RIDICULOUS RESTRICTION IN SINGAPORE FOR LF CAMERA

Hi, all,

 

Here below is the true story happened in Singapore on 27-April

afternoon, in front of the main entrance of "The Esplanade",

The Esplanade is the new Art Centre which consists of theatres,

showrooms, national library, restaurants ETC, it is a public

building that belong to all Singaporean & officially opened

months ago. We were told it plays an important role

in "Singapore Renaissance".

 

My friend (using a 8x10' camera) and I (using 4x5 camera)

setting up our cameras in font of it, adjusted everything,

probably 15 minutes later, 2 security guys came to us and blocked

before our cameras, "Hi, do you have a permit?" we were

shocked, I asked one of them: "I don't know any rules &

regulation of shooting picture have to apply permit in advance,

can you show me the black & white?" they simply refused to

show and said it is the instruction from management that

"big camera user" must be professional and the Esplanade's

image always being misused by them. I argued why those people

using P&S and SLR camera can shoot without permit, they insisted

bigger camera let them worried, not small ones.

 

To avoid further argument, we packed our cameras and left.

I called up The Esplanade management office the next day and

almost got the same answer, they admitted that their security

did been alerted for stopping any one using "strange equipment"

trying to take the building's picture.

 

Isn't it ridiculous? Singapore claimed it is a developing country,

after this happened, I doubt it. I would like to know is there

any similar thing happened in your country?

thanks

James

In New York, one is, by law, requred to have a permit for use of a tripod. Like many laws in NYC, this isn't enforced consistantly, but depending upon location, I have on occasion been hassled.

Actually the tripod permit goes back along time; at least before 1938. That is why the invasion started in Grover's Corner New Jersey; instead of New York.

There was a recent post where someone mentioned having problems in the Imperial Gardens in Japan- the assumption being, that anyone using a tripod was a professional. And other recent posts have concerned limitations on photography in general at various places. So it's not just Singapore.

 

If you can find out who makes these decisions at The Esplanade, it might be worthwhile to take some of your photos by and talk with them beforehand, about who you are, what you do, etc.

sounds like a tax, they just want a cut.. dave

Very frustrating but you may experience the same in France, where also one is by law required to have a permit for use of a tripod. As always with thoses kind of laws, it is not enforced on a consistent basis, but you may be hassled in big cities and/or in front of some monuments.

As far as I know there are no legal restrictions on tripod use in

Australia, but I have been examined when using one re my

"professional" status ( I wish!)

 

Australians will be aware of recent events which occurred at a

holding centre for 'irregular immigrants' when the police mistook

a tripod used by one of the folk protesting refugee policies of the

Australian government for a weapon and called in heavily armed

riot squad goons. I understand that they eventually apologised.

 

Ross Chambers

All this only serves to illustrate that there is a serious mis-equalibrium in nature, in that there are far more horse's asses than there are horses.

Ross is right about Australia not having or requiring any permits for tripod use, and though I am not shocked at the gestapo tactics employed in somewhere like 'recalcitrant Singapore', as they are known in our region as being a big-brother police state, I find it alarming that a kind of Orwellian revolution seems to be occuring in regards to the free liberty and right of the tax paying individual to photograph, and enjoy the society around them, in any way they please, which does not involve the harming or disturbance of such! This baloney regarding National Parks and Wildlife, which is now becoming more serious in Australia for photographers, is pretty frightening really as a recent article in Australian Photography magazine pointed out by way of an article on one of our fine Landscape Photographers, Ken Duncan. Duncan called for an outright cessation of photographic activity by pro's and amateurs alike, of national icons such as Uluru (Ayers Rock) and other places by way of protest, if these laws and legislations continue upon their natural progression.

 

The reason for this was that new restrictions were now being put in place which would require photographers to purchase expensive permits in order to photograph and enjoy Austrlia's natural wonders! He went on to say that if this continued he would cease photography in Australia altogether and go overseas to take photographs. I think it's pathetic and extremely dodgy that laws are being created to inhibit the pursuit of photography by the public, whose right it is by virtue of their citizenry, or not, to have whatever access to public lands they deem suitable so long as that does not involve damage or disturbance to it. If we follow the same rationale as this, which seems to apply to photographers only, are we going to alter the statute of limitations to allow a posthumous taxing of all fine art paintings from those who sat on a river bank and created a masterpiece of Rome, London, New York or wherever?!

