share a thought as well, which is , the People also can have influence on such laws. As long as the people accept, the minority opinion holders have to accept the result as well. Thus, the People is the element we should not forget to mention. Its really about them.
Correct me if I am the wrong.
yes people pl go watch “V for Vendetta”….it will not be long before we see ourselves becoming to that state! Problem is we would not be fortunate enough to have a V to give us a rude awakening call and do we want to risk that??!
A&E (Appalled And Embarrassed)
If Comrade Napoleon says it is true, it must be true! I will work harder!
A&E (Appalled And Embarrassed)
25) It the People on April 15th, 2009 10.07 am
“As long as the people accept, the minority opinion holders have to accept the result as well. ”
You assume the people’s acceptance is objective and uninfluenced by the policy makers. Is that true?
This does not affect the majority of singaporeans – now. What if you find yourself dissatisfied someday in the future and wants to do something about that dissatisfaction? This is like putting a leash on a dog while it is at rest – except that we are not dogs and have no excuse to be surprised when we find our freedoms limited when we do want to exercise them.
Looks like changing the government totally should be the goals of the opposition and not just increasing the number of opposition seats in the next election. The people of Singapore who love Singapore and their people should also make this their goals in the next election to bring down this bill that limits the freedom of human existence in public places.
“Worse, there will be no judicial review of a move-on order: the home minister alone can decide on an appeal.
Your article is not strictly accurate here. There is apparently no provision for any appeal to the Minister in relation to a police officer’s direction to move-on; although the police officer’s exercise of discretion is probably subject to judicial review under the general administrative law rules that he/she may not act irrationally, illegally or improperly.
There is provision for an appeal to the Minister with respect to a decision to refuse to grant or to cancel a permit, and the Minister’s decision is subject to judicial review — Shanmugam explicitly stated so in response to NMP Thio’s question.
Nevertheless, I do agree that the new Act makes severe incursions into the right to freedom of expression. This is even more troubling in light of how this piece of legislation was rushed through with indecent haste, a mere 3 months since it was first broached by WKS, and without the benefit of public consultation or a Select Committee debate.
You people are just mean-spirited.
I don’t understand why most of you like to bash the PAP without getting the facts right first.
I seem to get the feeling that you lot are rights advocates. But remember this is fanatism. It will only lead to a extremely dangerous path. Can you not see that our kind and loving govt who every year comes up with the most compassionate budget the world has ever seen is only trying to do the best for it’s citizens?
Would any MNC want to plant it’s operations in an island full of fanatics? Think about it. Wait your women and children go to foreign countries be maid then you know.
But being the kind and compassionate govt it is, Protests are still allowed given a few conditions are met.
(From the top of my head, so don’t press me for accuracy)
(Legal means not arrested – to my knowledge at least, so please feel free to correct me)
1) 13 Tak Boleh Tahan Singaporeans – Illegal
2) I got a few more but the common link is that SDP member + Protest = Illegal.
3) CASE + Hundreds of Singaporeans = Legal
4)Less than 10 Burmese + Protest = Illegal
5)Hundreds of Chinese Foriegn Workers + MOM + Protest = Legal
6)Hundreds of (Bangladeshi?) Foreign Workers + MOM = Legal
7) One Singaporean Auntie + Bank + Protest = Legal
So it’s simple. If you are hundreds of foreign workers/Affliated with a consumer watchdog/a Singapore Auntie your protest is legal. Oh and you must not be a member of the SDP.
Ohnani. Thanks for the clear explanation and I thought I misunderstood the good intentions of our rulers.
Now I understand clearly that the POB is a law against the SDP and the exception is when you are affliated with the ruling party.
However I am now confused by why our powerful almighty government is passing a law just to deal with the insignificant losers SDP.
25) It the People on April 15th, 2009 10.07 am
“As long as the people accept, the minority opinion holders have to accept the result as well.”
going by your logic, can the majority who may happen to disagree with this piece of law come in the public to signal their intention / disagreement. chicken and egg kind of situation.
will a referendum (though costly) be conducted to size up the acceptance level given that it very much involves the fundamental part on the freedom of expression.
(32)OIC
I think you have misunderstood me again. The only thing right about your comment is the line “Good intentions of our rulers”
“POB is a law against the SDP and the exception is when you are affliated with the ruling party”????
Are you suggesting the PAP practises partisanship and they crush their opponents no matter how insignificant their strength is to the PAP and thus creating a shroud of fear enveloping our island nation, silencing all critics with the threat of repercussions like bankruptcy which would make the PAP a party of power hungry dictators intent of staying in power by all means possible even at the expense of Singaporeans?
