Andrew Loh
Two articles from The New Statesman and The Economist show that abuse of powers by the police can happen if left unchecked. How does our new Public Order Act square up to this?
After the demonstrations during the recent G20 summit in London, the biggest story is not about the alleged rowdiness of the demonstrators but the possible misconduct of the police in handling the protestors as well as their involvement in the death of a British by-stander.
This goes to show that the law minister’s rhetoric during the recent debate over the Public Order Bill about believing that policemen are “fundamentally honest” is missing the point: given that the latter are the ones carrying guns and batons, it is important to ensure that there is proper oversight over police powers, which is critically missing from the Bill. Instead, what the Bill does is to grant the police even more abitrary powers.
No one would advocate crippling the effectiveness of the police force – but it is crucial to ensure that there is proper accountability when something does go wrong. Worryingly, the government’s track record gives little reassurance that the public can expect such accountability.
The truth of the G20 case of Ian Tomlinson and the other one of Brazillian Jean Charles de Menezes, wrongly suspected of being a potential suicide bomber who was shot by British police, came to light only when video footages (from a by-stander and from CCTVs) revealed that what had taken place were contrary to what the police had first claimed.
In Singapore’s Public Order Act and in the amended Films Act, the police can stop anyone from filming such events and order the person to destroy the recording. What would have happened if Britain’s police too had powers to do the same? (Watch the four videos below)
Excerpts from The New Statesman, “Public enemy number one“:
In the case of de Menezes, the police briefed for a full 24 hours that the victim was an Islamist terrorist – “Suicide bomber shot on Tube” was the Sky News strapline – and only eventually conceded that he was innocent. Andy Hayman, then the Met’s head of counterterrorism and intelligence, was later shown to have concealed his doubts about de Menezes’s guilt from the Met commissioner, Sir Ian Blair, during the hours and days after the shooting. Since then, details have emerged of how the police deleted and selectively presented CCTV footage and photographs of de Menezes. Furthermore, it was said that he had been running; that he had jumped the Tube barriers; that he had been wearing a bulky coat; and that he had been challenged verbally by police. In fact, CCTV footage finally released in July 2007 shows a lightly dressed de Menezes calmly picking up a morning newspaper and strolling through the station barriers on to the escalator.
Similarly, on the day that Tomlinson died of a heart attack the Met issued a wholly misleading statement. A member of the public, it said, told police that “there was a man who had collapsed round the corner”. Officers, it was claimed, had tried to help medics save his life as “missiles, believed to be bottles”, were hurled at them.
The reality, again revealed in video, shows Tomlinson walking with his hands in his pockets, offering neither resistance nor threat to the police line behind him. Next, he is struck around the legs by a baton-wielding Territorial Support Group officer who then shoves Tomlinson to the ground. After “bouncing” – a witness’s word – on the ground, a terrified Tomlinson can be seen looking up in disbelief at the officers, who stand back, leaving the public to tend to him.
What connects de Menezes, Tomlinson and countless other victims of brutality is the fact that the police get away with it. Each outrage is treated as an isolated incident; the link running through them is left unmade.
“I cannot see how the City of London Police could have been expected to be the right vehicle for investigating Tomlinson’s death, when they were part of the same policing operation,” says the former London mayor Ken Livingstone.
For decades, politicians from both main parties have praised the police and bolstered them with new powers. Yet the force remains the one public body in the United Kingdom not subject to the spotlight of scrutiny
Excerpts from The Economist, “The camera is mightier than the sword“:
Despite the threats to destroy capitalism and hang the bankers, the real hero of London’s G20 demonstrations on April 1st may turn out to be an American fund manager. The anonymous capitalist accidentally filmed a policeman assaulting Ian Tomlinson, a newspaper vendor who was making his way home through the protest. Mr Tomlinson was clubbed from behind with a baton and shoved to the ground as he walked away from a line of officers, hands in his pockets. He subsequently died of a heart attack.
Just as the shock of that footage was receding, another video nasty emerged. In it a woman at a vigil for Mr Tomlinson on the following day is slapped and baton-thwacked by a different officer. The Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) is now investigating both cases. Given that most of the 5,000-odd protesters had cameras, more may well emerge.
—–
Videos of the two most recent incidences in London:
G20 protest video sparks outrage online
Ian Tomlinson death: New video footage from G20 protests gives fresh angle on attack
New footage emerges of alleged G20 police misconduct
G20 police manhandle protesters to the ground
—–
Yup! let’s give them more powers! Now to arrest those who borrow from loansharks to feed their families, because they do not earn enough to borrow from the bank. And because life is such a constant that no misfortunes happens to those earning meagre incomes and have no savings, that they wont have to borrow. So that the father who borrows from the loanshark to put food on the table for his family because he was retrenched and CDC says to him that he don’t need to come for the interview because they have no jobs on their database. Anyways he had a choice between getting his family to starve and borrowing from the loanshark. he should have chosen to let his family starve! And anyways, data shows that a lot of them become runners from the loansharks that they borrow from! So, let’s get these guys who borrow from the loansharks! And keep the loansharks in business because those who borrow from them now wont come out and admit that they are harrassed by the loansharks because now they have become criminals as well. Well done! Excellent policies!
Let us all work towards putting the Public Order Act to cease. The moment of it’s introduction cannot be more momentous. There are many cases of police brutality against the common man. Now with these laws to entrench power to the ruling class, there is no away to gather evidence against abuse of power. Singapore will be doomed if we do not speak against this law. Singaporeans do not understand the severity of this law. For those who understand it, please explain to the common man what this law means.
POA is called Tai Ji. Simply push the force back to the police. If anything goes wrong, the minister in charge still get to keep the job and the police or inspector, as in Mas Selamat incident, will be blamed and disciplinary dealth with. No risk for the minsters, the police keep them safe and any err on the police side, either peasant to blame or the police to blame. Win Win situation?
Not as severe here in Singapore, but this video provided very compelling arguments.
http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/peter_gabriel_fights_injustice_with_video.html
So pleased TOC’s brought this to light. Singaporeans need to be well aware of how the arbitrariness of police powers is simply laid to rest behind the rhetoric of the nation’s fragility.
Why they pass the law, they are most interested in the political careers than the citizens life, they are on top of world. When the Masters are outside the doors, the K9 are in place, they have every power to chase away people( move on) so there are nothing to fear about and just get the person into jail, anytime and anywhere,..
They are KINGS of KINGs,,,No one can stop them………..MANY k9 are more fierce than before………..What is LAWs, they are the LAWs……
Better to leave Singapore, or many are going to jail for nothing,,,,,,
Absolute power corrupts. Another step to the police state, covering up the misdeeds of those in power and preventing anyone not in their pockets from revealing the truth. Much as he claim that the government is opening up, but clearly this is a contradiction, showing his power hungry nature and intolerance to critics.
This law gives the police too much power. Anything can easily be passed under this law. People taking video of political happenings can have their phones confiscated. Unjust which needed to be covered up, can easily be covered up by invoking such a ruling.
This is another step in the tightening of the civil freedoms.
Sometime ago, the government wanted to pass a bill in parliament prohibiting private investigators from checking on MPs. Instead of hiring the PI that person must inform the police to take action. NCMP Sylvia Lim argued against the bill saying by the time the police were informed the bird would have flown away. It is common sense who the PAP wanted to protect. I don’t think people would want to hire PI to check on LKT or CST, our only 2 non-PAP MPs among the 82 PAP MPs.
I wonder what happen to the bill. Was it killed by Sylvia Lim?
This law must be stopped for all Singaporeans good. It is a bad law and there are cases to justify it.
It amazes me why there are some MPs sitting in Parliment and not saying a FIRM NO….to this law…..
Hey, MP’s…you too live here in Singapore and you have your kids growing up here…they will live here too…..and is this what you want…is this a society you want them to be in…..
Now….WKS will talk about getting the Ah Long borrowers charged too…..( this is because of the Casino)
Sooner or later when you wear a mini skirt and you get molested or raped…he will charge the victim as well…..for tempting the assailant….
WKS…they are hiring in IRAN…why don’t you take a trip….
Police honest ? Honestly, I am not so sure .. speak for yourself ….
Absolute Power … …
but then that is just a saying. not my saying.
I am not Singaporean. But I really don’t like this law. It is too MUCH…
Cheers!
