Singapore passed a law on Wednesday making it possible to ban photographs or videos of terror attack sites or communicating information about security operations amid criticism from rights groups that the move could curb press freedoms.

The wealthy city-state ranks as one of the safest countries in the world, but authorities say it has been a target of Islamic extremists since the 1990s and they have stepped up efforts to deter an attack.

The bill, proposed last month, includes provisions to ban anyone from taking videos or photographs of the area of a terror attack or transmitting them.

It can also ban communication of text or audio messages about the security operations in the area. The measures can be taken under a “communications stop” order if approved by the home affairs minister and activated by the police commissioner.

“The CSO (communications stop order) is not an information blackout throughout the terror incident,” Josephine Teo, minister in the Prime Minister’s Office, told parliament ahead of the vote.

Information leaks to terrorists could risk the lives of security officers and those caught up in an attack, the home affairs ministry has said, citing media coverage of police operations in a 2015 attack in Paris and a 2008 attack in India’s financial capital of Mumbai.

Groups that advocate press freedom have expressed concern that the law gives the government the power to restrict what can be reported.

Human Rights Watch separately said the inclusion of public protests as an example of a “serious incident” meant the law can be used to infringe on freedom of speech.

Anyone planning a public protest is required to obtain a police permit in Singapore and are only allowed at a designated area in a small downtown park. Only Singaporean citizens and permanent residents can participate.

“The Singaporean government’s history of persecuting dissenting voices makes the proposed public order law particularly frightening,” Asia director at Human Rights Watch Brad Adams said in a press release last week.

“Public protests are not a threat that justify the wholesale repeal of basic rights.”

Breaches of the new measures could lead to a maximum fine of S$20,000 ($15,200) and prison terms of up to two years.

The passage of the security law comes as Singapore holds a landmark public hearing on how to tackle the threat of fake news. </s> world

Updated: Jul 01, 2017 21:02 IST

Thousands of Singaporeans dressed in pink packed a city park on Saturday for a gay-rights rally under tight security after the government banned foreign participants.

Singapore’s Pink Dot rally started in 2009 and has historically attracted crowds of up to 28,000 despite a backlash from conservative groups in a state where protests are strictly controlled.

But those taking part in this year’s rally had to show identity cards to prove they were citizens or permanent residents before being allowed into a barricaded zone.

They included both gay and straight Singaporeans, families with small children and Muslim women in veils, with many sitting on picnic mats under the scorching sun.

Adeline Yeo, an art director whose Polish partner was unable to attend and had to follow developments from a nearby bar, lamented the new regulations.

“It’s disappointing because we went from marching in London Pride last year right behind (London mayor) Sadiq Khan to having to celebrate separately,” she told AFP.

Apart from a ban on foreigners attending this year’s rally, overseas companies were also banned from providing sponsorship.

Singapore has long taken a hard line on what it considers foreign interference in domestic politics and has often been criticised by human rights groups for clamping down on political freedoms.

Multinationals like Facebook, Google and Goldman Sachs had funded previous editions as part of their equal- opportunity initiatives.

Under a law dating back to British colonial rule, sex between men is technically still a criminal act in Singapore but the statute is not being actively enforced.

Open support for gay rights has meanwhile grown in recent years, aided by changing social norms among the younger generation and a large influx of tourists and expatriates.

First Published: Jul 01, 2017 21:02 IST </s> Supporters attend the annual 'Pink Dot' event in a public show of support for the LGBT community at Hong Lim Park in Singapore on July 1, 2017. | AFP

SINGAPORE: Thousands of Singaporeans dressed in pink packed a city park on Saturday for a gay-rights rally under tight security after the government banned foreign participants.

Singapore's Pink Dot rally started in 2009 and has historically attracted crowds of up to 28,000 despite a backlash from conservative groups in a state where protests are strictly controlled.

But those taking party in this year's rally, which promotes 'freedom to love', had to show identity cards to prove they were citizens or permanent residents before being allowed into a barricaded zone.

They included both gay and straight Singaporeans, families with small children and Muslim women in veils, with many sitting on picnic mats under the scorching sun.

Adeline Yeo, an art director whose Polish partner was unable to attend and had to follow developments from a nearby bar, lamented the new regulations.

"It's disappointing because we went from marching in London Pride last year right behind (London mayor) Sadiq Khan to having to celebrate separately," she told AFP.

Organisers declined to issue a headcount for the event but an AFP reporter estimated about 8,000 people were already in the park when the three-hour event started at 5pm (0900 GMT). It was full within two hours.