How dare you!
Blasphemer!
Repent and see the PAP for the shining light they are to our little Island.
Kishore Mahbubani, Dean of the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy, who is a person i respect very much for his wisdom wrote in 2001
“There are no homeless, destitute or starving people in Singapore. Poverty has been eradicated, not through an entitlements program (there are virtually none) but through a unique partnership between the government, corporate citizens, self-help groups and voluntary initiatives.”
How else could this have been achieved if not for the PAP.
(32) OIC please wake up!
Losers ? Who are the winners then ?
“However I am now confused by why our powerful almighty government is passing a law just to deal with the insignificant losers SDP.”
Losers ? They are the very ones who possess the kind of characteristics that leaders need to have in order to be leaders. That is why they get all the 1st class treatment. If you are just so so and easy to manage, they do not even need to pay you any attention.
Of course, the not-so-successful ones do not get to tell their stories – that’s life.
I hope the minister’s word become prophetic – “the voters will judge, at the end”…
I am Singaporean X - Open/Close « Die neue Welle
[...] if they suspect him or her to be potentially dangerous to public order. Now, according to TOC, “the Act will allow the police to act “without people being able to argue about it”. [...]
[...] here, here, here and here for some good ones [...]
#2 Lee,
Do waste time with your Chan Soo Sen – this is the guy who does not even know that another MOS was sent to help out in his constituency – he only found out in the news report subsequently.
He is the first to volunteer stepping down perhaps to pre-empt being sacked. Look at his Joo Chiat and the long drawn red light district. affairs. So the writing is on the wall.
Comments are that he was always travelling ? where else – China. Perhaps he can do better there.Good luck to him.
You point highlighted to the MP concern is very valid and deserves the courtesy of a reply. Your point can be a practical solution to Joo Chiat. Sadly your MP cannot see, and missed the opportunity to use it.
As per Comment # 36 by Ravi Philemon: “I hope the minister’s word become prophetic – “the voters will judge, at the end”…
Will Singaporeans (ever) Stand Up For Singapore?
Go back to GE held in Nov 2001. It was just two months after the PAP tied the prioritization of HDB’s Lift Upgrading Program to the precinct’s votes for PAP in Sep 2001. Yet Singaporeans let Greed (viz, higher resale value after lift upgrading) prevail over Right (viz, rejecting use of public funds to secure political party’s future).
One can only hope that in the decade since, Singaporeans have matured a little more politically.
The Pariah, http://www.singaporeenbloc.blogspot.com
It turns out that Ian Tomlinson, who died during the G20 protests, might have been killed by a policeman after all.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8004222.stm
Mr Shanmugam of course believes that none of our boys in blue could ever make such rash and tragic errors in the course of their policing duties. Clearly far less likely than say, the chances that their homes and their families would be individually targeted by terrorists if they’re caught on film policing just about anything ( yes that’s exactly what he argued when defending the Public Order Act. )
Jiekai #41,
There is hardly any data for Mr Shanmugan to base his belief that SPF boys would make rash and tragic errors in their course of duties. Moreover, as minister, is it acceptable for the public that he should make policy decisions based on mere gut feeling?
Moreover, why would terrorists target policemen when their goal is terrorism? The whole point here is to spread fear among the populace and there is no one better in doing that in Singapore other than the PAP Government itself.
Leave a Reply
Uncategorized - Jan 15, 2010 10:12 - 126 Comments
It is affordable – Mah Bow Tan
More In Uncategorized
- Rebutting Law Minister K Shanmugam
- Challenge of communication
- TOC & Talk Politics hold successful Year in Review forum
- “Live” from Post Museum – TOC’s Year End Review
- The Fajar Generation
Uncategorized - Jan 15, 2010 10:12 - 126 Comments
It is affordable – Mah Bow Tan
More In Uncategorized
- Rebutting Law Minister K Shanmugam
- Challenge of communication
- TOC & Talk Politics hold successful Year in Review forum
- “Live” from Post Museum – TOC’s Year End Review
- The Fajar Generation
That’s why with 50% walkovers, 66% mandate and 98% of the seats, all kinds of bills and Acts can be passed easily.
Opposition argue or oppose in Parliament, bloggers on the internet or anywhere also no use.
So opposition please contest all the seats with credible candidates at the next election.
Then we netizens, citizens and what not Singaporeans can exercise it at the ballot box to put an end to all this.
Haha. I just talk cock and sing song, just like the opposition and MPs who argue against the Bills in Parliament but still pass it anyway.