Proposed change in legal framework to empower SAF personnel
-
Proposed change in legal framework to empower SAF personnel
By Wong Siew Ying, Channel NewsAsia | Posted: 09 April 2007 1846 hrs
SINGAPORE : Search, detain, and use reasonable force against terror suspects - that's what the Singapore Armed Forces will be empowered with, in a proposed amendment to the SAF Act tabled during Parliament.
The Defence Ministry (MINDEF) says this will provide selected legal powers and protection to SAF personnel working on security operations with other agencies.
Although operations such as intercepting threats at sea to counter terrorism and piracy are permitted under international law, they are not allowed under Singapore's domestic legal framework.
This is one area the proposed amendment aims to change.
The amendment will also apply to tackling suspicious aircrafts.
The Defence Ministry says the move will enhance Singapore's responsiveness to deal with threats and allow SAF personnel to take preventive action early.
For instance, since the September 11 attack, SAF has deployed troops to secure key installations like Jurong Island and Changi Airport.
However, it's only able to act independently within the gazetted area.
In other words, SAF personnel do not have the authority to search or detain suspects and suspicious vehicles outside the protected zone.
They will have to summon the police, and act only if the situation worsens.
But with the amendment, SAF troops will be authorised to respond to threats beyond the protected area.
Seized items or arrested persons will then be handed over to the police for investigations.
However, these additional powers are only limited to on-duty servicemen involved in the security operations.
In implementing the changes, MINDEF says it will work with the Home Affairs Ministry and police to train personnel deployed for security operations.
The SAF will also lay out guidelines on conducting peacetime security operations in line with provisions in the amended Act.
Another provision - the Defence Minister can order the SAF to assist in conducting land operations when required, in consultation with a committee appointed by the Prime Minister.
The minister will also be empowered to authorise relevant servicemen to exercise selected legal powers in the immediate vicinity of any SAF property, to protect the personnel and property within.
MINDEF says the changes do not point to a greater deployment of troops for security purposes, and it will continue to work with other agencies to safeguard Singapore. - CNA /ls
Link -
Wah, that means more work for S3.
-
further blurring of lines between the military and the police... which is in a way inevitable given the ops the soldiers have been involved in...
much groundwork will be necessary to avoid abuse or under-use of power... the public too should be educated of the powers given to the soldiers.
all in all, a good move - rather than the soldiers serving no other purpose than show of force. -
then join SAF
-
what if the army misuse the power?
-
a good move, 6 SIR (POI) will find it more easy to work on ground.
but what about those in the reserve doing the same thing? more training? -
as if the police never did???Originally posted by soulwinner:what if the army misuse the power? -
Unlikely. There should be limits on this. It is not a free-for-all, and secondly, it empowers the SAF to carry out it's constitutional role. Thirdly, it will help to boost the importance of guard duty amongst everyone, especially those on POI.Originally posted by soulwinner:what if the army misuse the power?
However, until I see the entire amendment, I'm not entirely sure if that segment about land operations has any legal limits on the use of force on domestic soil while not on security detail, and during peacetime.
Whatever the case, we are a conscript force, and will probably never see Posse Comitatus enacted here. -
Just curious, in airport usually see lets say a patrol of 4, usually consisting of 3 SAF guys and 1 SPF guy. Usually the grp will have an SAF 3SG and the SPF guy is also an SGT. So whom will call the shots if something happens?
Also, somehow I feel that in SG, the authorities of the police is much more then that of the military. Pardon my youthful ignorance and educate me alittle yeah.
Thanks,
SpecOps87 -
If I understand correctly, prior to this new law, the police will be the command authority, and the SAF is the backup, but if the suspect(s) escape out of the airport in e.g a chase, only the police can pursue them.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Just curious, in airport usually see lets say a patrol of 4, usually consisting of 3 SAF guys and 1 SPF guy. Usually the grp will have an SAF 3SG and the SPF guy is also an SGT. So whom will call the shots if something happens?