It culminated in a rainbow-coloured formation with torchlights after dark.

Apart from a ban on foreigners attending this year's rally, overseas companies were also banned from providing sponsorship.

Singapore has long taken a hard line on what it considers foreign interference in domestic politics and has often been criticised by human rights groups for clamping down on political freedoms.

Multinationals like Facebook, Google and Goldman Sachs had funded previous editions as part of their equal-opportunity initiatives.

Under a law dating back to British colonial rule, sex between men is technically still a criminal act in Singapore but the statute is not being actively enforced.

Open support for gay rights has meanwhile grown in recent years, aided by changing social norms among the younger generation and a large influx of tourists and expatriates. </s> Singapore policemen block a road leading to the National University of Singapore where the funeral service for Singapore’s former prime minister Lee Kuan Yew will be held, March 29, 2015. — AFP picSINGAPORE, March 22 — The police have been granted wide-ranging new powers to act during major security incidents, including the authority to curb public communications in affected areas, after Parliament passed fresh legislation to allow them to better deal with changing threats and technologies.

While Members of Parliament supported the intention of the Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act (POSSPA) during the debate over the new legislation yesterday, several of them raised concerns about its scope and the potential for abuse.

Assuring the MPs, Second Minister of Home Affairs Josephine Teo said several safeguards were in place and that the special powers would be used judiciously for incidents that meet a “high” threshold.

The police, she argued, must be better empowered to deal with the changing security environment, as demonstrated during terror attacks like the one in Paris in January 2015.

“New threats call for new measures, to better protect Singaporeans and save lives when we come under attack,” saids Teo.

“We did not introduce this Bill in a vacuum. We did so only after studying the terrorist attacks that had taken place in other countries, and the limitations and problems they faced in dealing with the attacks.”

She cited the April 2013 Boston marathon bombing and the January 2015 Paris terror attack as examples where existing regulations would be inadequate if Singapore was hit with similar assaults.

For instance, if there was no public disorder while the police searched for the suspects, like in Boston, the Singapore authorities would not be able to activate the Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA) to enforce a curfew to prevent members of the public from getting in the way of enforcement operations.

POPA would also be inadequate for attacks involving multiple and rapidly changing locations, such as during the Paris attack, as the Home Affairs Minister would have to invoke the Act separately each time an assault shifted location.

The new law, which replaces the Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA) enacted in 1958, will grant police the powers to direct building owners to take certain actions, such closing their premises, to facilitate security operations.

The police can also stop individuals and demand information from them if they are near a security incident.

The most controversial aspect of the new legislation, however, involves allowing the police to issue a “communications stop order” to prevent the public and media from taking videos, pictures, audio recordings, or text messages that could compromise ongoing security operations.

Those who breach the order can be jailed for up to two years, or fined S$20,000 (RM59,773), or both.

Several MPs who spoke during Wednesday’s debate on POSSPA questioned whether the order would prevent individuals caught in such security incidents from communicating with their loved ones or the authorities. Others asked how the order could be enforced in practice, and whether the lack of independent documentation would result in less accountable behaviour by the police.

Civil society groups have also raised similar concerns after the Bill was first introduced in Parliament last month, saying that it could lead to abuse of police powers and oppression of protesters.

Workers’ Party MP for Aljunied GRC Sylvia Lim said: “Parliament is being asked to approve very draconian powers to be given to law enforcement and supporting forces, but only in situations where there is an imminent and grave danger to the safety and security of people in Singapore .... The powers under this Bill must never be misused for situations that can be adequately dealt with under other laws.”

Teo outlined three safeguards against potential abuses of the new law, including a “two-tier unlocking mechanism” that requires the police to first recommend to the Home Affairs Minister to activate the special powers.

The Minister can then issue an activation order – which will be made public – if two conditions have been met: there is a serious incident occurring or has occurred or there is a threat of a serious incident occurring in Singapore; and the special powers are necessary to substantially assist in preventing the incident or reducing the impact of the incident, or to control, restore and maintain public order.

However, the special powers do not “automatically come into force”, stressed the minister. Each special power has to be “specifically unlocked” by the Police Commissioner “as and when deemed necessary,” she added.

Teo also told the House that the duration of each activation order is capped at one month, after which the minister must make a new order if he perceives the need for one.

In the event that a “communications stop order” is invoked, the police must publicise it and give details such as the boundaries of the affected area.

