parliament passes new bill


Status
Not open for further replies.
Jun 5, 2008
1,089
0
0
PenguinVille.
#1
saw this on hwz

Under the new Bill, three types of activities will require permits: Those that demonstrate support for or against views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government; those that publicises a cause or campaign; and those that mark or commemorate any event.

Many sporting and recreational activities will be exempted. This means that 50 per cent of activities that now require permits will no longer be regulated by permit.

There will also be changes to the penalty regime. First-time offenders will be fined and repeat offenders will face stiffer penalties.

The Act will also give police officers new powers to issue pre-emptive "move-on" orders, which will be in written form, ordering demonstrators not to congregate at the intended rally area, or give them a chance to leave without getting arrested.

The police will also get special powers for international events, which Mr Shanmugam describes as "trophy targets for terrorists", where they can search people and personal property.

Police could even take such a person, who is believed to have such a film or picture, into custody if he refuses to stop filming or surrender his materials. But this does not apply to routine police duties.

http://www.nanyang100.com/singapore/5490.html
anyone know how this affects photography in public?:think:
 

Last edited:

Leong23

Senior Member
Oct 18, 2007
3,186
5
0
within myself
#3
Police could even take such a person, who is believed to have such a film or picture, into custody if he refuses to stop filming or surrender his materials. But this does not apply to routine police duties.

:what::what::what:
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#4
I've read some internet chatter that has dubbed this bill, the Chee Soon Juan law :p
 

obfuscate

New Member
Nov 20, 2008
1,524
1
0
#7
The laws we have are good at protecting the interest of the government but are very very poor at protecting consumers rights. SLS and Lucky Plaza are proof of how weak our laws are.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#8
Actually good at protecting the interest of BOTH the govt and the companies, but weak in protecting the poeple and the consumers.

Apparently the officila policy eason is to attract companies to come, damn the people :) The reason apparently is that strong consumer laws may dissuade companies to come - but how true is that, we can only discuss :)

The laws we have are good at protecting the interest of the government but are very very poor at protecting consumers rights. SLS and Lucky Plaza are proof of how weak our laws are.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#9
I just read something very funny about the debates that was reported in the ST.

Chiam had a concern about his election rallies where his supporters picked him up and off they go, and feared such a move will amount to holding a procession without a permit. Shanmugam said "the factt hat MrChiam has not been charged so far shows he's probably not breached the law and he should not have to worry".

1. Aren't they debating about the new law? Ie, he can be charged under the new regime, but obviously at the time he was carried off (in the past), there was no new regime.

2. Even discounting (1) above, it is wrong to say that just because someone isn't charged, means he has not breahced the law. You can breach the law and not yet get charged - case in point - homosexual activities, where homosexual acts are illegal, yet the Govt says they will not be enforcing the law and the law is essentially there just for show.
 

Oct 19, 2004
145
0
0
#10
2. Even discounting (1) above, it is wrong to say that just because someone isn't charged, means he has not breahced the law. You can breach the law and not yet get charged - case in point - homosexual activities, where homosexual acts are illegal, yet the Govt says they will not be enforcing the law and the law is essentially there just for show.
Vince is referring to prosecutorial discretion. Can be quite controversial at times, right Vince? ;)
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#12
Yup, I think it is a very controversial topic. My own personal view is that such discretion must be exercised very judiciously, otherwise there will no longer be certainty or consistency in the legal process or legal framework.

Vince is referring to prosecutorial discretion. Can be quite controversial at times, right Vince? ;)
 

Jun 5, 2008
1,089
0
0
PenguinVille.
#13
Yup, I think it is a very controversial topic. My own personal view is that such discretion must be exercised very judiciously, otherwise there will no longer be certainty or consistency in the legal process or legal framework.
eh for now i'm just asking how's this affect us if we shoot on location. let's keep the politics out of this b4 the thread can fulfill its intended purpose ;)
 

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,694
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#14
Police could even take such a person, who is believed to have such a film or picture, into custody if he refuses to stop filming or surrender his materials. But this does not apply to routine police duties.

:what::what::what:
eh for now i'm just asking how's this affect us if we shoot on location. let's keep the politics out of this b4 the thread can fulfill its intended purpose ;)

the keyword to note is in bold

this is only if you refuse to stop and/or surrender the images upon request
i don't see the problem
 

creampuff

Senior Member
Jul 11, 2006
5,116
1
0
Dover
#16
So let's pose this dilemma of shooting at a public location...
You like shooting building exteriors and want to shoot the exterior of Ren Ci Hospital or the National Neuroscience Institute at Irrawaddy Road which also happens to be opposite the New Phoenix Park where there are explicit signs of not permitting any photography or video. So how can or not?
 

ortega

Moderator
Staff member
Nov 2, 2004
23,694
10
38
Singapore, Singapore, Singapor
#17
does the signs specify which areas it is referring to?

if yes then just don't shoot it and if/when the police ask you to stop and show then your photos, then show them lor
 

Jun 5, 2008
1,089
0
0
PenguinVille.
#18
So let's pose this dilemma of shooting at a public location...
You like shooting building exteriors and want to shoot the exterior of Ren Ci Hospital or the National Neuroscience Institute at Irrawaddy Road which also happens to be opposite the New Phoenix Park where there are explicit signs of not permitting any photography or video. So how can or not?
exactly what i was asking. the explicit signs forbidding photography is extremely stupid esp if its in a touristy spot.
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#19
The problem is that right now, the Bill as tabled, does not limit it to routine police activities, despite what the Minister says.

The problem with what the Minister says and what is law is, that whilst Hansard can be used to interpret the law, most people don't even know where to go and get the Hansard.

Take a look at Sylvia Lim's speech here, where the details are discussed:

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2009/04/the-workers-party-opposes-public-order-bill/

Scroll to the section called "Filming Of Law Enforcement Activities"

That's the problem with ST reports and everything - it may not show the full picture.


the keyword to note is in bold

this is only if you refuse to stop and/or surrender the images upon request
i don't see the problem
 

V

vince123123

Guest
#20
Honestly, I'll wait for the bill to pass into an Act before spending the time to review it. No point review and then its changed then I need to review it twice.

eh for now i'm just asking how's this affect us if we shoot on location. let's keep the politics out of this b4 the thread can fulfill its intended purpose ;)
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom