Surveying of MRT Stations

[denniskee]

aiyo, guys, let someone with 1st hand info tells you, ie me, ha ha ha.

1) went to shoot expo mrt station on the day the memorial service for the killer wave & a dog show was held @ the expo, together with louis, fellow cser. both of us were arm with full photo gear (those who know me knows). using dslr.

2) shot standing inside, laying on the floor inside, outside, front, back, left, right, across the road , up the slope........ basically all over, with all the police element around (of cause mah, it a big event.)

3) when we were alomst done, the police finally suround louis & begin questioning him, yes, HE WAS SURROUNDED!!

4) when i walk back into the station, saw this situation, before they come to me, i go to them quite street smart ya? no, because somehow, i always get spot check by police (those who know me knows).

5) lucky was using dlsr, we showed them the photos, they call in some high level CID (may be from ISA, who knows?). copied down particulars, including company info, where the company, how long i work there, what position i held there......... for a full 1/2 hour.

6) during which, we were still treated with respect, excpet that we had shot overnight, so very tired, decided to sit down on the floor, chit chat with the regular police in blue while the CID make some calls (guess they must have relise i already have a thick file with them, ha ha ha.)

7) CID goes off, did demand us to delete photos nor stop shooting. just that the police in blue ask us politely, if we can go shoot somewhere else. since we were treated with respect in the whole incident, we decided to comply, not wanting to make things difficult for them, their have a job to do lar.

well, i agree that having proper papers does help you to aviod unneccessary trouble. me and louis got out ok does not means you can. it just that the probabily realise they have a very thick file about me for shooting in wired hour all over singapore.

 

[vince123123]

Thanks for your explanation.

One last question, you said that the WHOLE of Singapore is designated as a security area? s48(1) states that a security area is only designated by proclaimation from the President. Was such a proclamation ever made, and if so, where was it made? Also, is the proclaimation (if one was indeed made) still in force as per s48(1)?

Thanks!

"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: Singapore as a whole is seriously threatened by terrorist organisations such as JI and Al Qaeda, and is designated as a security area. Key installations and high security areas such as the Airport and MRT stations are now subjected to patrols and checks by security forces.

"62. Without prejudice to the operation of Chapter V and Chapter XXIII of the Penal Code, any person who whether within or outside a security area, while any proclamation under section 48 is in force, attempts to commit, or does any act preparatory to the commission of an offence under this Part shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence under this Part."

Comment: Taking photographs of a key installation can be considered an act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act which is an offence under the ISA. The case of the 15 JI suspects quoted earlier with evidence of photographs taken by them of shuttle bus movements as well as the layout of Paya Lebar Airport for target surveillance is a prime example.

"66. —(1) When on duty any police officer or any member of the security forces or any person who is authorised in writing to do so by the officer in charge of a division, may without warrant and with or without assistance stop and search any vehicle, vessel, train, aircraft or individual, whether in a public place or not, if he suspects that any article or material being evidence of the commission of an offence under this Part is likely to be found in such vehicle, vessel, train, aircraft or on such individual, and may seize any article or material so found."

Comment: Therefore, if you take unauthorised survey photographs of a key installation such as an MRT station, you may be asked to delete your photographs or have your film confiscated, if the security forces patrolling the area find your activity suspicious.

 

[zaren]

Thanks for your explanation.

One last question, you said that the WHOLE of Singapore is designated as a security area? s48(1) states that a security area is only designated by proclaimation from the President. Was such a proclamation ever made, and if so, where was it made? Also, is the proclaimation (if one was indeed made) still in force as per s48(1)?

Thanks!

"(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."

Comment: Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan, who is the co-ordinating Minister for Security and Defence, has already stated in the press that Singapore is a terrorist target and that increased security measures are being taken to safeguard our key installations.

 

[vince123123]

I think there's a difference between the Minister saying that "Singapore is a terrorist target and that increased security measures are being taken to safeguard our key installations" and proclaiming that the whole of Singapore is a "security area" for the purposes of s48.

Further, a search in the Parliamentary Database doesn't show any hits relating to security areas being proclaimed in respect of the whole of Singapore. Also, there are also no subsidiary legislation to this effect yet.

Not sure if the WHOLE of Singapore hasn't yet been proclaimed as a "security area". Also, s48(4) provides that a copy of such proclaimation be published in the Gazette and be presented to Parliament.

Do you have a copy of the Gazette showing the proclaimation that the WHOLE of Singapore is a "security area" for the purposes of S48 of the ISA? That would help.

Thanks again.

"(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."

Comment: Deputy Prime Minister Tony Tan, who is the co-ordinating Minister for Security and Defence, has already stated in the press that Singapore is a terrorist target and that increased security measures are being taken to safeguard our key installations.

 

[LazerLordz]

Damn..this sounds like the New York Subway photography ban that was repealed after millions of signatures and petitions were coordinated and sent to the NYTA.The onus lies on the security forces to detect the dangerous fellas, not ride roughshod over citizens rights to snap in public places just because they do not want to go the extra mile.

Look and you will know.Some are on the ball, others are slack but ignorantly anal.

If you are a well-trained security personnel, you can differentiate what sort of pictures the person is snapping, and no sane terrorist would use a 105mm fisheye macro to snap an artistic picture.So POI guys, go read up on photography and understand what sort of angle your potential suspects will use and what sort of angles us normal pros/hobbyists want.

Ignorance is no excuse for both sides, so ask permission if you must, and POI ppl, don't just merely walk through the routine, do use your brains and exercise smart judgement and contextual analysis.IMHO, if they can't do that, they have no business in the world of patrolling key installations without causing undue inconvenience to the public.

 

[jsbn]

....

I dun think there'll be an end to nitpicking.

The fact remains: Someone tried it, someone kena. Vince, there wun be an end to the argument and nitpicking. Whoever wants to test the system, just go ahead. When something happens, dun blame anyone but urself.

 

[kahheng]

If you are a well-trained security personnel, you can differentiate what sort of pictures the person is snapping, and no sane terrorist would use a 105mm fisheye macro to snap an artistic picture.

On the contrary, I think the clever terrorist scout would do best to look as if he or she is taking artistic shots. If they look too sneaky or try to do it on the 'stealth' and get seen, it's much too suspicious looking.

A rectilineared fisheye shot will yield a lot of information. If one were a terrorist, it's a convenient lens to use for surveillance work of a target installation since one single shot will capture so much of the subject.

What the authorities should do is to either force the people shooting with digital cameras to format their cards once (or better twice) in front of them, rather than just asking them to erase or delete the data, since deleted pictures can always be recovered later as long as there's no new data written over them.

Actually safer to just confisticate the memory cards for 'examination' and then get the individual to pick it up at CID or ISD later.

 

[zaren]

vince, i thought you said that was your last question? :bsmilie:

never mind, let's discuss further.

I think there's a difference between the Minister saying that "Singapore is a terrorist target and that increased security measures are being taken to safeguard our key installations" and proclaiming that the whole of Singapore is a "security area" for the purposes of s48.

"Singapore" refers to the whole of Singapore. Terrorist attacks in other countries have shown that the terrorists can strike anywhere in the country.

Further, a search in the Parliamentary Database doesn't show any hits relating to security areas being proclaimed in respect of the whole of Singapore. Also, there are also no subsidiary legislation to this effect yet.

Not sure if the WHOLE of Singapore hasn't yet been proclaimed as a "security area". Also, s48(4) provides that a copy of such proclaimation be published in the Gazette and be presented to Parliament.

Do you have a copy of the Gazette showing the proclaimation that the WHOLE of Singapore is a "security area" for the purposes of S48 of the ISA? That would help.

Thanks again.

The ISA and the Constitution of Singapore provides that such a proclamation made by a Minister with the Executive Authority in Singapore in matters of National Security and Defence is done in the manner that he deems fit, without publication in the Gazette.

You are free to take whatever legal action you wish to protest what you clearly perceive to be unfair practices by Security Officers acting under the orders of the State.

 

[vince123123]

Well, new questions arise sometimes. Its good discussion nonetheless and everyone can learn from each other and build on each other's knowledge - I don't see anything really wrong with that.