 

What about intellectual property by those who might think up a story and mention it in their book which involved the reproduction or utterance of a buildings name, on a public street, which belongs to some anal company that wants to be in total control of it's image, but who doesn't want anybody depicting it or even thinking about it without their explicit guidance or stamp of authority upon it.... or a cut of any profit gained by way of it's depiction, eh? If we continue down this road you might as well say, bye, bye to liberty at all. The same applies to those who make money from writing guide books to all these incredible locations that we visit. Are we to become paralyzed by the beaurocracy of GREED which is readying itself to control the most simple things in life and create great monpolies of basic rights and liberties that ought to be inherent to every human being from birth until death... oh yeah, they have a tax for that too! The question remains, what sort of world do we want for our children and grand children?

 

I don't want my grandchildren to be asking me to tell them stories about the days when anybody could just walk through a national park without first passing through the huge golden gates, buying a $4000.00 one year membership first online and then signing up for the extra $2000.00 membership for those planning on taking photographs which you can only have private use of! At some point *WE* the public have to take a stand and send a message to those creating this *JOKE* future in *OUR PRESENT* that this is not acceptable! You know what the alternative is right?

 

Orwell said - "If you want to know what the future looks like, imagine a jackboot on the face of humanity... forever."

 

Singapore have been moving in that direction for years.

Well of course it is ridiculous, so get a speed graphic or other hand hold camera.

 

Better yet try taking photos of airports in the usa with a telephoto lense when in plain site or take some of the lovely border bridges between canada and usa and you will also meet uniformed people.

Singapore has had a reputation for many years about being highly restrictive. I recall traveling through there 30 years ago and being advised to make sure that I got a haircut before the trip; otherwise, one could expect a hassle.

 

The issue of security guards at public places harassing photographers has been discussed at great length. If it's truly a public place, there then are legitimate issues. I had an very unhappy experience at Ft. Ticongeroga two years ago of being refused admission with a tripod. I can understand that there are safety concerns when there are crowds, and to be honest, it was a Sunday afternoon and they had a special activity that drew an enormous crowd, so I can agree that my timing was pretty bad. On the other hand, I made a conscious effort to search their website the night before to see if there were any restrictions, and there were none. Furthermore, there were no signs when I got there - just a big guy who refused to let me in. So the issue there was the manner in which they publicized and enforced the rules.

 

BTW, I will be visiting a fortification in Maine in a couple of months, and this time I wrote ahead to ask if there would be any problems.

 

The third dimension of this is that not all "public" property is truly "public". We had an episode recently in which a gentleman was arrested for wearing an anti-war t-shirt in a shopping mall (the very same mall that sold him the shirt, no less). Legally, the mall is private property, and has the right to impose whatever rules they want, including a rule against photography. In fact, for many years, the notice on each door to this mall said that photography was not allowed. In this instance, the guard to arrested the man was firec for overstepping his authority, but eventually it came out that he had carefully checked with mall management and was acting in accordance with specific directions. So the result is that the mall got a lot of very bad publicity, the man who was arrested has the basis for a nice law suit (and he happens to be a lawyer), and the guard became a hero and ended up with a far better job.

Over in Chicago part of the developing Ashcroft dictatorship. I have had several students tell me that they have had police aproach them and take away there film when taking pictures in Chicago near bridges, government buildings,and during protests. These are photo 1 students with 35mm cameras, we've been give a memo by the department to tell our students what they can and can not take pictures of. Didn't we just "liberate" the Iraqi's so they would have more freedom? Maybe they'll come help us next.

I was recently photographing the exterior of the St. Petersburg (Florida, unfortunately, not Russia) Art Museum using an 8x10 camera on a tripod. I was standing on the front porch of the building. A security guard told me that permission of management was required in order to photograph the exterior of the building. He didn't distinguish between point and shoot cameras and large format cameras on a tripod. I don't know the exact legal status of the building's ownership but even if it is owned by a private, non-profit organization I'm sure it's funded in substantial part by the city, county, and state. This whole area of when you can photograph and what you can use is very inconsistent and I think depends a lot on the whims of the property managers and/or the particular police types you happen to run into. I think some of the people in both groups hassle photograhers partly just because they can and partly because they think someone may be making a buck and they aren't getting their cut. There probably is in some cases a legitimate security concern too. Let's face it, not everyone knows what's going on when they see a strange looking object mounted on a tripod and someone who's hidden from view peering into it from underneath what looks like a big blanket.

Things like that happen when we (any country including mine) continue to elect (and re-elect) incompetent bureaucrats, and they in turn appoint other incompetent bureaucrats. These "officials" are stupid. We are stupid for keeping them in office. The best way to get their attention is to stay away in droves. When they don't get their little entrance fees, photo permits, "adventure permits" or whatever it is called, and the money stops coming in, you will have their full attention.