The MPs who spoke on Wednesday expressed support for the intention of the new legislation, but some like Lim and Nominated Member of Parliament Kok Heng Leun questioned the need for expanded police powers in certain scenarios, such as those involving a sit down peaceful protest that later grew in size and disrupted traffic and business operations.

“Why are existing laws not adequate to deal with such scenarios?” asked Lim, adding that law enforcement operation in such situations would not tactically sensitive to warrant the use of special powers.

Reiterating that the new law is not targetted at peaceful protests,s Teo said the new special powers will only be invoked if the situation deteriorates and when the threat of large-scale public disorder or violence becomes imminent.

She cited as an example a sit down demonstration, which grew in size over a week in the central business district and disrupted traffic, public order as well as business operations.

During the debate in Parliament, Kok also raised the issue of accountability for the sweeping new powers. He questioned why the Home Affairs Minister did not require approval from another arm of the Government or an independent body to invoke the new powers, whereas other legislation, such as the Internal Security Act (ISA), required his decisions to be concurred with the President on the advice of a special advisory committee.

The NMP, who also called for a a procedure to be included in the new security law where both the Home Affairs Minister and Police Commissioner have to justify their decisions, stressed that his concerns did not arise out of “mistrust but accountability”, as the new powers are “so severe”.

Teo acknowledged that “it is not unreasonable to consider such risks”, and that the Government is not averse to introducing checks if there are good justifications, like in the example of the ISA cited by Kok.

But she stressed that POSSPA was designed to allow the police to act while “in a race against time”, and asked whether MPs would in good conscience put security operations on hold while they debated the merit of the Home Affairs Minister’s decision to invoke the new powers.

“Once the threshold of a serious incident is crossed, we must give the police sufficient latitude to act decisively, and respond to whatever that threat may be.

“After the incident has been dealt with, and the danger has passed, we can have a debate, including here in Parliament, about whether the Minister and the Police did the right thing, and hold them to account.” — TODAY </s> SINGAPORE: What can be defined as a “serious incident” became a matter of intense debate in Parliament on Wednesday (Mar 21), before the House approved the Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Bill.

The new law gives the police special powers to deal with serious incidents like terror attacks. For instance, they can order people in the vicinity of the incident to stop taking or sharing pictures or videos of the area.

The Bill provides five examples of "serious incidents" that can invoke the use of these special powers. These include situations where explosives and firearms were used, or where perpetrators have forcibly taken over public transport.

Ms Sylvia Lim of the opposition Workers’ Party took issue with two of the examples, calling them "more controversial".

“Illustration (d) covers a sit-down peaceful protest that grows in size such that there is impediment to paths, roads and normal business," she said. "Illustration (e) is about a group protesting in the street that grows in size and then starts to commit violent acts, which sounds to me like rioting.”

Nominated MP Kok Heng Leun asked how such events were comparable to armed attacks or hostage situations in terms of severity, while Mr Louis Ng said it may “seem excessive” to fine, imprison or use lethal force for non-compliance in these cases.

In response, Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo explained: “There are three limbs under the meaning of a ‘serious incident’: a terrorist act, serious violence affecting the public, or large-scale public disorder. The third limb ... is the subject of focus.”

“Peaceful protests are not the target of POSSPA,” she stressed, referring to the Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act. “We will only invoke POSSPA if the situation deteriorates … If a protest is really peaceful, there should be no concern whatsoever.”

Mrs Teo insisted that a “high threshold” had been set on what constitutes a "serious incident". “There must be significant disruption to ordinary Singaporeans trying to go about their daily business," she said. "People ... are agitated. The tension is rising. If it is not defused, things could quickly turn chaotic.”

She added: “Outside of the House, there were assertions that POSSPA will be applied to peaceful demonstrations. The narrative goes something like this: First, the law allows POSSPA to be unlocked by the Minister (for Home Affairs) for peaceful protests. There is no definition of what large-scale public disorder means, so the law could be applied to peaceful protests involving a small group of protesters. Therefore the law potentially allows the oppression of protesters, and will have a chilling effect on society.”

MPs also asked why current laws were not enough to deal with large-scale public disorder scenarios, to which she assured the House that where possible, existing laws will be used first.

Mrs Teo noted, however, that in certain scenarios, the police might need to order nearby premises to close, impose cordons, and direct people to stay out of the area. “POSSPA powers are necessary to do this,” she said. “No other laws have such provisions for such a situation.”

