From singaporealternatives.blogspot.com
The following quote is from the Constitution of The Republic of
Singapore found in Singapore Government website:
Freedom of speech, assembly and association
14. (1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3)
(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech
and expression;
(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably
and without arms; and
(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form
associations.
(2) Parliament may by law impose
(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1) (a), such restrictions as
it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security
of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other
countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to
protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt
of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;
(b) on the right conferred by clause (1) (b), such restrictions as
it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security
of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and
(c) on the right conferred by clause (1) (c), such restrictions as
it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security
of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.
(3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by
clause (1) (c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or
education.
As the Constitution here clearly states that Singaporeans have the
right to peaceful assembly as in 14.1.b, one would wonder why the
police would normally reject any applications for peaceful public
demonstrations in Singapore, regardless of whether it is from
political parties, politicians or just any citizens?
To be fair, I would say that the police actually did approve
permits for political parties to hold political rallies during
General Elections. In fact, after approving the permits, the police
has to give guidelines and instructions to the political rally
organizers to ensure law and order as well as smooth conduct of
these rallies.
It would mean that the clause 14.2.b is not a clause that grant the
PAP government blanket power to stop people from peaceful
demonstration or assembly during or off general elections time.
Clause 14.2.b is actually in place to make sure that public order
must be maintained during such public assembly or protests. The
need of application of permit from the police is not supposed to be
a means for the PAP government to prevent people or groups from
organizing such peaceful assemblies which is a RIGHT granted by our
Constitution. It would be unconstitutional or against the
constitution if the PAP government or any state organs deliberately
and consistently deprive the citizens' right to peaceful
assemblies.
Then what is the purpose or rational of the law that requires
police permission for organizing these peaceful assemblies? And
what is the law that is used against protesters? The famous law of
"illegal gathering of more than 5 persons", what is exactly the
rational behind this law?
I will explain the last question, the myth of any gathering of 5
persons constitutes illegal gathering. This law is actually enacted
in response to problem of secret societies back in the 1950s and
1960s. The actual law says that any gathering of 5 persons and
above with the intention of committing unlawful acts, will be
considered as illegal gathering. That means that not every
gathering of 5 persons and above is illegal. This is only logical
because if 10 friends just go to East Coast Park to have barbecue
party, it could not possibly constitute illegal assembly!
Thus, it is really not right for the police to charge anybody who
only has the intention to exercise their constitutional right of
peaceful assembly without arms, under this law.
The other law that the state used against people that organize
peaceful assembly is "assembly without permit". Now this is where
the interpretation of law comes in. The police will normally use
the excuse that any peaceful assembly organized by non-PAP related
organizations or individuals will constitute public order problem,
thus, not granting them any permits. In the end, using the "no
permit" as the basis to charge these people for "illegal assembly".
Is this a fair practice? Constitutional?
We have seen the Workers' Party organizing political rallies that
attracted tens of thousands of attendants and not a single incident
of riot happening. If this is possible for WP during GE where
emotions run high sometimes, why would a seemingly, expectedly
small size protest organized by anyone could pose problems of law
and order?
Thus, the premise of the police rejection of application of permits
is totally flawed. Singaporeans are generally law abiding citizens.
Singaporeans are generally well educated and not hooligans.
As I have mentioned, the law that requires any citizens who want to
exercise their constitutional right of peaceful assembly should not
become a tool to deprive or even rob away citizens' right. If the
main concern is the question of law and order of such events, then
the only logical reason for this law to be in place is to
FACILITATE the whole process to make sure public law and order is
being maintained.
Yes, in any matured democracy, this is the primary function of such
law. Even US, British and most European countries have such law
that requires the application of permits for peaceful assemblies.
However, they will never use such law as the tool to deprive their
citizens of the right to peaceful assemblies as that would be
unconstitutional.
The state, including the government of the day and the various
state apparatus, should be upholding the Constitution of the land
as well as the rights granted to the citizens by this Constitution.
In Singapore, this is sadly not happening.
The right thing for the police to do is to grant the permits but
come into the picture to make sure that any peaceful assemblies are
conducted in a lawful manner that takes public order into great
considerations. This is what happens in Hong Kong:
Hong Kong has peaceful protests and demonstrations quite frequent,
often done during the weekends. The organizers will apply the
permit and notify the police. Then the police will normally grant
the permit but with certain conditions attached. Sometimes, there
will be negotiations held between the organizers and the police on
the details like duration of the protests, marching routes if any,
crowd control coordinations, safety requirement like ambulances and
first aid stations...etc. This basically means that both the state
and the citizens are involved in the whole process of organization,
making sure that the balance between public order and the rights of
citizens to peaceful assemblies are met.
The PAP government self-proclaims itself of "First World"
government but it seems that their practice of depriving citizens'
constitutional right to peaceful assembly is anything but the acts
of "First World".
The ultimate question is, WHY should we conduct or even allow
peaceful demonstration? This has been touched in NSP's recent press
release. As a country working towards a "First World" country, we
must ensure that our citizens must be more rounded in their own
development, beside pursuing materialism. Public spirit, social and
political awareness/ consciousness must be cultivated in the
people, not merely through textbooks but via a more active
citizenry. Civil activism includes freedom of expression in all
forms, including peaceful assemblies.
Core values of the society is normally molded via active
participation of citizens in various activities. This has been
demonstrated by many historical examples, including present times.
Hong Kongers' identity has strengthen greatly after the legendary
7.1 protest march in 2003 which involves half a million Hong
Kongers.
In fact, even in Singapore's own history, Nationalism was built up
in the late 1950s and 1960s via the various protest marches against
the colonial master, Britain.
Then why the PAP government, which itself has come into power via
various street protests and demonstrations, decided to "ban"
peaceful protests or assemblies? (Note: even using the word "ban"
here, is really unconstitutional!) One could only conclude that is
it is really a self-serving technical use of the power and law
rather the concerns of "public order". This is based on the fact
that Singaporeans at large are capable of behaving themselves in
politcal rallies of massive attendance.
It is precisely the fact that PAP come into power using such means
that it is afraid that any other political parties could use the
same methods to win power. Even the promise by PAP of "more open
society" does not include the protection (rather than the
deprivation) of citizens' right of peaceful demonstrations.
I would urge the PAP to progress with time. This is a new era of a
new century. Such closed and conservative mindset could only hinder
Singapore's development into a true blue First World country.
Goh Meng Seng
