Surveying of MRT Stations

[vince123123]

As for your comment that "This article defines what is a security area.", you will also note that Section 48(1) states that "if he considers it to be necessary for the purpose of suppressing such organised violence, proclaim such area as a security area for the purposes of this Part".

Hence the precursor to anything relating to a security area under the ISA is that a proclaimation must first be made.

Lets also revisit Section 48(3) and (4) of the ISA:

s48(3) A proclamation made under subsection (1) shall be published in such manner as the Minister thinks necessary for bringing it to the notice of all persons who in his opinion ought to have notice thereof and shall have effect as soon as such notice has been given, without publication in the Gazette.

s48(4) A copy of every proclamation made under subsection (1) shall be published in the Gazette and shall be presented to Parliament as soon as possible after it has been made.

The proclaimation must be made in accordance with s48(3) and later published in the Gazette and presented to Parliament in s48(4). I doubt that press statements ALONE will satisfy both s48(3) and (4).

I'm not sure about your hypothetical situation, but that's how the ISA seems to work. Perhaps the security area can be the whole of Singapore, but still, the proper method of proclaimation must happen before it is designated as a security area.

ok, let us revisit article 48 of the ISA which was posted earlier:

"48. —(1) If in the opinion of the President public security in any area in Singapore is seriously disturbed or threatened by reason of any action taken or threatened by any substantial body of persons, whether inside or outside Singapore, to cause or to cause a substantial number of citizens to fear organised violence against persons or property, he may, if he considers it to be necessary for the purpose of suppressing such organised violence, proclaim such area as a security area for the purposes of this Part."

Comment: This article defines what is a security area. Since Singapore as a whole has been threatened by reason of terrorist action threatened by terrorist organisations such as JI, Singapore's security is threatened. Not just localised areas like Toa Payoh, or Woodlands, or Katong. the whole of Singapore is at risk, therefore the whole of singapore is a security area. whether you go to an MRT station in boon lay or pasir ris, the security checks will be equally stringent. when DPM Tony Tan states "Singapore is a terrorist target", he wasn't referring only to specific high value targets in Singapore (which are subject to higher levels of security), but to all parts of Singapore. you simply do not know where terrorists will strike next.

let's look at a hypothetical scenario in your world of fair play, conclusive evidence and perfect information: Terrorists threaten to strike a target, say a school. the terrorists inform our security forces of their intended strike. our security forces establish this as a credible threat. President Nathan proclaims the school as a security area. a gazette is passed in parliament stating the school as a security area. our security forces move in to nullify the terrorist threat. this sounds nice in theory but i suspect is rather unlikely to happen in real life.

 

[zaren]

the proper method of proclaimation must happen before it is designated as a security area.

you will agree that the Minister decides the manner of his proclamation of a security area. well, he has already decided that it is in the form of a press statement, and has already done so. do you now suggest that the Minister has acted improperly?

 

[vince123123]

hehe you sure have a way of an alternative interpretation to what I mean.

for the avoidance of doubt, I meant that if the Minister's press statements is to be construed as a proclaimation of a security area, the proclaimation should also be in the Gazette, which is why I am asking if you know which issue of the Gazette the proclaimation is made.

Also, I seriously doubt that these press statements are proclaimations within the meaning of s48. The usual form of notifications/proclaimations/declarations of definitions in main legislations are usually a very formal affair. However, this is just my view, I may be wrong and the Minister really intended as you contend, that the press statements are proclaimations of security areas within the meaning of s48 ISA.

you will agree that the Minister decides the manner of his proclamation of a security area. well, he has already decided that it is in the form of a press statement, and has already done so. do you now suggest that the Minister has acted improperly?

 

[zaren]

A terrorist act is not covered under offences under Part III of the ISA. The only offences are those above. From the above, it is worth considering if the above s58-62 was intended to cover photography such that photography would commit one of the above offences.

Arguably however, we can say that the taking of photographs may constitute a offence under s60(2) (possession of supplies which a person cannot satisfactorily account for and which raises a reasonable presumption that such supplies are for the use of a person who intends to, or about to act in a manner prejudicial to national security). The photographs are the "supplies" and there must have been no satisfactory account and a reasonable presumption of an act prejudicial to national security.

it would be helpful if you did not exclude certain wordings in the articles of the ISA.

to correct you,

S60(2) states "Any person who whether within or outside a security area is found in possession of any supplies for which he cannot satisfactorily account in circumstances which raise a reasonable presumption that such supplies are intended for the use of any person who intends, or is about, to act, or has recently acted, in a manner prejudicial to public security or the maintenance of public order, or that such supplies are intended for the use of any terrorist shall be guilty of an offence under this Part and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life. " (bold font added for emphasis).

clearly, terrorist acts or the preparation of terrorist acts are covered under offences under Part III of the ISA.

you have also conveniently omitted to mention S60(1) which states that the collection of such supplies, i.e. the collection of photographs, intended for the use of any terrorist constitutes an offence.

it's better to be safe than sorry - agreed. that's why our security forces will take no chances as far as photography of key installations is concerned.