Mr Ng also asked to put a number to “large-scale”. Mrs Teo replied: “There is no easy answer. The size of a protest is one of many factors. It depends also where the protest is conducted, how it’s conducted, and the consequences on Singapore whether intended by its organisers or not.”

Mrs Teo added that peaceful assemblies would not be subject to the Communications Stop Order (CSO) - which prevents people in the vicinity from taking or sharing pictures or videos of the incident area, and to not send text or audio messages about security operations.

She said the CSO should not discourage the public from submitting information to assist the police.

“If members of the public who are acting in good faith to provide information to the authorities but inadvertently breach the CSO, we do not intend to take action against such persons,” said Mrs Teo.

Ms Lim had also said that she was “most concerned” about certain segments of the CSO, saying: “I do not accept that the making and storing of such films and pictures for later viewing will undermine (tactical) operations.

“I note what the Minister said earlier about the operational difficulties on the ground in deciding who is simply making a film and not contemporaneously transmitting the films. As a former police officer, I understand that difficulty fully.”

She added: “Nevertheless, even if the offence of making a film needs to be on the books in the Government’s assessment, I would hope that the Government would be slow to prosecute if a film or picture adds value to post-review investigations.”

“I still have my concerns about the compromise we are making in the CSO and would ask the Government to adopt a more constructive approach towards unofficial recordings of major incidents.”

Mr Ng and fellow MP Ang Wei Neng asked similar questions of how the CSO would be effectively enforced on the ground, given the challenge posed by many people using phones at the same time for different reasons.

In response, Mrs Teo reiterated: “During a serious incident, the Police will not have the bandwidth to investigate every person who is recording a film or picture, to ascertain his true intent … Police will exercise discretion and take into consideration the circumstances under which the recorder was in, and if the breach could not have been reasonably avoided."

She concluded by re-emphasising that “the threshold which must be met before the POSSPA powers can be activated is high” and “will not be used for day-to-day policing”.

“It can only be used in exceptional circumstances with many conditions attached already … Once the threshold of a serious incident is crossed, we must give the police sufficient latitude to act decisively, and respond to whatever that threat may be,” she said.

“Ms Sylvia Lim used two terms. She said muscle and flexibility, and I think that sums it up aptly,” Mrs Teo continued.

Ms Lim had said the Government would need muscle as well as flexibility to respond quickly and effectively to new threats faced by Singapore today.

“After the incident has been dealt with, and the danger has passed, we can have a debate, including here in Parliament, about whether the Minister and the police did the right thing, and hold them to account,” said Mrs Teo. </s> SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Singapore's annual Pink Dot gay pride rally drew thousands of people on Saturday, despite new restrictions aimed at keeping foreigners out of domestic politics and barricades put up around the rally site.

The rally has been held since 2009 under stringent public assembly laws at Speakers' Corner, an area set aside for demonstrations, performances and exhibitions.

But this year, Speakers' Corner was barricaded and participants had to show ID to prove they were citizens or permanent residents before they could enter, with a set maximum taking part.

Under Singapore law, sex between men is punishable by up to two years in jail, though prosecutions are rare. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong told the BBC earlier this year than he was "prepared to live with (the law) until social attitudes change".

Foreigners have never been legally allowed to join rallies in the city-state, but many have got around the restriction by "observing" such events.

Changes to the law announced in October remove the distinction between "participants" and "observers", the Pink Dot organisers said.

They would not disclose the turnout or what the maximum capacity was on Saturday, but participants said the number was below the 28,000 who took part last year.

"The crowd is less dense this year, but I think we're getting new people," said participant Atiq Lukman. "Every year, I hear of people making this their first Pink Dot."

The level of security also tripled this year, organisers said, with metal detectors and barricades under a law that requires police to monitor events with a crowd of more than 5,000 people.

The government said the move was in response to a growing threat of terrorism.

This year, Taiwan became the first territory in Asia to legalise same sex marriage. In the same week in Indonesia, two men were publicly caned for engaging in gay sex and police have set up a special force to investigate LGBT activity. </s> The controversial law that prompted Hong Kong into mass demonstrations of dissent has been officially suspended until further notice.

In an official press conference held in Hong Kong on Saturday, June 15, the severely criticised Chief Executive Carrie Lam announced that the pro-Beijing lawmakers had urged the government to delay the bill.

Referring to the massive protest that the bill generated from Hong Kong's citizens, Lam said that "We should pause and think instead of assuming the second reading of the bill in the Legislative Council as scheduled," reported Hong Kong Free Press.

