| April 2004
Singapore's 1993 Stonewall: The police raid at Rascals disco source: original documents from Wilfred Ong
|
|
|
Letter by Wilfred Ong (a lawyer) and 21 others, all of whom signed with
their names and identity card numbers:
31 May 1993 The Office in Charge Dear Sir, Re: Routine inspection at Rascals
Discotheque My friends and I were at the abovenamed discotheque when the music stopped, the lights came on and an unnecessarily aggressive voice barked to tell us to "Shut up!" as it was a "Police raid". We were not told the purpose of the so-called "Police raid". There was no observable disorderly behaviour occurring at any time prior to the "raid" within the precincts of the discotheque, only people dancing, drinking and generally having a good time at the disco on a weekend. In the presence of all of us and many, many more patrons, we were ordered to keep quiet of "I'll knock your heads". The threat of physical assault was not only thuggish and unbecoming conduct for a law enforcement officer, but it was totally unnecessary as there was no commotion or any attempts made at any disorderly conduct. This threat was issued by a plainclothes officer wearing a striped polo T-shirt with a security pass which I could not make out. He was shouting through the mike on the DJ's console. On enquiry, I was told that the officer-in-charge of the operation was one Colin Ng. In addition to the complaint above, we would also like to know the purpose of photograph-taking at the discotheque, prior to and after the raid by plainclothes officers, also wearing security passes. Several people were detained as they carried no official identification records. On enquiry, I was told they would be detained at the police station until they could furnish identification records. No attempts were made to even ask the detainees what their particulars were. I am not aware of any law that imposes a positive obligation on a Singapore citizen to carry his NRIC or any identification records with him at all times. According to s16(1) of the National Registration Act (NRA) a person may be arr4ested without warrant by the registration officer or police if there is either a reasonable suspicion of any offences having been committed under the NRA or if a person: " i. does not give his name or address; ii gives a name or address
which the officer has reason to iii gives as his address a place outside Singapore"
|
|
|
|
If there is no positive legal obligation to
carry one's NRIC at all times, it is only logical that a person should
cooperate with the authorities when asked for his particulars, to
give his particulars as truthfully as possible. If he refuses, is unable
to give his particulars or gives particulars "which the officer has
reason to believe is false", he may be detained for verification.
Limb (i) does NOT read "fails to produce his NRIC". This reading
of the NRA is consistent with Rule 7 of the National Registration
Regulations 1991 which says that a "...police officer... may at any
time require any person ... to produce his identity card for inspection, or
to produce it within such time to such person and at such place as the
officer requiring it's production may think fit." Clearly, the
Regulations take into account that a citizen is under a duty to produce
his NRIC when asked for by the authorities, but this is very different
from the duty to IMMEDIATELY produce his NRIC on demand. How can he
produce his NRIC if he is detained?
Similarly, under s33 of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC), a police officer may only arrest a person accused of committing a non-seizable offence if he fails to give his name and residence OR gives a name or residence which the officer has reason to believe to be false. The officers did not insist, rightfully, on the production of NRICs and accepted driving licences, passports or even credit cards as verification, from the others. However, no particulars were even asked from those who had no such documents on them. It also cannot be argued that any reason was given to the officer to suspect that the particulars were false. They were merely summarily detained. An officer I enquired from said (wrongfully) that he was empowered under the National Registration Act to detain a person without an NRIC on his person, and that he need not ask for his particulars. It is particularly disturbing to find Singapore law enforcement officers behaving rudely towards and verbally threatening citizens who have not committed any offences. It would also be in the public interest to clarify the legal powers of police officers (plainclothes) to demand the production of personal particulars in cases were no offences have been committed. Yours faithfully, Wilfred Ong, for and on behalf of 21 others.
|
The bold emphases were in the original letter |
|
|
Letter from the Central Police Division HQ 99 Beach Road Singapore 29 June 1993 To Mr Wilfred Ong and others Dear Sir, Routine inspection at Rascals
Discotheque We refer to your letters dated 31 May 93 and 8 Jun 93. 2. Prior to the police check at Rascals on the 30 May 93, there were several complaints of breach of licensing conditions against the discotheque. The check was therefore targeted at the management and not at the customers patronising the establishment. 3. During the check, the said premises was found to have exceeded the approved capacity of 150 persons. A head-count was conducted and particulars of patrons were recorded to tally with the head-count, in the event that the club disputes the figures subsequently. Hence our officers did attempt to request for the particulars of every patron present, including those who did not carry identification documents. In fact, one of our officers accompanied a patron to his car to collect his documents. 4. However, in the process of the check, several persons including some foreigners could not furnish their particulars satisfactorily to the officers. Neither did they carry any document such as ban cards or driving licences. Suspecting that the particulars provided may be false, these subjects were brought back to the Central Police Div HQ to ascertain the veracity of their particulars. All were released promptly upon the verification of their particulars. 5. Due to the confusion at the initial stage, our officers had difficulty controlling the large crowd at Rascals. Some of the patrons became unruly and our officers had to raise their voices. We apologise for their lack of tact in dealing with the situation. We will take steps to prevent a recurrence and to caution the officers concerned. 6. Thank you for bringing this matter to our attention which enables us to conduct a thorough investigation. We will continue to take a serious view towards any feedback of alleged misuse of powers by our officers. Please call us if you have any further queries. Yours faithfully, Yap Sze Hon
|
|
|
|
Footnotes None Addenda None
|
|