Anyway, the only reason why I said that it has to be published in the Gazette is because of s48(4), reproduced below together with (3).

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.

s48(3) merely says that it is effective without having to be published in the Gazette. However s48(4) says that the proclaimation must be published as soon as possible. You have to read both together.

The intention behind (3) is to ensure that the Govt can designate security areas quickly without having to go through the Gazette publication. However, (4) is to ensure that such proclaimations are still duly and properly recorded.


I'm not sure abt the Constitution bit though, haven't looked at it for a while.

vince, i thought you said that was your last question? :bsmilie:

never mind, let's discuss further.

The ISA and the Constitution of Singapore provides that such a proclamation made by a Minister with the Executive Authority in Singapore in matters of National Security and Defence is done in the manner that he deems fit, without publication in the Gazette.

 

[vince123123]

Hmm I don't think there's any argument or nitpicking here, I've been in discussion mode and not argument mode.

I don't see anything wrong with sharing of information and discussion so that we all can build on each other's knowledge. You may know something, I may know something, and when all of us work together, we can come up with something which individually, we would not have known. The whole is often more than the sum of its parts.

....

I dun think there'll be an end to nitpicking.

The fact remains: Someone tried it, someone kena. Vince, there wun be an end to the argument and nitpicking. Whoever wants to test the system, just go ahead. When something happens, dun blame anyone but urself.

 

[zaren]

Well, new questions arise sometimes. Its good discussion nonetheless and everyone can learn from each other and build on each other's knowledge - I don't see anything really wrong with that.

Anyway, the only reason why I said that it has to be published in the Gazette is because of s48(4), reproduced below together with (3).

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.

s48(3) merely says that it is effective without having to be published in the Gazette. However s48(4) says that the proclaimation must be published as soon as possible. You have to read both together.

The intention behind (3) is to ensure that the Govt can designate security areas quickly without having to go through the Gazette publication. However, (4) is to ensure that such proclaimations are still duly and properly recorded.


I'm not sure abt the Constitution bit though, haven't looked at it for a while.

i think DPM Tony Tan has explained the security situation in Singapore clearly enough. correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe you have no doubt in your mind that singapore is a terrorist target and that tough security measures have been put in place to combat the terrorist threat here.

the constitution bit explains who exercises Executive Authority in Singapore.

 

[jsbn]

Hmm I don't think there's any argument or nitpicking here, I've been in discussion mode and not argument mode.

I don't see anything wrong with sharing of information and discussion so that we all can build on each other's knowledge. You may know something, I may know something, and when all of us work together, we can come up with something which individually, we would not have known. The whole is often more than the sum of its parts.

Well, discussion, argument... But anyway, here's my 2 cents.

Get written permission.
Nothing beats Black and White den u have to pay a visit to CID and have ppl frm ISD pay u a visit as well.

Ok lah. I think that ends my part in this discussion.

 

[unseen]

Zaren => studied law ah? i see that you are VERY converse with the ISA. heh not a normal person definitely.. most won't know what's Executive Authority..

anyway i think as long as we're all peace loving fellas, with no aim to see any MRT stations in relocated the hard way, all should be fine. At most is spend 1/2 hour+++ surrounded by the police only. or 1 week in detention if they really suspect something. Remember, guilty until proven innocent.

 

[zaren]

Zaren => studied law ah? i see that you are VERY converse with the ISA. heh not a normal person definitely.. most won't know what's Executive Authority..

anyway i think as long as we're all peace loving fellas, with no aim to see any MRT stations in relocated the hard way, all should be fine. At most is spend 1/2 hour+++ surrounded by the police only. or 1 week in detention if they really suspect something. Remember, guilty until proven innocent.

unseen,

no i did not study law, although i do find law interesting.

 

[vince123123]

Hmm well I didn't say that I doubt that Singapore is not a terrorist target. I'm just trying to ascertain conclusively the position as far as this issue is concerned. We may all be speculating here and nothing beats written law to the effect. Hence I was asking if anyone knew of the proclaimations in the Gazette.

i think DPM Tony Tan has explained the security situation in Singapore clearly enough. correct me if i'm wrong, but i believe you have no doubt in your mind that singapore is a terrorist target and that tough security measures have been put in place to combat the terrorist threat here.

the constitution bit explains who exercises Executive Authority in Singapore.

