SINGAPORE — There is no intention to use the proposed Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act (POSSPA) to regulate peaceful public assemblies, and it is “not meant for day-to-day policing”, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said on Thursday (March 15) following concerns from civil society groups that the new law could lead to abuse of police powers and oppression of protesters.

“If members of the public have any allegations of misconduct or abuse of powers by police officers when POSSPA has been activated, they should lodge a police report, or (report) directly to the ministry,” the MHA said in response to TODAY’s queries. “We have always taken a serious view of all feedback about police officers and will investigate thoroughly.”

On Tuesday, six civil society groups — the Association of Women for Action & Research, Function 8, Project X, Think Centre, the Humanitarian Organization for Migration Economics, and Transient Workers Count Too — released a media statement taking issue with the proposed law, which was tabled in Parliament last month. The Bill is slated to be debated by Members of Parliament next week when the House reconvenes.

The proposed Act seeks to protect the secrecy of tactical operations during serious incidents such as terrorist attacks. Among other things, it empowers the police to stop the public and the media from sharing information about ongoing security operations by taking videos, pictures, audio recordings, or text messages.

Such a ban — referred to as a “communications stop order” in the Bill — is “particularly puzzling” and the authorities have not provided sufficient justification for it, the civil society groups said. “This particular power gives rise to fears of undocumented abuse of police powers. Indeed, if disputes later arise as to police actions, the police would benefit from independent documentation, which they can point toward to strengthen public faith and confidence in their decisions,” they wrote.

The ban would also stop people from reassuring their families or informing them about how they may be affected by a serious incident. The groups added: “More importantly, the public would not be able to send the police information that may be useful to the police.”

In response, the MHA pointed out that the groups’ statement contained “some inaccurate assertions”.

The ministry reiterated that it had previously said publicly that the communications stop order “serves to prevent security operations being undertaken by police officers to resolve the terrorist or hostage situation from being compromised, and hence protect the safety of the officers and members of the public involved or caught up in the operations”.

When the order is in force, the public can still submit information to the police via the 999 hotline, or through the iWitness and SGSecure mobile applications. The police will also not take action against those caught up in the incident who make such communications — for example, people who are trapped in the incident location trying to get messages out.

The order is “not intended to be used in a peaceful public order scenario where there is no threat to lives and public safety”, the ministry stressed. It is also not meant to restrict press freedom or public access to information, the MHA added.

“When the ministry engaged senior reporters and editors of the local media at various platforms last month, before the introduction of the Bill in Parliament, we had informed them that following earlier consultations, we would allow selected media access into the incident area when the (order) is in force,” the MHA said. “They would be allowed to observe, record, film and take photographs of the ongoing security operations, for reporting and broadcast later, after the security operation is over.”

CONCERNS ON RAMIFICATIONS

The civil society groups also expressed concern that the new law may hamper peaceful protests on social issues that may benefit from open dialogue. They noted that sit-down demonstrations that attract “a large group of sympathisers” are listed in the Bill under the category of incidents that may cause “large-scale public disorder”.

They added: “A protest which gains sympathisers often reflects a serious social issue which would benefit from open dialogue. Law enforcement activities should be transparent, so that responsible policing is not only done, but also seen to be done. A communications blackout and a ban on independent documentation would instead heighten public distrust and undermine social cohesion.”

They urged the ministry to tighten the definition of “serious incidents”, such that peaceful protests are exempted, and to define what the threshold for an incident to be deemed as having caused “large-scale public disorder”.

They added that current laws already allow law enforcement agencies to act against illegal assemblies, and the proposed laws may cast a “chilling effect” on civil society by giving the police powers to “potentially act oppressively against protestors”.

“This is a Bill with ramifications for civil society… We cannot always assume that all future Governments will act with as much restraint as today’s Government. Civil society is an important check and balance to ensure good governance, and we should be careful not to enact laws that have the effect of undermining this mechanism,” the groups said.

The MHA reiterated the “high threshold” for activation of the special powers spelt out in the Bill. These can only be used by the police after the Minister for Home Affairs has issued an activation order.

“For the Minister to issue the order, he must be satisfied that a serious incident has occurred or is occurring in Singapore, or there is a threat of such a serious incident occurring, and that the special powers are necessary to prevent the occurrence of the incident, reduce its impact, or control, restore or maintain public order,” the ministry said. Such assessments are not made lightly, it stressed.

The Bill updates the existing Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA), which was enacted in 1958 to provide special powers to deal with large-scale communal riots.

While POPA also has powers to deal with large scale public disorder, the MHA pointed out that in fact, since 1958 throughout the history of POPA, “we have never once used it against public assemblies”.

“The local civil society groups would also know that public assemblies are allowed in Singapore under the existing framework set out in the Public Order Act,” it said.

The ministry noted that the civil society groups said in their statement that the Bill will treat peaceful protests in the same way as terrorist violence, and this should not be the case as the former are non-violent and do not threaten public safety.

But the MHA pointed out: “It is disingenuous to assert that large-scale assemblies are devoid of violence and injuries. In the 2011 London Riots, at least 202 people, including police officers, were injured, and five people died, after what started off as a peaceful assembly.”

The difference between existing legislation and the proposed POSSPA is new provisions which would allow the authorities to “better deal with today’s prevailing terror threat”, the MHA reiterated.

Other provisions in the Bill include enabling the police to direct building owners to take certain actions — such as closing their premises, restricting entry and exit or providing officers with information like floor plans — to facilitate security operations.

It will also empower the police to demand information from individuals who were in the proximity when the incident took place. In the case of a manhunt, for instance, bystanders are obliged to provide information on the identity and movements of the suspects that may be privy to, if asked by the police. Those who fail to comply with the proposed laws may be jailed up to two years and/or fined up to S$20,000.