Law on unlawful assembly
This refers to clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill. By clause 29 of the
Bill, we are removing the heading Offences Against Public
Tranquility and replacing it with Offences relating to Unlawful
Assembly. By Clause 30, we will be deleting mischief or trespass
or other offence and replacing it with to commit any
offence.
S 141 has been amended to bring it in line with a recent Court of
Appeal case: PP v Tan Meng Khin [1995] 2 SLR 505. Now, an assembly
will be unlawful if people intend to commit an offence punishable
with imprisonment of 6 mths or more, even if it is peaceful and
does not disturb public tranquility. Under our law, a person who
organizes a procession or assembly after the police rejection of a
permit can be punished with max 6 months jail under the
Miscellaneous Offences Act. Hence 5 or more people who gather to do
so will become members of an unlawful assembly.
The decision in Tan Meng Khins case overturned another Court of
Appeal decision PP v Fo Son Hing one year before that. In the
earlier case, the Court of Appeal considered the words of S 141 and
determined that it was aimed at gatherings which threatened public
tranquility or a breach of the peace, and hence peaceful gatherings
would not be punished as unlawful assemblies. In the later case of
Tan Meng Khin, the Court of Appeal changed its mind and read S 141
to cover gatherings to commit any offence even if there is no
threat to public tranquility.
Connected with this, offences connected to unlawful assembly show
drastic increases in maximum jail terms. Being a member of such an
assembly will see stakes rise from a max of 6 months jail to 2
years jail, a 4X increase. Joining an unlawful assembly knowing it
has been commanded to disperse, will go up from 2 years to 5
years.
Sir, we should bear in mind that there are already many laws in
place which can punish people who attempt or collaborate with
others to commit any offence. The prosecution has enough to choose
from to charge groups of people who collaborate to commit crime
e.g. abetment, conspiracy, attempt.
Article 14(1) of the Constitution supposedly enshrines the right of
citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms. Although Art 14(2)
allows Parliament to set limits to this freedom, it is stated that
it should be for the security of Singapore and public order, and no
more than that.
Sir, let us distinguish between gatherings which are violent such
as rioting, and those which are peaceful.
The constant refrain of fearing law and order problems makes a
mockery of licensing law why have a law saying a permit is
needed, when it is seldom granted? Minister for Law mentioned on
Fri that Singapore needed controls as we were a densely populated
country. But so is Hongkong.
As our society continues to evolve, the time is surely ripe for us
to allow peaceful outdoor protests as a form of expression. By all
means, we can have rules about how, where and when such processions
may be held, but wider law reform is needed. S 141 should be
restricted to offences which threaten the public peace, and other
laws such as the Miscellaneous Offences Act which require permits
for peaceful assemblies should be modified.