Also, somehow I feel that in SG, the authorities of the police is much more then that of the military. Pardon my youthful ignorance and educate me alittle yeah.
Thanks,
SpecOps87
I think this is because the airport is a gazetted area where the SAF can operate. However, they can't pursue the guy at that moment due to legal constraints. With this law, they can continue to work as a team, as long as the police is there.
That's how I personally understand it.
-
Everything should be kept in check.
What if the SAF is granted more and more powers?
I feel that granting them the power is in a sense giving them more flexibility while operating. But I hope that's it.
I would prefer to leave the powers to arrest only to officers who are sworn with it.
I sure hope the opposition members are paying attention to this. What if one fine day they decide to use SAF for everything to clamp down on illegal plans against the gov or something similar? -
Your last point is very valid. I also have similar fears.Originally posted by Pitot:Everything should be kept in check.
What if the SAF is granted more and more powers?
I feel that granting them the power is in a sense giving them more flexibility while operating. But I hope that's it.
I would prefer to leave the powers to arrest only to officers who are sworn with it.
I sure hope the opposition members are paying attention to this. What if one fine day they decide to use SAF for everything to clamp down on illegal plans against the gov or something similar?
However, I also think this might actually be due to the fact that we are deploying to Bamiyan in Afghanistan, and we need to ensure our troops have the legal protection under our own laws to be able to defend themselves in case they get into harm's way. -
opposition members do not need to have that... the man in NS will if things get bad. that is why we change 3 star now and than.Originally posted by Pitot:Everything should be kept in check.
What if the SAF is granted more and more powers?
I feel that granting them the power is in a sense giving them more flexibility while operating. But I hope that's it.
I would prefer to leave the powers to arrest only to officers who are sworn with it.
I sure hope the opposition members are paying attention to this. What if one fine day they decide to use SAF for everything to clamp down on illegal plans against the gov or something similar? -
is okay for the SAF to act in the protected area... Butcome to outside let SPF do the work,cuz cannot let SAF drivers go chase the suspect rite,wait swd jump,the driver kena jialat jialat...
-
Give you a difficult question.
Are SAF personnel ready to enact on the powers given to them?
When I was guard comd for SAF Ferry Terminal, a motorcycle zoomed past outside the fencing and pointed a toy revolver (pop gun) at our direction and fired away.
Immediately I know ROE allows me to fire back, but a few doubts made me change my mine.
1) If i fire back, chances of me hitting a moving motorcycle at about 40-50m is very low.
2) If i miss, the bullets will carry on into Changi Airport towards where the Fuel Silo is.
3) How is my RSM/CO willing to back me or even believe me?
4) If i hit the person, turn out i have seen wrongly and it was just his motorcycle piston burning off additional fuels. His pinion was only holding a handphone which i thought was a revolver.
So going back to my question, even if laws are change, i feel the SAF personnel must be trained to be confident. Their superiors must readily back them up.
But during my tenure in SAF, my RSM have only been telling us,
"to be safe, put loaded mag in SBO"
"to be safe, cock only when about to shoot"
"you cock already, give statement for dented percussion caps"
in the end, we do our duty just as a show, but when "read thing" happens, we can only hesitate. -
Well...ROE clearly allows you to do that. But I suppose the consensus of what is holding the soldiers on the ground back from acting is that COs, RSMs have their own set of ROEs for the boots. So need major rethink. Pardon me Ponders, but will you have taken out that guy if he made a second pass at a slower speed?Originally posted by Ponders:Give you a difficult question.
Are SAF personnel ready to enact on the powers given to them?
When I was guard comd for SAF Ferry Terminal, a motorcycle zoomed past outside the fencing and pointed a toy revolver (pop gun) at our direction and fired away.
Immediately I know ROE allows me to fire back, but a few doubts made me change my mine.
1) If i fire back, chances of me hitting a moving motorcycle at about 40-50m is very low.
2) If i miss, the bullets will carry on into Changi Airport towards where the Fuel Silo is.
3) How is my RSM/CO willing to back me or even believe me?
