***
My oppression by the heavy arm of the State
"This play area is for the enjoyment of children from 2 to 6 years of age only."
Today, I was once again oppressed by the heavy arm of the State.
I was at Changi Airport with someone, and while walking around looking for a place to eat, I noticed 6 teenage girls were sitting under the sign above, which was posted in the Terminal 3 Childrens' Play Area.
Obviously, these girls were not anywhere near 6 years old, so I took a picture of this curious juxtaposition to add to my curious pictures series.
A few minutes later, I was surrounded by these 6 girls, who were demanding that I delete the photo I had just taken.
After I explained the reason for my taking the photo, they asked if I was going to post it on STOMP. When I averred that I hated the site, they asked what I was going to put it on my blog, and asked what I was going to do with it.
Evidently, they hadn't been paying attention during Literature class, since one of them suggested that after I deleted the photo I could go back and take a picture of the sign - with no one sitting underneath it.
The minutiae of their complaints are unimportant, but suffice it to say that they were, to varying degrees, annoyed by my catching them in a moment of irony. Even my explanation that I had similar pictures, like the irony of one of my Esplanade Underpass shots, did not placate them.
Esplanade: "Please Do Not Sleep In The Underpass"
They still clamored for me to delete the picture, and one of them even threatened to call the police; evidently despite knowing about STOMP, they were under the impression that the pictures posted on it were criminal (maybe they think taking photos in the MRT station is illegal as well). They probably figured that as with most Singaporeans, the slightest hint of the heavy arm of the State would be sufficient to make me bow to their wishes. Yet, I was pissed off at not being allowed to do something perfectly legal (as well as losing a record of a great moment of irony - after all, reflecting upon such incidents is what keeps me warm during the long gloomy days of winter) and refused to accede to their request.
I suggested that we get a third opinion, so we went down to the auxiliary police for one. I wasn't really under the illusion that they would agree with me, but I wanted to confirm my suspicion that they would not be able to tell me why I couldn't do what I did, but instead just provide a generalised account of "you cannot do this".
As expected, I was told that you could not take pictures of people in public, especially of girls (i.e. vague hints of Outrage of Modesty). None of the 3 auxiliary police members who handled me could tell me specifically why I was doing something illegal, even though they threatened to call the police. This was despite my mentioning that as far as I knew, France was the only country in the world where you needed permission to take someone's photograph in public.
Even my protest that street photography would be impossible if you could not take photographs of people without notifying them went unheard. Perhaps I should have mentioned STOMP - after all, if taking photographs of people without their knowledge is an activity sanctioned by our Nation-Building Press, it cannot be illegal.
In the end, I decided not to keep my friend waiting any longer, or to risk having to wait for 1-2 hours for the police to come down (similarly, if you're acquitted after having spent a year in jail, you've still wasted a year in jail). But then, if even sending lewd SMSes to a woman gets you two weeks in jail for "insulting a woman's modesty", who knows? I am almost willing to go to court to hear arguments about why taking pictures of girls (or people) who are not in compromising positions is wrong.
[Ed: I just realised that the ridiculous law cited here was Section 509 of the Penal Code - which I thought was a remnant of even less enlightened times, like the law on Obscene Songs:
Word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman
509. Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine, or with both.
{Indian Penal Code 1860, s. 509}]
Yet, I was too quick to delete the photograph, so the auxiliary police officers spent some time looking through my bizarre snapshots. Naturally, they had comments about some other pictures of mine. For example:
"Look, Ma. No pants!" (despite this being taken in the walkway of a shopping centre)
More curiously, I was asked about the previous picture I had taken at Tanah Merah MRT station:
"Do not step beyond the Yellow Line until train stops. Fine $500"
On seeing this picture, 2 of the auxiliary police officers asked me if I was Singaporean. Perhaps they couldn't conceive of a Singaporean who would be amused by the quotidian aspects of daily life, let alone document them.
(Ironically, this was something I had already noted - 4 years ago. My memory must be going)
Either that or they thought I was some terrorist who was plotting to disrupt Singapore's transport infrastructure by flinging himself onto the MRT tracks. Which is only slightly less plausible than blowing up a petrol station by recording violations of health and safety regulations.
Hell, I was even questioned about a picture I took with a colleague. Presumably everything with a female in it was suspect (perhaps I should save to my phone some pictures of me helping old ladies cross the street just to see what happens).
Despite oppressing me with the heavy arm of the law, the last auxiliary police officer was unable to cite the specific law my action broke. I told him I wanted to look it up, and he advised me to go to the neighborhood police post, where they would "tell you the A-Z"; this is something I will try, though I am uncertain if they will provide legal advice so readily.
For what it's worth, the girls did not even ask me for an apology, even upon being prompted, but they surely went away wondering why I half-called their bluff and wasted everyone's time.
Of course, the easiest course of action would've been to delete the picture straightaway (indeed, the girls and the officers pointed this out a few times).
But then, the easiest course of action is not always the one we should follow.
Whenever people threaten to kick up a big fuss and invoke the heavy arm of the State over the slightest matter (even over a non-issue), it infantalises the body politic that much more. Not to mention gives the police more to do - next to this, 999 prank calls are nothing.
This fear of being whacked by a big stick is why, in Singapore, the best way to stop a Christian evangelising to you is to say that you are a Muslim, since they fear even the gentlest word might get them hauled up for Sedition.
Now, while I dislike being evangelised to, I fully support the right of Christians to evangelise (as long as it doesn't become harassment). Similarly, a Wahhabist in Saudi Arabia should not force a Christian to remove a "Honk if you love Jesus" bumper sticker from his car, no matter how offended he might be by it, let alone wave (or cause to be waved) a sword, that instrument of justice which the House of Saud so prizes.
In any case, the allergy to being captured on film (even if digital) is puzzling. It results in absurd situations like shops in Chinatown displaying signs like "No camera allowed. Fine $50". You would think that Singaporeans were some exotic Papua New Guinean tribe that believed that taking a person's photograph captured their soul.
Annex 1: Possible offence
On reflection, I can think of two possible approaches that could have been taken to arrive at the conclusion that I had done something illegal - violating a right to privacy or outraging modesty.
The tack taken here was quite obviously the latter. As such, women who complain about being seen as sex objects should, in addition to blaming men, blame other women (and perhaps themselves) for claiming that a picture taken in public with no erotic appeal (yes, some people might be turned on by pictures of girls sitting under a sign, but some people are turned on by shoes too, and we don't consider them sex toys) can somehow outrage their modesty.
As for privacy, there is no right to privacy in Singapore (besides having told this, none of the hits for "privacy" in the Statutes deal with the violation of privacy per se).
As such, the very most you can say about my photo-taking is that it was not very nice, putting it on a similar level with choping seats with tissue paper and not holding the door for people, thus letting it slam into them.
And then, maybe not even that. After all, people who take pictures of Kiasu or Ugly Singaporeans are not generally condemned - the same could be said of catching people misusing a facility meant for kids.
Annex 2: On the legality of taking photographs of people in Singapore
A Legal
if u werent photographing for erhm... immoral purposes\, i guess it is ok
but in the laws of some countries, you are not allowed to photograph them without permission
which is why i quantified that only sg laws apply
if u took photographs and posted it online with defamatory remarks, pls note it's another ball-game all together
but if the area prohibits photographing... then it is another matter
if it is a pte property, the owner has the right to limit photographing
[besides forcing you to leave the premises] he can ask u [to delete the photos] too. but if the photographs are "impt" to him, it is possible that he can bring an injunction against u to prevent u frm using the photos