She further said that the Government of Hong Kong is reflecting on the protests and is adopting an open mind "to heed comprehensively" the views of all sections of the society.

However, she insisted that the "loophole" in the Hong Kong criminal justice system, which according to her was the main reason behind pushing forward the contentious bill, continue to persist and clarified the fact that the government has not completely retracted the bill.

Lam cited the murder case in Taiwan, in which the alleged perpetrator, a Hong Kong man, fled to the city had prompted the two countries to re-evaluate the criminal justice system affecting both the countries.

The Taiwanese authorities have however said that it would not seek the extradition of the accused man as the proposed bill is suspected to put its citizens at risk.

Dismissing questions whether she will resign after the widespread dissent over her proposed bill, she said that "We regret that this incident caused a split in society."

Earlier, before she became the Chief Executive in 2017, Lam had said that she would resign "if mainstream opinion makes me no longer able to continue the job," CNN reported.

Last week, at least a million protesters marched against the passing of the contentious extradition law. The massive demonstration turned violent after the riot police armed with batons arrived at the government headquarters in the Admiralty business district and subjected tear gas and pepper sprays against protestors who charged and hurled the police barricades.

However, the public is still suspicious and holds its position of Beijing being the mastermind behind the law based on last month's incident in which a politburo member revealed that its targets included foreigners who had committed crimes against Chinese national security outside China.

The anxiety of Hong Kong bending before Beijing's imposition had plagued the minds of many before the recent demonstrations.

In April, pro-democracy protest organisers were jailed for taking part in the Umbrella Movement protests in 2014 in which demonstration for seeking free, transparent elections from China had been sought by the public. </s> SINGAPORE - Studying terror attacks overseas has revealed "gaps" in Singapore's laws, which do not allow the police's special powers to be activated when there is no public disorder, said Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo.

She cited the manhunt following the 2013 Boston Marathon bombings, where the Boston police issued a voluntary stay-in-place request to residents in Watertown when searching for the suspect. Despite the request, some residents still ventured outdoors and unknowingly affected police operations, she said.

Had a similar manhunt taken place in Singapore, police could not have activated special powers to enforce a curfew in the search area as there was no public disorder, Mrs Teo noted.

This is why the new Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act is needed, she told Parliament on Wednesday (March 21) when she presented the Bill for debate.

Mrs Teo also said present laws do not allow police to respond as promptly, citing how the theatre of police operations can shift quickly like in the aftermath of the attack on French satirical newspaper Charlie Hebdo.

This is because with the Public Order (Preservation) Act, the Home Affairs Minister would have to make new proclamations to bring the powers to bear in every new incident area when operations shift to a new location.

The new proposed laws will allow the Police Commissioner to do so when deemed necessary, after an activation order is given by the minister.

Special powers granted to police under the proposed laws include that of imposing a cordon and - more controversially - enforcing a communications stop order that penalises taking photos and videos of an incident area when the order is in place, among other things.

Mrs Teo noted that in several overseas incidents, police had appealed to the public not to transmit or broadcast videos of ongoing security operations to protect their officers and members of the public. "But this is usually not effective," she said.

She gave the example of how several shootouts took place as police pursued the two gunmen from the Charlie Hebdo attack across north-eastern France. On the day police stormed their hiding spot, a third gunman had walked into a Jewish supermarket, taking hostages.

In that case, members of the public were recording footage of police gathering outside the store and beginning to storm the place, she said. "The terrorist had every possibility of watching every move of the police's operation, as it happened."

"These overseas examples show why our laws need updating," said Mrs Teo. </s> KUALA LUMPUR, Malaysia (AP) — After organizing a big anti-government rally, Malaysia’s electoral reform group Bersih voiced concern over the arrest of its chairwoman under a security law meant for terrorists and the detention of more than a dozen people.

Police say 15,500 yellow-shirt protesters took to Kuala Lumpur streets Saturday for a second straight year to demand the resignation of Prime Minister Najib Razak over a financial scandal. Bersih estimated the crowd at 120,000.

Bersih official Wong Chin Huat says the security sweep and Chin’s detention without trial was aimed at silencing dissent and was a “sign of panic” by the government. He said Sunday that lawyers have had no access to Chin since she was taken Friday.

Najib, who is attending the APEC summit in Peru, says Malaysians are fed up with demonstrations.
Singapore implements a new law that bans foreigners from taking part in protests.