4) If i hit the person, turn out i have seen wrongly and it was just his motorcycle piston burning off additional fuels. His pinion was only holding a handphone which i thought was a revolver.
So going back to my question, even if laws are change, i feel the SAF personnel must be trained to be confident. Their superiors must readily back them up.
But during my tenure in SAF, my RSM have only been telling us,
"to be safe, put loaded mag in SBO"
"to be safe, cock only when about to shoot"
"you cock already, give statement for dented percussion caps"
in the end, we do our duty just as a show, but when "read thing" happens, we can only hesitate. -
if i can for sure at that slower speed he is indeed holding a revolver (real or toy), i will take him out provided that I have a high probability of hitting him or his bike.Originally posted by SpecOps87:Well...ROE clearly allows you to do that. But I suppose the consensus of what is holding the soldiers on the ground back from acting is that COs, RSMs have their own set of ROEs for the boots. So need major rethink. Pardon me Ponders, but will you have taken out that guy if he made a second pass at a slower speed? -
I think we would need to worry if we change the structure of SAF to sizeable regular arm forces, run by regulars where their political interest would grow.Originally posted by Pitot:Everything should be kept in check.
What if the SAF is granted more and more powers?
I feel that granting them the power is in a sense giving them more flexibility while operating. But I hope that's it.
I would prefer to leave the powers to arrest only to officers who are sworn with it.
I sure hope the opposition members are paying attention to this. What if one fine day they decide to use SAF for everything to clamp down on illegal plans against the gov or something similar? -
If you pose this question to the Policemen sentry, or the professional CISCO, they would have the same reaction as you. But I think they will take cover first. You didn't ??Originally posted by Ponders:Give you a difficult question.
Are SAF personnel ready to enact on the powers given to them?
When I was guard comd for SAF Ferry Terminal, a motorcycle zoomed past outside the fencing and pointed a toy revolver (pop gun) at our direction and fired away.
Immediately I know ROE allows me to fire back, but a few doubts made me change my mine.
1) If i fire back, chances of me hitting a moving motorcycle at about 40-50m is very low.
2) If i miss, the bullets will carry on into Changi Airport towards where the Fuel Silo is.
3) How is my RSM/CO willing to back me or even believe me?
4) If i hit the person, turn out i have seen wrongly and it was just his motorcycle piston burning off additional fuels. His pinion was only holding a handphone which i thought was a revolver.
So going back to my question, even if laws are change, i feel the SAF personnel must be trained to be confident. Their superiors must readily back them up.
But during my tenure in SAF, my RSM have only been telling us,
"to be safe, put loaded mag in SBO"
"to be safe, cock only when about to shoot"
"you cock already, give statement for dented percussion caps"
in the end, we do our duty just as a show, but when "read thing" happens, we can only hesitate. -
hmm.. this is beginning to sound like the confrontation era in the 60s when 1SIR was activated to help the police cope with undesirable elements..
but i think there'll still be much limitations in place due to the fact that saf is much more heavily armed than the police..
exaggerate a bit.. wat if some armoured unit is activated to secure an installation taken over by terrorists and the CO happily send one column to secure the parliament builiding (in session) as well and then take the entire govt hostage? -
Would the unfortunate PCG incident have been avoidable if they could have fired and sunk the speedboat instead of having to ram it.
-
The PK is built to ram suspect boats, and this is for a purpose. There are no feasible weapons mounted on the PK to effectively fire at the boat's engines, let alone doing it at high speed out at sea at 9pm. The chances of gunfire hitting the passengers are high. Ramming the engines is likely to be far less dangerous than firing a HK-MP5 at the boat, although of couse this is from the perspective of the escaping crewmen, while the officers themselves are in greater risk. But the police, in typical fashion, would much rather explain an incident affecting its own men than one where the public would consider as exessive use of force.Originally posted by LazerLordz:Would the unfortunate PCG incident have been avoidable if they could have fired and sunk the speedboat instead of having to ram it.