SINGAPORE — The broad scope and consequences of a communications ban that the police can impose during major security incidents in future drew the concerns of several Members of Parliament (MP) during the debate on a new security Bill on Wednesday (March 21).

Under the new Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act (POSSPA) passed by Parliament on the same day, the police can, among other things, issue a “communications stop order” to prevent the public and media from sharing information about ongoing security operations by taking videos, pictures, audio recordings, or text messages. Those who breach the order can be jailed for up to two years, or fined S$20,000, or both.

During the debate, several MPs rose to ask 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.

Addressing the concerns, Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo stressed that the communications curb is “not an information blackout throughout a terror incident”.

Noting that the order is not aimed at civilians, who may be in a hostage situation for example, Mrs Teo added that the objective is to stop “irresponsible communication of ongoing security operations which might endanger” the lives of both security forces and hostages.

Furthermore, the order would only be applied to cover a “target area” and would be lifted once security operations are over. General communications outside the scope of the order would not be impacted. The authorities also do not intend to take action against those who “act in good faith” to provide information to the police but inadvertently breach the order, said Mrs Teo.

MPs who spoke on the Bill acknowledged the changing nature of the security threats against Singapore. Workers’ Party MP for Aljunied GRC Sylvia Lim, for instance, noted that the authorities would need “muscle as well as flexibility” to respond quickly and effectively to these threats.

But she, Nee Soon GRC MP Louis Ng and Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP) K Thanaletchimi raised concerns that the lack of “independent documentation” - as a result of the communications curb - could compromise public accountability among the security forces, particularly when there are accusations of abuse of power.

“The reality is that in any investigation, evidence talks,” said Ms Lim. “If it is a case of ‘he-says-she-says’, the burden will fall on the complainant to prove the complaint,” said Ms Lim.

Mrs Teo agreed that it might be harder for the police to verify a complaint of misconduct without footage, but she emphasised that the public can make a report on police misconduct with or without footage, and that official investigations “do not start and end with photo or video evidence”.

Responding to NMP Kok Heng Leun’s question of whether the police would use their new special powers to delete videos and photos of misconduct, Mrs Teo pointed out that it is a criminal offence to dispose of evidence.

Both Ms Lim and Mr Kok also voiced discomfort that the communications curb would not merely prohibit but also criminalise the making, communication and possession of videos, pictures, audio-recordings or text messages. Mr Kok noted that it seemed “disproportionate” that an individual is liable of an offence especially when no potential harm is caused by mere possession.

Mrs Teo said in response that the police would not have the bandwidth to investigate and ascertain the true intent of every person making a recording.

“This bill puts the onus on the individuals to not arouse suspicion of malicious intent, not because the police wants to make things difficult but because of exigency,” she added. “By doing so, the police has a straightforward enforcement aim: to make sure no one is recording. If it wasn’t spelt out this clearly, then you could have a situation of confusion, what exactly is the police trying to enforce against.”

The minister highlighted several times during Wednesday’s debate that the authorities would make full public announcements when an activation order is invoked to grant the police special powers, such as the right to impose a “communications stop order”.

She welcomed a suggestion from two MPs, Mr Desmond Choo and Mr Ang Wei Neng, to conduct exercises for the public on how such new powers would be exercised, and said the police would seriously consider it.