How can you place the trust of the people in characters who won't even give a straight answer to a simple question? Asked whether he could be a People's Action Party candidate in the coming election, Ong Ye Kung said "If it happens, it happens."

The 41 year old had just quit his high flying super-scale salaried career in the recession-proof ranks of the civil service because he "happened to meet" Foreign Minister George Yeo this week, who also happened to ask "if I want to accompany him around his GRC". If Ong really had it in his heart of hearts to serve the people, why couldn't he have joined the private sector and still "continue my work for workers" in the NTUC? His move to NTUC as "an employee" was obviously a safety net, in case he misses the extra $190,000 allowance as a member of parliament. Not for his kind the rough and tumble of the uncertainties of the private sector. When Mah Bow Tan lost his maiden and straight electoral battle with Chiam See Tong in 1984, he had SPH to provide safe harbour until a GRC ticket was handed to him at the next election.

HE GOT INTO TROUBLE: Mr Kassim showing how he dozed off at Sun Plaza Park. TNP PICTURES: KUA CHEE SIONG, JONATHAN CHOO

IT was a 15-minute nap on a park bench. And it cost him $200 - equivalent to a comfortable night's stay in a three-star hotel complete with a soft bed and fluffy pillows.

He had dozed off on a Sun Plaza Park bench while taking shelter from the rain.

For doing so, the 62-year-old private bus driver, who wanted to be known only as Mr Kassim, was fined $200 by the National Parks Board (NParks).

The agency said Mr Kassim had misused the park facility by sleeping on the bench.

On 1 Sep this year, Mr Kassim was cycling near the park in Tampines when it began to drizzle. He decided to wait out the rain in a shelter at the park.

It was pouring heavily by the time he reached the shelter, so he lay down on one of the wooden benches, and dozed off after about five minutes.

'About 15 minutes later, I opened my eyes and saw that the rain was about to stop,' Mr Kassim told The New Paper.


FORBIDDEN: A man spotted snoozing in a park in Bishan.

'I saw two men walking towards me. I didn't know who they were. I closed my eyes again.

'Then I heard someone shouting, 'Wake up, wake up!' in Malay.'

When Mr Kassim opened his eyes, he saw the two men towering over him. They identified themselves as NParks rangers.

They asked for his identity card, which he gave to them.

But Mr Kassim was puzzled.

'I asked them, 'What have I done wrong?'

'They told me I had abused park facilities by sleeping on the park bench. They then issued me a ticket.'

Mr Kassim did not know that it was an offence to sleep on a park bench. But he accepted the ticket.

An NParks spokesman told The New Paper that Mr Kassim was fined as he 'was found sleeping in the park shelter with his colleague, and had repeatedly ignored our ranger's actions to wake him up'.

But Mr Kassim claimed that he woke up as soon as the rangers told him to, and that he was at the park alone.

He said there was another man also sleeping on another bench in the same shelter, but he did not know the man.

He claimed that the rangers approached the man and another man who was lying on the bench in the opposite shelter.

'It was the first time I'd fallen asleep in Sun Plaza Park,' said Mr Kassim, who lives in Pasir Ris.

It was also his first time at Sun Plaza Park.

'I've fallen asleep on benches in Pasir Ris Park before and nothing happened to me,' he said.

Five days after he was issued the ticket, Mr Kassim received a letter from NParks detailing his offence and asking him to pay the $200 fine.

When he went down to the NParks office to pay the fine, he claimed that he was told by a staff member that he could appeal.

Mr Kassim decided against appealing. It was too much trouble, he said.

He called The New Paper because he wanted to warn others about this little-known rule, lest they be fined too.

'I think most people don't know this. I'm the unlucky one, so I want to tell people not to sleep in parks, or they may end up like me having to pay $200,' he said with a laugh.

The New Paper asked eight regular park-goers if they knew that sleeping on park benches was an offence. None was aware. (See report on facing page.)

The NParks spokesman said: 'We try to create the conditions that make visitors feel at ease when they come to our parks. When people abuse our parks by overstaying or squatting, they make genuine park users feel uncomfortable.

'Others sleep on benches or in shelters in an inconsiderate manner and deny park users from using these facilities.

'During their daily patrols, our rangers will advise people who sleep or squat in our parks to stop misusing our park facilities.'

Since June this year, more than 10 people have been fined for misusing the facilities in the parks, the spokesman added. He did not say if these specifically involved sleeping on park benches.

But Mr Kassim pointed out that if sleeping on park benches was an offence, there should be signs to tell people.

On the NParks website, there is a list of 'Dos' and 'Don'ts' for visiting parks.

Sleeping on a park bench was not among the 'Don'ts', though there is a disclaimer which said the list was 'not exhaustive or intended to be a complete list of the prohibitions or regulations governing our parks'.

It also stated that 'any omission does not constitute a waiver of any offence'.

Park visitors can refer to the Parks and Trees Act 2005 and the Parks and Trees Regulations 2005, the website said.

Mr. K. Shanmugam, Minister for Law and Second Minister for Home Affairs, has commented on the hand cuffing of Lianhe Wanbao photographer Mr. Shafie Goh.