 

[vince123123]

Erm, I already said that Section (not article) 60(2) could possibly cover this situation correct? Not sure what you are trying to prove here...

Anyway since you brought up terrorist, for the Section to apply, the photographer in question must be a terrorist in order for there to be an offence, or an attempt at an offence, and in order for the seizure powers to apply.

Anyway, on your deductions that press statements are proclaimations of "security areas", other than the fact that there is so far, no evidence in Gazettes that such proclaimations have been made, I just got off the telephone with the Internal Security Department and the officer I spoke to said that MRT stations are not "security areas".

Hope this has been helpful.

it would be helpful if you did not exclude certain wordings in the articles of the ISA.

to correct you,

S60(2) states "Any person who whether within or outside a security area is found in possession of any supplies for which he cannot satisfactorily account in circumstances which raise a reasonable presumption that such supplies are intended for the use of any person who intends, or is about, to act, or has recently acted, in a manner prejudicial to public security or the maintenance of public order, or that such supplies are intended for the use of any terrorist shall be guilty of an offence under this Part and shall be liable on conviction to imprisonment for life. " (bold font added for emphasis).

clearly, terrorist acts or the preparation of terrorist acts are covered under offences under Part III of the ISA.

you have also conveniently omitted to mention S60(1) which states that the collection of such supplies, i.e. the collection of photographs, intended for the use of any terrorist constitutes an offence.

it's better to be safe than sorry - agreed. that's why our security forces will take no chances as far as photography of key installations is concerned.

 

[zaren]

hehe you sure have a way of an alternative interpretation to what I mean.

for the avoidance of doubt, I meant that if the Minister's press statements is to be construed as a proclaimation of a security area, the proclaimation should also be in the Gazette, which is why I am asking if you know which issue of the Gazette the proclaimation is made.

Also, I seriously doubt that these press statements are proclaimations within the meaning of s48. The usual form of notifications/proclaimations/declarations of definitions in main legislations are usually a very formal affair. However, this is just my view, I may be wrong and the Minister really intended as you contend, that the press statements are proclaimations of security areas within the meaning of s48 ISA.

well, the fight against terrorism today requires fast reactions and sometimes pre-emptive strikes against the enemy. the slow process of formal declarations and proclamations will only serve to curtail the effectiveness of our security forces. the ISA is currently the main legislative weapon used against suspected terrorists, along with the Terrorism Suppression (Financing) Act. The ISA was drafted in 1963 to combat communists when the nature of civil unrest was quite different from today, it is likely that the ISA is not 100% perfect to deal with modern terrorist threats such as suicide bombings. however, i believe that the weapons employed in the fight against terrorism will be refined with time, as well as a re-moulding of the mindset of singaporeans to live with and deal with the terrorist threats facing our country.

 

[vince123123]

To clear things up, I did not "exclude" wordings. I've summarised it rather than vomit out the entire sections (s58-62 would take up lots of space in full). I did not miss out any important points and s60(1) has already been covered in the summary of s60 in the previous post.

it would be helpful if you did not exclude certain wordings in the articles of the ISA.

you have also conveniently omitted to mention S60(1) which states that the collection of such supplies, i.e. the collection of photographs, intended for the use of any terrorist constitutes an offence.

 

[zaren]

Erm, I already said that Section (not article) 60(2) could possibly cover this situation correct? Not sure what you are trying to prove here...

Anyway since you brought up terrorist, for the Section to apply, the photographer in question must be a terrorist in order for there to be an offence, or an attempt at an offence, and in order for the seizure powers to apply.

Anyway, on your deductions that press statements are proclaimations of "security areas", other than the fact that there is so far, no evidence in Gazettes that such proclaimations have been made, I just got off the telephone with the Internal Security Department and the officer I spoke to said that MRT stations are not "security areas".

Hope this has been helpful.

ok, thanks for clarifying. so that means anyone can take photographs of MRT stations without having to delete photos and surrender film. great! what is the name of the officer from ISD you spoke to? it would be helpful if we can quote him should we be accosted by security personnel.

 

[vince123123]

Thats the reason why they have Section 48(3) - to allow for quick reactions, and s48(4) to ensure that these proclaimations are duly recorded later on (when the "reaction" or "crisis" has passed).

Your suggestions that the procedures in the ISA should not be followed simply because we want to increase reaction time is therefore untenable.

well, the fight against terrorism today requires fast reactions and sometimes pre-emptive strikes against the enemy. the slow process of formal declarations and proclamations will only serve to curtail the effectiveness of our security forces. the ISA is currently the main legislative weapon used against suspected terrorists, along with the Terrorism Suppression (Financing) Act. The ISA was drafted in 1963 to combat communists when the nature of civil unrest was quite different from today, it is likely that the ISA is not 100% perfect to deal with modern terrorist threats such as suicide bombings. however, i believe that the weapons employed in the fight against terrorism will be refined with time, as well as a re-moulding of the mindset of singaporeans to live with and deal with the terrorist threats facing our country.