Should hold a demonstration at Speaker’s Corner and put up some role play of likely police abuse with this oppressing the peasants law to make Singapore citizens more aware of the seriousness of this law that rob them of their physical existence in public places.
To all those who think that the POA should be repealed or never have been passed in the first place:
This Act has abused the legislative function and was designed specifically to curb the SDP’s civil disobedience campain – it has nothing to do with the ground reality in Singapore.
Having said that, how many of you here joined in to denounce the SDP’s civil disobedience campaign in the first place?
If you did, then you have no cause for complaint now; you gave your vote to the PAP to enact this diabolical piece of legiaslation.
It’s sad looking at how things have progressed (or more accurately, the lack of progress).
Brings back memories of police threatening to bring me in for wearing sharp earrings, it’s called “possession of dangerous weapon” if you’re interested. Maybe they should have checked with 77th Street for the “sale and distribution of dangerous weapons” instead, or check up on my nephew cause he has put too much gel causing his hair to be too sharp.
Go check with your friends who have served NS in the SPF, I’m sure they have stories to share.
This is opening a can of worms. As the old saying goes, Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?, meaning, who will guard the guards. While some of us may say that this legislation was passed to curb the civil disobedience by the SDP, how long is it going to take before it gets filtered down to the common man to turn this place into a police state? Sooner or later, this is calling for profiling of the citizens based on what you write, say and think and well, we can all see where this is going. I do not advocate civil disobedience but certainly, this legislation is taking the whole issue one step too far in attempting to silence the criticism and protect the vested interest of an elite few. It is no surprise that in the world today, there are many governments which silently snoop and sniff the data of their citizens in the name of protecting the country, while that is true, how many cases of data abuse has gone unreported, unseen and unheard of by the man in the streets? Anonymity on the internet is a facade. Anyone with enough time, resources and effort can and will trace you down if require. I worry about the state of things in this place I call home. We aren’t exactly far away from a more modernized version of North Korea and China where a certain group of people are always on the move to clamp down, silence and stem the flow of information for their own agenda.
Once something is passed,
it remains there as long as not repealed right?
But humans come and go.
get my point?
With Great Power Comes Great Opportunities To Abuse That Power!
Great Law! I’m loving it! NOT!
Sharks! Another good example of our local talents trying to find an easy way out for solution. Ever wonder why should we not consider outsourcing the job to foreign talent to save cost?
“In Singapore’s Public Order Act and in the amended Films Act, the police can stop anyone from filming such events and order the person to destroy the recording.”
They also have the power to stop a one man or woman protest, if they so wish.
We’ve just done a re-wind to 1930s Germany.
And don’t forget, its powers such as these that have kept Castro in power for 50 years (he’s still First Secretary of the Communist Party).
Whither are we heading, Singapore?
“Fundamentally Honest”??
Our ministers are so far from the ground they cannot tell a policemen from a prostitute if both of them wears blue.
I had friends who are policemen and they are into loan shark business, taking favors from KTV and prostitutes… who do you think are warning the Geylang pimps of impending raids? How many cases of police corruption cases have we had?
Does the PAP still thinks they are fundamentally honest? Even so, if just 5% of the police force is fundamentally dishonest, the power given to them would create havoc.
In this scenario, it no longer good enough that the majority of the police force are honest and good. We need 100% to award them such authority. As long as the minister cannot guarantee 100% and we have cases of police corruption/failures, we’ll be in danger with them having more power. What is the ruling party thinking and doing?
I will rest my case if international reports ranks Singapore number 1 with absolute zero for possible corruption.
Now they are using the SPF to do the dirty job for them. Wonder what comes next, the SAF? Can’t imagine what is becoming of singapore soon.
more and more confused. if indeed there is an abuse of police power, just record and report them. because it is simply criminal for abuse of police power to go unpunished. I am just wondering how on earth they could come with an act which may potentially protect the abuse of police power more than the person who records it in order to report it. it is so highly illogical.
while police are “fundamentally honest”, there is always a chance an error in judgement by individual officers in the heat of the moment.
local police must be able to stand up to any scutiny. not doing so will erode that level of trust & respect for our men in blue, & not let the situation go downhill. this cannot be said enough with the current security climate, as citizens are often encouraged to aid the police like when Mas Selamat escaped.
to err is human, police are humans too.
let’s err on the side of caution, as 1 can never be too careful.