Answering Dr. Ong Seh Hong's question in parliament today, Mr. Shanmugam said that in this particular case, the issue was not about the photographer taking pictures of the flood, but about public safety.

Mr. Shanmugam said that after Mr. Goh was told to move off from the central divider, he did not go onto the pavement, but instead walked along the road next to the flooded divider and continued to take photographs.

The police officer advised him against doing so again but Mr. Goh did not heed the advice.



According to Mr. Shanmugam, up to this point, Mr. Goh did not have his media pass on, nor did he identify himself as a reporter.

The officer decided that he had to intervene directly and therefore went up to him and held his arm with a view to stop him from continuing to walk along the central divider and to move him to the pavement.

However, the Wanbao photographer struggled free and the officer handcuffed him on one hand to restrain him and take him into custody.

Upon reaching the pavement, Mr. Goh had calmed down and he produced his media pass for verification and to identify himself as a photographer from the media.

He was uncuffed after his identity was verified.

Mr. Shanmugam clarified the use of handcuffs in this situation as a necessity and was not intended to be an arrest.

"The police officer assessed that it was necessary to use handcuffs to restrain the photographer and stop him from continuing an action which the officer felt posed a danger to others and the photographer himself," he said.

"Looking at this incident with the benefit of hindsight, I think both parties could have handled the situation better."

Question:

Dr Ong Seh Hong: To ask the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs (a) what are the facts and circumstances of the arrest and handcuffing of the Lianhe Wanbao chief photographer over taking of photographs of the flood in Bukit Timah on July 16, 2010; (b) what are the guidelines for police officers when dealing with journalists and the general public taking photographs at public places where there are floods or other accidents; and (c) what are the guidelines for handcuffing them.

Mr. K. Shanmugam's reply:

Mr Speaker, the case in question happened in the morning of July 17, 2010, along Bukit Timah road near Maplewoods Condominium.

It was raining heavily and the rain had caused a road divider, which had been excavated, to be flooded. Ordinarily, the construction work would have been surrounded by safety barriers, but unfortunately in this case the safety barriers had been washed away due to the flood.

Motorists driving along the road were not able to see the depression. As a result, three cars landed in the depression.

Under these difficult conditions, the Lianhe Wanbao photographer had stopped his car illegally along the road at about 7.40am to take the photographs, causing an obstruction to other motorists.

There was clear danger not only to the photographer but to other motorists as well. A Police Officer at the scene therefore asked him to move away, which he did after he was told a second time.

However, the photographer returned shortly after and stood on the covered manhole within the flooded central divider to take photographs.

This was dangerous as there was moving traffic on both sides of the divider. The Police Officer therefore advised him to move to the pavement where it was safer for him to take photographs.

According to the Police officer, the photographer moved off only after repeated advice. The photographer however recalled only being told to move off once before he complied.

Be that as it may, when he moved off from the central divider, he did not go onto the pavement, but instead walked along the road next to the flooded divider and continued to take photographs.

The Police Officer advised him against doing so again. He did not heed the advice. Up to this point, he did not have his media pass on, nor did he identify himself as a reporter.

The officer decided that he had to intervene directly. The officer went up to him and held his arm with a view to stop him from continuing to walk along the central divider and to move him to the pavement.

However, the photographer struggled free and the officer handcuffed him on one hand to restrain him and take him into custody. Upon reaching the pavement, the photographer had calmed down and he produced his media pass for verification and to identify himself as a photographer from the media.

He was un-cuffed after his identity was verified.

The Member asked about guidelines for Police Officers when dealing with journalists and the general public taking photographs at public places where there are floods or other accidents.

The Police generally do not interfere with the media or members of the public taking photographs of floods so long as it does not obstruct Police operations and so long as this does not pose a danger to others or themselves.

In this particular case, the issue was not about the photographer taking pictures of the flood, but about public safety. Police had taken action as, in its judgement, public safety was involved.

The Member also asked about the guidelines for the use of handcuffs. Police Officers are trained to assess the situation when exercising discretion in using handcuffs.

Depending on the officer's risk assessment, handcuffs may be used if a suspect is violent or if there is a flight risk, or if a serious offence had been committed.

In this case, although it was not intended to be an arrest, the Police Officer assessed that it was necessary to use handcuffs to restrain the photographer and stop him from continuing an action which the officer felt posed a danger to others and the photographer himself.

The moment the need for such restraint had passed when the photographer had ceased such an action and had been moved to the safety of the pavement, the officer rightly removed the handcuffs and decided not to arrest the photographer for obstructing a police officer in the course of performing his duty after it became clear that the photographer was from the media and was trying to do his job.

Both the Police and the media have important roles to play. While the Police respect and understand the role the media has to play, the Police have a duty to ensure public safety and security.

We cannot allow our officers on the ground when performing their duty to ensure public safety and security to have their directions ignored.

Anyone who disagrees with or feels aggrieved by any such directions by a public servant doing his job can make an official complaint later and it will be thoroughly looked into.

But he must first comply with such directions or be liable to face arrest and prosecution.

Looking at this incident with the benefit of hindsight, I think both parties could have handled the situation better.

Nevertheless, I am glad to know that the Police and the media have discussed the incident dispassionately and have amicably resolved it.