 

There are two things that are infinite, universe and stupidity, and I am not sure about the univers - Albert Einstein

Recently I was trying to photograph a tree in a public park in Rochester, New York, when a police cruiser pulled up beside me and told me I could not photograph trees. When I asked him why, since it was a public park, he simply said I could take pictures of people, but not of trees. So I packed up my 4x5 equipment and left. Unbelievable.<br><br>I have a friend who tried to take a photograph of GEORGE EASTMAN'S own house, and somebody came out and said he couldn't do it, so he packed up his Wisner and left. I can't believe that this happens in the very city where the man himself lived!!!

Hello, James, and everybody who have contributed to this thread. I really this will not degenerate into a political forum. I am not a Singaporean, but have lived here many years. I took a photography course in Singapore about three years ago. I remember very well the comments made by the instructor who is a rather well known photographer. I was informed that there is no law against taking photographs in public places. As far as I am aware, I believe the law still holds. Then we need an explanation why James and his friend were subjected to the harrassment. As have been written by several contributors earlier, this is really not unique to Singapore. It happens every where, especially after 911. The paranoia still persists. Please understand that not long after 911, "recalcitrant" Singapore managed to stop some terrorist activitites that were essentially targeted against US military personnel. As part of their plans to bomb the local subway often used by US personnel, videos and pictures of the local subway were taken by the terrorists. Regretfully the paranoia persists, and overzealous security personnel certainly do not help. However this phenonmenon is really not unique to Singapore, if one cares to read the forum. I remember reading in this forum, that photographers, whether using large format or even the more "benign-looking" medium cameras, were stopped in Cambodia when they put the cameras on tripods. This also happened in Greece at the Acropolis, if my memory do not fail me. I have also read that even using something as simple as a 35 mm camera to take pictures of the bridges in the United States were frown upon, and photographers harassed by security personnel. From these examples, surely a rational person cannot say that James' unfortunate experience is unique to Singapore? Is is rational to therefore say that Australia is "recalcitrant", and Cambodia? and Greece? and the United States? Whatever personal differences and disagreement one may have against the Singapore government, surely James's experience should not be used as an excuse for Singapore bashing. Many people who form such opinions really have not been in Singapore to understand Singapore. Even for James. I do not know where you are from, but an isolated experience like yours do not negate the fact that Singapore, while not as "liberated" as say USA (like having your freedom to buy Playboy and Penthouse, or to possess arms, or to smoke cocaine, and ecstasy etc), have actually come a long way. Do not judge the standards of another country by your own standards. Every country has it own unique problems. BTW, Simon, I have many American friends who would rather live in "recalcitrant" Singapore than "liberated" America. Believe me, there are many virtues in "recalcitrant" Singapore to attract my American friends. These are difficult times, and combative comments do not help, but create more alienation. As far as I am concern, I will try to bring this issue to the local authorities. I am not sure it will make any difference, but I will certainly try. Chong

Oh, just reading the posts above have "convinced" me that the United States is also extremely "restictive" amd perhaps "recalcitrant"? (Wink, wink) Chong

Just on a return trip from France and the Netherlands. France was terrible on tripods, period, lf or 35mm. IE) Denied photographs of the Arc de Trompe' using a tripod! It's centuries old, public domain. But denied. Ridiculous! I plan on writing France's tourism and complaining. And I don't have any plans upon returning anytime soon as a result.

James,

 

I have been living in Singapore for the last 20+ years and also in the US for 1 year.

 

I have been taking photographs in Singapore for at least 10+ years and for the last 2 years with a large format camera. I have never been stopped while taking photos.

 

To clarify, there are certain places in Singapore, for example, CHIJMES, where using a tripod or "Professional" cameras would incur extra permits and fees. These places are considered private, hence, usage of these premises would be under the conditions that the management of the building sets.

 

I guess a good solution would be to lug my Arca Swiss 45 down to the Esplanade with the largest tripod I have :)

 

I'll post an update after I've done this...

This is not a public policy issue as some have been over quick to point

out. It is instead a private property issue: the managers don't want the building

photographed. And yes I agree it is absurd, but then nobody ever accused private

security guards of being particulary smart.

I'm planning a trip to NYC soon and naturally want to bring my tripod along with my Ebony RW45. The problem I have, is that I travel with my tripod in a case. Does this mean I have to have a Concealed Tripod Permit?

