The Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act aims to reduce the risk of security operations being compromised by unauthorised communications.

SINGAPORE: Parliament on Wednesday (Mar 21) approved legislation requiring people in the vicinity of “serious incidents” such as a terrorist attack to stop taking or sharing pictures or videos of the incident area, and to stop text or audio messaging about security operations.

This Communications Stop Order (CSO) aims to minimise terrorists’ access to information, which could compromise law enforcement operations. It can only be activated by the Commissioner of Police (CP), after the Minister for Home Affairs has activated the Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act (POSSPA).

Advertisement

Advertisement

“In several overseas incidents, police forces had appealed to the public not to transmit or broadcast videos of ongoing operations, to protect the safety of their officers and the public,” said Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo in Parliament. “But this is usually not effective. Cases of individuals and media knowingly transmitting and broadcasting are common, even when they are told the information may lead to the loss of lives.

She illustrated how modern technologies could hinder police efforts in instances like hostage rescue, saying: “The police need to have the element of surprise over the perpetrators, so that the latter will not start to harm the victims in anticipation of police’s response, or prepare themselves to defeat police action. The best-laid plans of the police can be thwarted by a stray tweet or social media livestream.

“The CSO is not an information blackout throughout a terror incident, as some have portrayed it,” Mrs Teo clarified. “It is location-specific; the CSO will only apply to coverage of the target area. It is limited in duration; after the security operations are over, the CSO will be lifted.

“Even with a CSO, post-incident reporting is still necessary. Therefore, the police will allow selected media access to incident locations, so that the events can still be recorded for subsequent use.”

Advertisement

Advertisement

Breaching a CSO is an offence which can lead up to two years in jail, or a fine of S$20,000, or both.

But Mrs Teo stressed the police would not take action against civilians who may be caught in the hostage situation and trying to get messages out.

OTHER POWERS

Under the POSSPA, the police can act within the incident area to intercept unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) like drones; question individuals; and ask building owners to close down premises or restrict entry and exit.

The Minister for Home Affairs can also ask telcos to withdraw services in a target area, though Mrs Teo noted this would be unnecessary when the CSO is “sufficient and effective”.

Other groups of individuals can also be called on to assist the police, such as officers from other Home Team agencies such as the Singapore Civil Defence Force and Central Narcotics Bureau. Singapore Armed Forces servicemen could be authorised to search, arrest, and set up cordons. And the police may ask civilians such as Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) volunteers and private security officers to help man outer cordons or prevent persons from entering the cordoned area, said Mrs Teo.

“Nothing in POSSPA obliges civilians to assist the police, and neither will the police request for civilian assistance where there may be danger,” she added. “Police will only rely on civilians who are able, and willing to assist. In other words, a civilian can refuse to assist and no action will be taken against him.”

POSSPA also retains and updates existing provisions from the Public Order (Preservation) Act (POPA) enacted in 1958 - such as the power to impose cordons, power of requisition to use equipment, electricity or space within the target area, and the use of lethal weapons as a last resort.

The latter may occur when it is “reasonably necessary” to prevent persons, vehicles or vessels from entering the cordoned area, or to remove them from the cordoned area; as well as to enforce road closures and disperse processions and assemblies in the target area which might be threatening public safety or order.

SAFEGUARDING AGAINST ABUSE

Mrs Teo additionally noted that even after activation of the POSSPA, not all of its provisions will automatically come into force. Each “special power” has to be specifically unlocked by the police commissioner “only as and when deemed necessary”.

Each activation order also lasts for a month, after which a new one must be made.

On the ground, police officers have to adhere to clear criteria and limits when exercising their powers. They are further subject to internal guidelines and rules of engagement.

A previous provision in the POPA allowing Parliament to annul the proclamation by the Home Affairs Minister by resolution has not been carried over to the POSSPA, though “there is no sinister reason for this” said Mrs Teo.

