V
vince123123
Guest
The current Public Order Bill has nothing to do with signs, or with enforcement by private buildings or the like.
parliament passes new bill
- Thread starter TheQuestion
- Start date
- Status
I'm not sure it is as clear cut as that. Knowing it is a restricted area, you may not even be permitted to stop, take out your camera and shoot the buildings opposite. Under the new bill it removes any ambiguity, you'll be asked to "move-on" or risk being detained or arrested. I think it is a real issue in our built-up environment.
so if the police ask you to move on and you insist that you have the right
they also have the right to take you in for investigation.
so you decide if that image is worth it or not
V
vince123123
Guest
Has that area been designated or issued with a move on order yet?
I think its very premature and I think a better reading up on the new laws is required before more comments fly from the hips
I mean, talk about signs and all? Those have nothing to do with the Public Order Bill.
I think its very premature and I think a better reading up on the new laws is required before more comments fly from the hips
I mean, talk about signs and all? Those have nothing to do with the Public Order Bill.
Has that area been designated or issued with a move on order yet?
I think its very premature and I think a better reading up on the new laws is required before more comments fly from the hips
I mean, talk about signs and all? Those have nothing to do with the Public Order Bill.
so this technically will not affect outdo photography then?
V
vince123123
Guest
Based on what is reported (and I caution that I have not read the Bill itself) I doubt it will affect photographers.
Of course the "on paper" aim is presumably that security forces' safety will be compromised if someone films them.
In my view, the unspoken aim is to catch activists trying to film the police while the police are filming them. In the past, when activists do something, the police will stand one side and film them. Taking a leaf from the same book, the activists have filmed the police filming them, as well as the scene, and all sorts of Internet videos have then emerged about the way the police conducted themselves.
With the new law, only the police can film, and hence, only the police will have a record of the event and they can then control what gets out, and what does not.
Finally, I have not read the Bill, but I think the clause is directed towards film, ie moving pictures.
Of course the "on paper" aim is presumably that security forces' safety will be compromised if someone films them.
In my view, the unspoken aim is to catch activists trying to film the police while the police are filming them. In the past, when activists do something, the police will stand one side and film them. Taking a leaf from the same book, the activists have filmed the police filming them, as well as the scene, and all sorts of Internet videos have then emerged about the way the police conducted themselves.
With the new law, only the police can film, and hence, only the police will have a record of the event and they can then control what gets out, and what does not.
Finally, I have not read the Bill, but I think the clause is directed towards film, ie moving pictures.
Has that area been designated or issued with a move on order yet?
I think its very premature and I think a better reading up on the new laws is required before more comments fly from the hips
I mean, talk about signs and all? Those have nothing to do with the Public Order Bill.
If you don't already know, the police already have wide ranging powers to stop and detain anyone for questioning. The new bill closes any loopholes and increases the range and scope of the powers of the police in the area of public order, which can be very broadly applied.
While one or two persons might not constitute a group but hypothetically speaking a scenario of a group of photographers walking past a restricted area certainly would draw attention. Want to argue with the police? Preventing a public servant from carrying out his duty is a charge that one could face.
V
vince123123
Guest
I'm not sure if that is relevant to your original point about no photography signs, but since you wish to delve into a new topic and since you say you know something that I don't, would you care to elaborate and quote some of these "powers" and laws which you refer to?
try to keep the discussion clean and factual too ; this is for everyone. i don't want the thread getting locked b4 we can at least highlight the impact of this on the community.
V
vince123123
Guest
there has been recent cases where people shot video & photos of officers on duty doing illegal parking, in this in bill, is that an chargable offence? or it is only when it is post in public forum or when officers demand that the footage be deleted but the shooter refuses?
what is the implications?
what is the implications?
V
vince123123
Guest
According to the Minister, no, that does not fall under. According to the Bill as currently worded, yes it is possible it can fall under; hence Sylvia Lim's article which I linked above.
alamak, i dont understand what u r saying, 1st u say minister say no, than u say yes according to the bill.:dunno::dunno:
V
vince123123
Guest
The Bill is a written document and what is enshrined in law. What the minister says in Parliament is only clarification on how the bill should be interpreted, but may or may not be considered by the courts.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For example, the bill says:
"Leaving of tissue paper around is littering"
In Parliament, an MP pops up and says "Dear Minister, we have this popular culture here where people use tissue packets to rserve seats leh, then how, all these now cannot?"
Minister then replies "Aiya, you already say what, here in Singapore, we won't prosecute people for chopping seats with tissue paper. We only catch those who sneeze then throw the tissue paper around".
MP then says "then shouldn't we amend the bill to correctly catch those we want to catch?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However, whatever the Minister says does not really change what is written into Law. It is written into the Hansard, which is a whole lot less accessible than the law. Most of you here don't even know what the Hansard is, and many don't even know about the Statutes.agc website.
To me, its a nice convenient way of hiding something
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For example, the bill says:
"Leaving of tissue paper around is littering"
In Parliament, an MP pops up and says "Dear Minister, we have this popular culture here where people use tissue packets to rserve seats leh, then how, all these now cannot?"
Minister then replies "Aiya, you already say what, here in Singapore, we won't prosecute people for chopping seats with tissue paper. We only catch those who sneeze then throw the tissue paper around".
MP then says "then shouldn't we amend the bill to correctly catch those we want to catch?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
However, whatever the Minister says does not really change what is written into Law. It is written into the Hansard, which is a whole lot less accessible than the law. Most of you here don't even know what the Hansard is, and many don't even know about the Statutes.agc website.
To me, its a nice convenient way of hiding something
so that mean, ultimately, if we shoot officiers breaking the law themselves and post in in the forum for discussion, they reserve the right to charge us?
V
vince123123
Guest
I have no idea, wait until the Act is finalised because apparently the Minister says some definitions will need to be re-jigged.
depending on the situation....officer at the scene can request for pictures and videos to be deleted...
but..thats just according to me....
depending on the situation....officer at the scene can request for pictures and videos to be deleted...
but..thats just according to me....
snap a picture of the police officer who demanded you to delete yr photos, then comply with the request and delete all photos on the card. go home just use recovery software to get back all the photos. :bsmilie:
the main issue is not that, but the possibility to not having the rights to stomp.:think:
- Status
