Even Papaya Running Dogs Also Du Lan PAPee Now!

[makapaaa]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Is proposed public order law a duplication?
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>




<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I READ yesterday's report, "Police to get more effective powers for public order" with immense interest and nostalgia.
The proposed Public Order Act runs parallel to the Public Order (Preservation) Act (Chapter 258) that is currently in the Singapore statutes.
My memory of the tumultuous era of the 1960s has been rekindled, especially the racial riots of 1964. I was then a young police detective and I vividly recall the use of the then Public Order (Preservation) Ordinance 1958, better known by its acronym, "Popo". I believe that the Popo was repealed, thus giving birth to the Public Order (Preservation) Act (Chapter 258).
Except for the legal language and terms such as "consolidated permit", "major events" and "filming restrictions" to be interpolated into the proposed Public Order Act, the other proposed legal terms like "move-on powers" and "responsibility of property owners" are already stipulated in the Public Order (Preservation) Act (Chapter 258).
Section 13 "Control of persons" in the Public Order (Preservation) Act (Chapter 258) is nearly similar to the proposed "Move-On powers". With regard to the use of the legal term: "Responsibility of property owners", in the proposed Public Order Act, I believe that the interpretation in Section 8 of Part III of the "Powers for the maintenance of Public Order" in the aforesaid Act has the same objectives and meaning regarding the legal responsibility of property owners.
Thus, it would be prudent for Parliament to amalgamate and frame all the additional legal terminology into the current "Public Order (Preservation) Act (Chapter 258)", which has served and continues to serve its legal purpose; instead of enacting the Public Order Act that may in all circumstances be a duplication of the Public Order (Preservation) Act (Chapter 258).
This should be done before the legislation comes before Parliament at its next sitting for a full debate. Lionel De Souza

 

[makapaaa]

<TABLE cellSpacing=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=heading>Latest comments</TD></TR><TR><TD id=messageDisplayRegion width="100%"><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE class=Post style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Maybe in antcipation of more threats and assault on MPs who will then be 'protected' enough to continue to PISSED the people who needs help at their meet-the-people sessions.

Why don't they give more powers to Police to take in more assault cases by RECLASSIFYING them from non-seizable offences?????

All in all, it is another episode of the typical 'Singapore Wayang Show'
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: dragonovic93 at Wed Mar 25 13:07:56 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE class=AlternatePost style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>I humbly beg to differ with the much respected Mr. Lionel De Souza's expert opinion. Yes, there is indeed such powers in the Constitution. However, one must note that the society then and now has evolved dramatically. Then; most of the protests and demonstrators are held by people with no or limited education with no remorse of what could be the consequencs of such anti-social behaviour. Then, these people can be forcibly stopped, arrested or put behind bars without questions asked. Today, our society has grown into one with affluence and almost 90% who are educated and know their civil rights and will not hesitate to question any high-handedness on the part of authorities dealing with public order issues. Hence, it is important to adopt a soft approach first and issuing the "move-on" order is the right step taken before an arrest is effected as a last resort. Then such incidents are marred with violence and loss of lives whilst today it is held in a peaceful and civil manner and very rarely does it escalate to one of unruly behaviour, violence or loss of lives.

Paul Antony Fernandez
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: Libran2409 at Wed Mar 25 11:46:36 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE class=Post style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Seems like the authorities are putting into place more laws in anticipation of unruly behaviour in public. I suspect it is not so much the average Singaporeans that it is aimed at but that of the swelling foreigners or 'sin keks' who might take to the streets in the coming months as the economic downturn gets from bad to worse.
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: commentator_sc at Wed Mar 25 10:55:59 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=2 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left><TABLE class=AlternatePost style="WIDTH: 100%" cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0><TBODY><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Must control the opposition rallies mar. Have to get all these in place in time for next GE.
</TD></TR><TR><TD style="VERTICAL-ALIGN: top" align=left>Posted by: SeenItAll at Wed Mar 25 08:12:13 SGT 2009
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>