“Even without this provision, members can question the Minister if they believe an activation order should not have been issued or should be annulled. Parliament has not been and is not prevented from holding ministers to account for decisions or policies, just because there are no specific provisions in the law,” she explained.

“In any case, judicial review of the Minister’s decision to make an activation order remains an avenue to curb improper use by the Minister of his powers.”

Said Mrs Teo: “In a fast evolving incident such as a terrorist attack, time is of the essence ... To save lives, the police will have to act fast. Should we build in additional layers of approval, for example to require Parliament to confirm the Minister’s activation or the commissioner's authorisations even while the situation is still unfolding?

“Or is a better approach to enable the police to act swiftly, effectively and in good faith, and be held to account after the crisis is over?”

“In Singapore’s case, I believe the latter is better able to serve our interests.”

“SINGAPORE AS A PRIZED TARGET”

Earlier Mrs Teo also painted the context for introducing the POSSPA. “In Singapore, it is difficult to imagine the circumstances under which the powers in this Bill would be required,” she acknowledged. “We see news reports of gunmen attacks, hostage incidents. But they are happening elsewhere, not in Singapore. Not yet, fortunately.”

“We may not be so fortunate every time. Because a terror attack hasn’t happened in Singapore yet, it is difficult to appreciate the severity of the threat, and to imagine the grave consequences.

“The reality is that Singapore faces a clear and continuing threat,” said Mrs Teo. “Foreign terrorists see Singapore as a prized target … We should therefore not be lulled into a false sense of security. We have to prepare.”

The POSSPA was put forth only after studying terrorist attacks across the world, and the “limitations and problems” countries faced in dealing with them, she stated.

"Even as we debate the extent of the special powers, let us remember that we will never really know whether our preparations go far enough, until they are put to the test in an actual incident.

“The bottom line is this: It is up to us to safeguard Singaporeans and Singapore if and when we come under a terror attack. In this, we must not fail.”

</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 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 - The curbs on communications under a new law that seeks to expand police powers to deal with serious incidents will not result in an information blackout as some have suggested, said Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo on Wednesday (March 21).

Selected media outlets and personnel will be allowed to access incident areas even when such a stop order is issued.

It is also not targeted at civilians in a hostage situation who try to get information across to security forces.

Speaking at the second reading of the Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Bill on Wednesday, she said: "(It) is not an information blackout throughout a terror incident, as some have portrayed it."

The communications stop order has garnered much attention since the Bill's introduction last month. It requires people to stop making or communicating films or pictures of an incident area, and stop communicating text or audio messages about the security operations.

Local civil society groups, international non-governmental organisations and members of the public have raised concerns about the effect of the stop order, calling for the media to be allowed to report facts even if live streaming is not permitted.

Others asked if people who tip off the media will be penalised.

Mrs Teo told Parliament that media outlets allowed to access incident areas can record events for subsequent use such as post-incident reporting.

She added that the order is not aimed at civilians in a hostage situation who may, for example, be trying to get information across to security forces by any means possible.

Noting that terrorists holding hostages in overseas incidents have found out about police operations through live telecasts, she said: "We are trying to stop irresponsible communication of ongoing security operations which may endanger lives, such as those of the hostages."

On the argument that people should be allowed to film but not transmit material or put it online, she cautioned that "half measures will not cut it" and the stop orders may only be able to reduce - but not eradicate - the risk of unauthorised communications.

"The best laid plans of the police can be thwarted by a stray tweet or social media livestream," she said.

Mrs Teo also said the stop order will apply only to target areas and is limited in duration. It will be lifted after security operations are over.

Like other special powers in the Bill, it may last a maximum period of a month. A breach of the order may lead to a maximum of two years' jail, a fine of up to $20,000, or both.

On March 13, six civil society groups had raised concerns about the Bill's "wide-reaching police powers", including to potentially deploy lethal force and stop communications during both terror incidents and peaceful protests.

Mrs Teo said on Wednseday that the range of special powers under the Bill do not automatically come into force even if activated by the Home Affairs Minister, and each power has to be unlocked by the Police Commissioner "only as and when deemed necessary".