 

[vince123123]

I'm not sure what would happen if you get accosted by security personnel. The only question I asked was on the issue of security areas, since that appears to be something which we cannot agree about.

ok, thanks for clarifying. so that means anyone can take photographs of MRT stations without having to delete photos and surrender film. great! what is the name of the officer from ISD you spoke to? it would be helpful if we can quote him should we be accosted by security personnel.

 

[zaren]

Your suggestions that the procedures in the ISA should not be followed simply because we want to increase reaction time is therefore untenable.

read my post carefully. i did not suggest that the procedures in the ISA should not be followed. i said that the procedures in ISA may not be 100% effective in combating terrorism today, since the ISA was originally written in 1963. these procedures should be constantly refined to fight terrorism and preserve internal security more effectively.

 

[oceanxp]

Last year, one of my friends was taking pictures in City Hall MRT. His camera was confisicated by the MRT staff.

 

[zaren]

I'm not sure what would happen if you get accosted by security personnel. The only question I asked was on the issue of security areas, since that appears to be something which we cannot agree about.

since MRT stations are not security areas according to you, it would stand to reason that there is no need for any security checks and surveillance in MRT stations. now that you have confirmed with the ISD that it is so, taxpayer's money should not be wasted on security personnel in MRT stations.

can we at least agree on that?

 

[zaren]

Last year, one of my friends was taking pictures in City Hall MRT. His camera was confisicated by the MRT staff.

don't worry, he can quote vince123123's ISD officer (we need his name, rank and IC number please vince!) that MRT stations are NOT security areas and demand his camera back.

 

[khairi]

hmm...this is interesting.

what do you actually intend to take? just the facades? the ins and outs?

i think, if you take the ins and outs...mayb you'd get into trouble, but then...mayb not.

he he he...depends on luck, cos singaporeans are singaporeans. once they open their mouth, you'd be in trouble...just like me...dunno how many times liao.

taking photos at CT hal needs to be discreet...cant be open or your face get flushed in the toilet.

above all, just be careful...know where you are and who to watch, esp the cameras above you.

 

[vince123123]

You see zaren, MRT stations may not be security areas and do not fall under Part III of the ISA and associated offences. However, we are not sure if there are any other laws or rules or authority which empowers such rights to them to do so. Hence this discussion.

All we've achieved today is to say that MRT stations do not fall under security areas as far as the ISA is concerned. Still have to check up on whether there are any legislations covering this.

Also I think your steps in deductions go quite a great leap. Just because MRT stations are not security areas as defined in the ISA does not mean that security personnel in MRT stations are a waste of money. What happened to your beliefs against terrorism?

since MRT stations are not security areas according to you, it would stand to reason that there is no need for any security checks and surveillance in MRT stations. now that you have confirmed with the ISD that it is so, taxpayer's money should not be wasted on security personnel in MRT stations.

can we at least agree on that?

 

[LazerLordz]

Should have gotten the ISD officer's name.Quote him in any situation.But as usual, I think the Dept will disavow it.

 

[LazerLordz]

if you have read all the preceding posts carefully, you will note that written law has already been quoted extensively for you.

it would be helpful if you state your stand clearly and let us have your legal arguments to support your stand.

so what is your stand? that security officers have no right to demand that you delete your photos or to confiscate your film? we are all ears.

In this case, then your only recourse is hope that the police never give you a statement or proof of confiscation.That would make it a tricky situation, especially if you are assumed to have given him the card without any acknowledgement of his receipt.

Not to be anal, but sometimes its the laws that are hindering real anti-terror work.Think about it.

 

[zaren]

You see zaren, MRT stations may not be security areas and do not fall under Part III of the ISA and associated offences. However, we are not sure if there are any other laws or rules or authority which empowers such rights to them to do so. Hence this discussion.

All we've achieved today is to say that MRT stations do not fall under security areas as far as the ISA is concerned. Still have to check up on whether there are any legislations covering this.

Also I think your steps in deductions go quite a great leap. Just because MRT stations are not security areas as defined in the ISA does not mean that security personnel in MRT stations are a waste of money. What happened to your beliefs against terrorism?

it's very simple really, vince. either MRT stations are security areas, or they are not. are you changing your stand again?

we are having a logical discussion here. you state that MRT stations are not security areas. i add (logically) that since MRT stations are not security areas (according to you), then security personnel will not be required in MRT stations. what has that got to do with my beliefs against terrorism? in fact you are to be thanked for giving us this excellent news from your ISD officer!

 

[zaren]

Should have gotten the ISD officer's name.Quote him in any situation.But as usual, I think the Dept will disavow it.

have more faith in vince lah. i'm sure he will share this precious information with us photography enthusiasts.