Police will not become tool for petty politics, says Shanmugam
By Aaron Low 6 February 2009
Second Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday rapped Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong for suggesting the police were being used for political purposes.
He said the high level of trust between the police and the people is an asset that should not be taken lightly.
‘My ministry and the police are not intending to let that asset be debased by allowing the police to become a tool for petty politics,’ said Mr. Shanmugam, who is also Law Minister.
‘The integrity and impartiality of the police force should be beyond reproach and that has been and will be our policy.’
He was responding to Mr. Siew, who had earlier described his encounter with the police while doing a survey with another person for a political blog.
While polling Jurong residents last October on whether Jurong GRC should have a by-election, Mr. Siew noticed two policemen in uniform observing them.
After two hours, they approached Mr. Siew’s partner, questioned him and took his name down. The officers told Mr. Siew they had received a complaint about two persons being a public nuisance. They asked them to stop the survey while they checked with their superiors, he added.
Both complied and after about an hour, the officers told them they could continue. But by then, they were too tired to go on, Mr. Siew said, adding:
‘It is no joke to have the police come up to you, tell you they have received a complaint that you are breaking the law while declining to disclose details of this complaint, and then keep you waiting for nearly an hour without any update or information on what was going on.’
The experience, said Mr. Siew, led him to believe the system lacks transparency and accountability. ‘I could not and still cannot shake off the belief that the entire incident was related to the fact that the survey questions could be seen as being politically sensitive,’ said Mr. Siew.
The suggestion that police action was politically motivated drew a sharp response from Mr. Shanmugam: ‘I regret that that suggestion was made. It should never have been made.’
The minister said the police had a duty to investigate all complaints, even if they do not merit an investigation.
In fact, the problem is that up to 60 per cent of the calls police receive are nuisance calls. He added, to laughter: ‘Mr. Siew would accept that complaints, when made to the police, have to be investigated even if it involves someone as important as Mr. Siew.’
When Mr. Siew protested, the minister said with a smile that it was a light-hearted remark and not meant to suggest he was full of self-importance.
Mr. Shanmugam, who said he did not have full details of the event, surmised that the two hours of observation were needed to see if Mr. Siew and his companion were indeed a nuisance. ‘Having come to the conclusion probably that Mr. Siew was not making a nuisance...they probably asked some questions and then checked with their superiors and went off - open, transparent, clear,’ he said.
Mr. Shanmugam also addressed Mr. Siew’s concern over the move to give new powers for the police to maintain public order. He said that was part of the evolution of public order laws, which included letting political events take place indoors without a permit, the introduction of Speaker’s Corner and allowing public demonstrations to be held there.
‘The review of our public order laws is part of this ongoing process to evolve and change in tandem with social change,’ said Mr. Shanmugam.
1 comment:
Police will not become tool for petty politics, says Shanmugam
By Aaron Low
6 February 2009
Second Home Affairs Minister K. Shanmugam yesterday rapped Nominated MP Siew Kum Hong for suggesting the police were being used for political purposes.
He said the high level of trust between the police and the people is an asset that should not be taken lightly.
‘My ministry and the police are not intending to let that asset be debased by allowing the police to become a tool for petty politics,’ said Mr. Shanmugam, who is also Law Minister.
‘The integrity and impartiality of the police force should be beyond reproach and that has been and will be our policy.’
He was responding to Mr. Siew, who had earlier described his encounter with the police while doing a survey with another person for a political blog.
While polling Jurong residents last October on whether Jurong GRC should have a by-election, Mr. Siew noticed two policemen in uniform observing them.
After two hours, they approached Mr. Siew’s partner, questioned him and took his name down. The officers told Mr. Siew they had received a complaint about two persons being a public nuisance. They asked them to stop the survey while they checked with their superiors, he added.
Both complied and after about an hour, the officers told them they could continue. But by then, they were too tired to go on, Mr. Siew said, adding:
‘It is no joke to have the police come up to you, tell you they have received a complaint that you are breaking the law while declining to disclose details of this complaint, and then keep you waiting for nearly an hour without any update or information on what was going on.’
The experience, said Mr. Siew, led him to believe the system lacks transparency and accountability. ‘I could not and still cannot shake off the belief that the entire incident was related to the fact that the survey questions could be seen as being politically sensitive,’ said Mr. Siew.
The suggestion that police action was politically motivated drew a sharp response from Mr. Shanmugam: ‘I regret that that suggestion was made. It should never have been made.’
The minister said the police had a duty to investigate all complaints, even if they do not merit an investigation.
In fact, the problem is that up to 60 per cent of the calls police receive are nuisance calls. He added, to laughter: ‘Mr. Siew would accept that complaints, when made to the police, have to be investigated even if it involves someone as important as Mr. Siew.’
When Mr. Siew protested, the minister said with a smile that it was a light-hearted remark and not meant to suggest he was full of self-importance.
Mr. Shanmugam, who said he did not have full details of the event, surmised that the two hours of observation were needed to see if Mr. Siew and his companion were indeed a nuisance. ‘Having come to the conclusion probably that Mr. Siew was not making a nuisance...they probably asked some questions and then checked with their superiors and went off - open, transparent, clear,’ he said.
Mr. Shanmugam also addressed Mr. Siew’s concern over the move to give new powers for the police to maintain public order. He said that was part of the evolution of public order laws, which included letting political events take place indoors without a permit, the introduction of Speaker’s Corner and allowing public demonstrations to be held there.
‘The review of our public order laws is part of this ongoing process to evolve and change in tandem with social change,’ said Mr. Shanmugam.
Post a Comment