In response to Ellis:

<<<<<<<<<<<This is not a public policy issue as some have been over quick to point out. It is instead a private property issue: the managers don't want the building photographed. And yes I agree it is absurd, but then nobody ever accused private security guards of being particulary smart.>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

I agree with you on the point about private property but I have to disagree about the public policy. Yes, it is public policy in the United States not only since 911 but long before. I have been a staff photograher at the U. S. Capitol in Washington for nearly 20 years and even as an employee, I have always been required to have a tripod permit in order to do my job. The public is required to have the same permit. The rule is very strictly enforced by full fledged heavily armed police officers who have no sense of humor at all. I have asked but never received an answer about the origins of this rule but I know not to challenge it. Congress is famous for arbitary rules. Similar but different and more arbitary rules apply off of Capitol grounds when photographing the monuments in Washington that are administered by the National Parks Service.

 

I work closely with security officials as part of my job and I can assure you that the mentality is very narrow and getting narrower each minute. No one has accused the publiclly paid security officials of being particularly smart either. Power and secrecy begets more power and secrecy. George Orwell's 1984 is here having arrived 20 years behind schedule.

Chong,

My comments were not politically motivated and I was in no way Singapore bashing as you would have it, but indeed living in Australia, a nation very much in the same region, and having been to Singapore quite a few times myself, I have an impression of the place which leads me to believe that the society, attitudes and lifestyle aren't exactly what I would call 'open' and 'tolerant'.

 

Infact I feel recalcitrant to be an apt phrase and while it may not extend to the individual man on the street of Singapore I certainly feel it extends to the Singaporean government. This is not unique and I have personal issues with my own government here in Australia also. Infact I marched at the S11 protests against the WTO in Melbourne in 2000 and voiced my opinion in regard to many issues which relate to my government and big business. So, please do not feel that I have picked Singapore out of a hat and decided to brand it in isolation. I have not. Singapore was the country in question and that was why I expressed an opinion, which believe it or not is still my right, atleast as far as Australian law is still concerned. I don't think I'd have it as easy trying to express my views or live my alternative lifestyle in Singapore, therein lies the rub.

 

But to take you point by point....

 

--------------------------

"Is is rational to therefore say that Australia is "recalcitrant", and Cambodia? and Greece? and the United States?" ----------------------

 

If I find these countries including Australia to be so, then yes it is. Singapore I find recalcitrant, deal with it.

 

----------------------------

"Whatever personal differences and disagreement one may have against the Singapore government, surely James's experience should not be used as an excuse for Singapore bashing." ----------------------

 

I think your are grossly overstating my position. I am merely expressing a view which did not stretch beyond the word 'recalcitrant'. The rest of my tirade was actually spent dealing with Australian legislation generally and other matters pertaining to my argument. Are you one of those Singaporeans so desperate that everybody fall in line with your view of Singapore and *your* view alone? Thats pretty recalcitrant if you ask me. Allow for the fact that not everybody see's the world the way *YOU* do.

 

---------------------------------

"Singapore, while not as "liberated" as say USA (like having your freedom to buy Playboy and Penthouse, or to possess arms, or to smoke cocaine, and ecstasy etc), have actually come a long way." ------------

 

Well this is one heck of a statement Chong. I merely point out that I think Singapore is recalcitrant and you jump on me for a generalisation and indiscretion. And yet you follow this up with the above statement. I'm sure you put allot of your American freinds on side with that brief but sensitive analysis of all that is American Culture and freedom, summed up!

 

--------------------

"Do not judge the standards of another country by your own standards."------------------------

 

How else would you have me form an opinion Chong, by vacuum?

 

-----------------------

"Every country has it own unique problems." -------------

 

Quote me where I have stated otherwise?

 

---------------------------

"BTW, Simon, I have many American friends who would rather live in "recalcitrant" Singapore than "liberated" America." --------------

 

Great, they must like recalcitrance then, I don't.

 

-------------------------------

"These are difficult times, and combative comments do not help, but create more alienation." ----------------------

 

Times are only difficult when you *CAN'T* express an opinion. As they say, may you live in interesting...

 

Thanks for playing, Si

Needless to say, things are the same in Los Angeles because of the movie industry. Every little town has its hand out and wants a piece of the action.

 

A few years ago while assisting a commercial still photographer shoot a model on the street in Palos Verdes, we were stopped by a passing police patrol car. The cop made the photographer ride with him to city hall to purchase a $500 cinematography permit, even though we were shooting stills. The cop claimed our Hasselblad EL with 70mm back and NC-2 finder could not possibly be a still camera, and refused to be convinced otherwise.

 

Wonder why so many films are now shot in Spain?

I had a similar experience in Kyoto at one of the temples (the Kinkoji) a few years ago - the security guard (who did not speak English) told me I could use my 35mm camera, but not my handheld medium format one. My Japanese was not good enough to follow up on the reasons.