seriously, the same thing happened to me n my friends once too. the gurad says we must register at the counter. when my friend went to the counter, the counter staff says no need to clarify or register. dunno what PUB is up to with all these inconsistencies.
There are uniform armed police guards at Marina Barrage. Probably from Cisco. The place's isolated though open to public. Certain areas are restricted 24hrs without official visiting permission or pass. If the guards see you doing something not appropriate they will approach you. As long as they are polite in their request should not be a problem.
I see there's some confusion and questions over this comment made previously by another poster:
I've looked up the actual case itself and the words "a course of conduct that causes alarm and not a single incident" does not appear anywhere in the judgment, hence you guys will need to ask the original poster what he meant.(a) People. When you take photographs of strangers or of property belonging to strangers, it could amount to harassment. Unlike other jurisdictions such as the UK, Singapore does not have legislation regarding harassment, but the tort of harassment has been recognised in the case of Malcomson v Narseh Kumar Mehta  4 SLR 454. Having said that, it is unlikely that taking a photo would amount to harassment because the legal requirement is that there must be ‘a course of conduct that causes alarm and not a single incident’. As far as I know Singapore does not have any other privacy laws.
That said, in the actual case, what was held is as follows:
"‘Harassment’ mean a course of conduct by a person, whether by words or action, directly or through third parties, sufficiently repetitive in nature as would cause, and which he ought reasonably to know would cause, worry, emotional distress or annoyance to another person. This definition was not intended to be exhaustive but one that sufficiently encompassed the facts of the present case."
In that particular case, the facts were:
"Mehta subsequently embarked on a course of conduct with such persistence that he made life unbearable for Malcomson and his former colleagues at Zerity. He - (a) trespassed, and made a nuisance of himself, at Malcomson’s residence and at Zerity’s office, (b) made numerous telephone calls, and sent numerous e-mails and SMS messages to Malcomson and Zerity’s staff, and (c) harassed Malcomson. These acts caused the plaintiffs much annoyance and distress."
Mehta is the defendant, and Malcomson is the Plaintiff.
Hence, in that case, it was a series of repeated incidents which led to a finding of harrassment. What is the original poster's view is that one single incident of taking a photograph is not likely to amount to liability under this tort of harrassment.
I hope it is now clearer to those who had asked the question.
Actually, I think we need a forum to discuss this in Singapore so that we wont go the way in UK where photographers get handcuffed and taken to the police station on account of taking pictures, even of buildings. I think we need clubsnap perhaps to organise such a forum, and get a member card. Moderator, could you take this up for us?
I went to UK and dared not take my DSLR, but took my G9, less obtrusive. Even then, I had to ask the security guard in the shopping center, and even in Harrods, whether I can take pictures. Sometimes they tell you what can be taken and how it can be taken (taking picture of shopping complex, No! taking photo of some one, in front of the same view of the complex you intend to take, ok..)
sometimes its better to let things be so that flexibility could be practice, when rules are drawn out, you think it will be err on the side of photographers? or the property owners?
i find that such discrimination is due to the lack of knowledge or exposure in the public, and not because 'u got DSLR i come hamtam you cause your camera big'.
Right now, the situition is quite ok, but im sure we all foresee that this would become a huge problem when DSLRs are even more common in SG, maybe in 5 years time.
We should get some event going on to educate the public, and maybe even let everyone try using some 'display models' at these places, say in shopping malls, or just outside in the field instead of keeping them within shops and amongst DSLR-users. Singaporeans are Kiasu by nature (aunty pull her kid 2 carriages away in the mrt when i coughted from choking on my water......) and thus are extremely cautious of what they don't know/unsure about.
If we want the sterotyping to stop, we cannot just show them the law book and say 'law never say i cannot take photo leh!', instead, we should show them and tell them why are you taking photos (hobby, competition etc) and in the long run, DSLRs may even compete with the PnS market!
Just my thoughts.
I get harassed by everybody and their dog whenever I bring my stuff out to shoot in Singapore. even before the proliferation and influx of dslrs, I still got bugged by people. even though I was using some old Minolta 700 thingamajig, and it sure as hell didn't look professional by my (often lofty) standards back then.
however. there's a couple of ways that I've learnt to deal with people like that, depending on my mood.
1) when approached by a person in uniform who proceeds to tell me that no photography is allowed, I'll ask for the name of the person, and say "is it alright if I ask management saying that you, Joe Bloggs, said that I can't be taking any pictures here?"
2) pull a quick (and often bad) Aussie accent going "mate. two more shots mate."
3) go "que?" (Spanish for huh/what?) and pretend that I no spekkty english.
all three have worked to my advantage so far.
Hey guys! Good news...
Someone actually emailed FAS to clarify the situations on photography from the stands and here is FAS response. I got to know this through my friend who is familiar with the local football scene...
This email is to clear up any doubts on whether we allow photography enthusiasts to take pictures from the stands during S.League matches.
Yes, we do allow spectators to take photos from the stands. We also have no issue on the type of camera they are using. For those who are using cameras with long lenses, we just have to make sure they do not obstruct or intrude into the persons sitting in front or around them. If they are, politely inform them to move to an area where they will not be obstructing any spectators.
The only exception will be media photographers with media passes. They should not be shooting from the stands but from their designated areas for media photographers. The reason for them is that they should not be taking the space of a paying fan or someone who comes with a match ticket just to watch the game.
I hope the above clears up any misconceptions we may have. Please inform the relevant persons at your club especially security marshals.
Do get in touch should you have any clarification on the above.
Football Association of Singapore
So, guys.. Do continue to support local football and bring your big long lens to shoot... Haa.. If you are harrassed by any ignorant security or FAS personnel.. Can quote "Eric Ong" from the FAS..
That's an excellent reply. Should print and show to security officers during matches if these problems occur again next time.
E-M1/E-M5/E-PL6|12-40 f2.8|17|25|45|12-50|40-150 f2.8
Once again, it has been proven that security guards are making up their own rules; when will this ever end?
Actually, in my case, I feel the FAS volunteer was the one who wanted me to stop taking photos.. The security guard has no choice but to act according to the wishes of the management...
Funny how FAS did not communicate the rules to their own staff, resulting in all these miscomm among themselves....
Anyway, i had wanted to email FAS about this but seems like someone is more eager than me... Good that everything is clarify so we can take photos with a peace of mind...
If they don't have, then you don't have any reasons to believe that they are actually working on official capacity, do you?
And remember, you don't need to show them any personal identification. Not even the police can anyhow demand for your identification (unless under special circumstances).
In this position of power, they're less likely to make ridiculous demands that they are not certain of, because you can always know exactly who made the "demand", and they don't know who they are dealing with.