The duration of each activation order is also capped at one month, after which, the Minister must make a new order if he assesses that there is a need for a new one.

She highlighted also that lethal weapons are turned to only as a last resort and the Bill allows it to be used, among other cases, to disperse public assemblies which may be threatening public safety or order.

Under the current Public Order (Preservation) Act, which will be repealed with the passing of new law, Parliament could annul the Home Affairs minister’s activation order. This, however, will not be the case under the new Bill.

“There is no sinister reason for this,” said Mrs Teo. “Even without the provision, members can question the minister if they believe an activation order should not have been issued, or should be annulled.

“Parliament has not been, and is not prevented from holding ministers to account for decisions or policies, just because there are no specific provisions in the law,” she said.

On another provision in the Bill that allows civilians such as private security officers to be activated to help out during a serious incident, Mrs Teo said these civilians are not obliged to do so and will only have limited powers that exclude use of lethal force.

"A civilian can refuse to assist and no action will be taken against him," she said.</s>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>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>A new law that expands police powers to allow officers to respond swiftly and with greater flexibility during serious incidents like a terrorist attack was passed yesterday after a three-hour debate.

Under the Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act, the police commissioner can impose measures such as a curfew and a stop order on communications to ensure the secrecy of security operations.

But the Act may be invoked only with the authorisation of the Home Affairs Minister, Second Minister for Home Affairs Josephine Teo said yesterday, following concerns expressed by MPs during the debate on the proposed legislation.

Other safeguards are also in place to ensure the police commissioner and the minister exercise their special powers only for specified incidents, where the police are likely to be in a race against time, Mrs Teo added.

"Once the threshold of a serious incident is crossed, we must give the police sufficient latitude to act decisively," she told the House on the final day of a three-day sitting.

The new law comes in the wake of a "clear and continuing threat" of a terror attack facing Singapore, which has been cited as a target in extremist publications and videos.

During the debate, Nominated MP Kok Heng Leun, who was among 10 members of the House who spoke on the proposed legislation, expressed concern over the discretion given to the minister and police commissioner.

Mr Kok asked if there could be conditions on the use of the special powers, and cited the Internal Security Act, which requires the minister's decision to be concurred by the president on the advice of a special advisory committee.

Replying, Mrs Teo stressed that the special powers will not be used for day-to-day policing, but only for specified incidents like a terrorist act or large-scale public disorder.

"Members will have to weigh: Which is the bigger risk in a serious incident? Which has the graver consequence?" she said. "There is a risk of too much discretion, but there is also a risk of too much delay."

Mrs Teo also said that after an incident has been dealt with, Parliament can still debate if the minister and police had done the right thing and hold them to account - as was with the 2013 Little India riot.

This new law repeals the Public Order (Preservation) Act, which allowed Parliament to annul the minister's proclamation as a safeguard.

This will no longer be the case. "There is no sinister reason for this," said Mrs Teo. " Judicial review of the minister's decision to make an activation order remains an avenue to curb improper use... of his powers."

She noted that the old Act was used only once since independence, and it was after the Little India riot.

"Even then, it was tightly scoped, to control the consumption of alcohol, to calm the situation and prevent further violence," she said.

Another concern raised is what constitutes reasonable force, during which lethal weapons can be used.

Mrs Teo said lethal weapons are used only if the police have no other choice, and cited the Shangri-La Dialogue incident in 2015, in which a car sped through a police checkpoint. Police had to use "reasonable force", including lethal weapons, as it was a high-profile event involving foreign dignitaries, and there was a risk the driver was committing a terror act.

Almost all the MPs sought clarification on the communications stop order, which can make it an offence to take photos or videos of an incident area when the order is activated.

Mrs Teo said: "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."
The Singaporean Parliament approves the Public Order and Safety (Special Powers) Act, which makes it a crime to take pictures and relay information during terror attacks.