 

[vince123123]

As for the permission bit, some have said that permission should be gotten from SMRT.

However, if it is a National Security/Anti-Terrorist issue, the question is, does SMRT have the authority to grant you this written permission?

Those who have gotten such permission before may like to help out here. I personally do not shoot such subjects so have never been involved.

Well, discussion, argument... But anyway, here's my 2 cents.

Get written permission.
Nothing beats Black and White den u have to pay a visit to CID and have ppl frm ISD pay u a visit as well.

Ok lah. I think that ends my part in this discussion.

 

[zaren]

Hmm well I didn't say that I doubt that Singapore is not a terrorist target. I'm just trying to ascertain conclusively the position as far as this issue is concerned. We may all be speculating here and nothing beats written law to the effect. Hence I was asking if anyone knew of the proclaimations in the Gazette.

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.

 

[vince123123]

Actually I have no stand, I'm trying to find out more on this issue and since you have stepped forward to clarify with knowledge in the area, I'd thought I just build on what you already know. If there is no law empowering the officers with this right, they have no right. It is hard to prove a negative and so I was wondering how you arrived at your conclusion (which you have tried to explain in your preceding posts).

As for quoting of written law, you have only selected one source, which is the Internal Security Act (and maybe the Constitution, but I don't think that is the issue here). I'd be more interested in the official proclaimations of what is a "security area". So far I don't think you have quoted any written law to this effect, other than broad deductions based on press readings. It would be unusualy to have a proclaimation or declaration of a defined term in the main legislation via the press - these are usually either prescribed in subsidiary legislation, or published in the Gazette. Indeed, s48(4) of the ISA provides that such proclaimations must be published in the Gazette, albeit at a later date.

On balance, the sections that you have quoted are certainly relevant but the only chink in the explanation is what exactly has been defined as a "security area" for the purposes of the ISA. If we can resolve that issue, then you would have provided a real good educational and enlightening explanation to us all.

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.

 

[vince123123]

Missed this part out earlier.

S62 refers to the "commission of an offence under this Part". This Part in s62 refers to Part III of the ISA. The offences under Part III are contained in Chapter III of Part III, ie Sections 58-64. Any other acts not covered in S58-64 are not offences under this Part within the meaning of s62.

Turning to s58-64, the main offences covered as as follows (summarised):

s58 - Offences relating to firearms, ammunition and explosives - this relates mainly to illegal possession of these items

s59 - Consorting with person carrying or having possession of fire arms or explosives - this relates mainly to consorting or being in the company of those who illegally posesss these items.

s60 - Supplies - this relates mainly to the demanding, collection or receiving, possession of or provision of supplies creating a reasonable presumption that he is acting in a manner prejudicial to public security or maintenance of public order.

s61 - Failure to report offences or give information - this relates to offences for not providing information on offences (ie s58-61 & 62 above).

s62 - Attempts - this just states that attempts to commit offences are offences.

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.

Conclusion? No clear conclusion, I suppose better safe than sorry?

"62. Without prejudice to the operation of Chapter V and Chapter XXIII of the Penal Code, any person who whether within or outside a security area, while any proclamation under section 48 is in force, attempts to commit, or does any act preparatory to the commission of an offence under this Part shall be deemed to be guilty of that offence under this Part."

Comment: Taking photographs of a key installation can be considered an act preparatory to the commission of a terrorist act which is an offence under the ISA. The case of the 15 JI suspects quoted earlier with evidence of photographs taken by them of shuttle bus movements as well as the layout of Paya Lebar Airport for target surveillance is a prime example.

 

[zaren]

On balance, the sections that you have quoted are certainly relevant but the only chink in the explanation is what exactly has been defined as a "security area" for the purposes of the ISA. If we can resolve that issue, then you would have provided a real good educational and enlightening explanation to us all.

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.