By Andrew Loh
In a TODAY report in August of 2008 on the relaxation of rules for the use of Speakers’ Corner, it said that protests like the burning of effigies and holding gay pride events at the park “will have a place in Singapore”.
The government had announced the day before that the rules would be relaxed to encourage Singaporeans to speak up, and in the words of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong in 2004, to “let a hundred flowers bloom” at the park.

“Once in a while, Think Centre says they want to go to the Speakers’ Corner and they want to plant 100 flowers there, let the hundred flowers bloom.
“Well, I think go ahead. They want to water the flowers, go ahead.

In 2008, the government further liberalised the use of the park with effect from 1 September 2008.
“BURN an effigy of a Singapore political leader? Organise a gay pride event outdoors? From next week, protests like these will have a place in Singapore,” the 2008 TODAY report, titled “More open field”, said.

TODAY, 26 August 2008
TODAY, 26 August 2008
“We want to be as open as possible,” said MHA senior director (policy and operations) Tai Wei Shyon then.
Beginning 1 September 2008, “Singaporeans can organise and participate in any demonstration at Speakers’ Corner” except those that involve race and religion” without having to obtain a police permit,” TODAY said.

“Permanent residents (PRs) can also participate in these demonstrations, in recognition of the stake they have in Singapore. But they have to apply for a permit if they wish to give a speech or organise a protest themselves.
“Foreigners will have to apply for a permit to conduct or participate in any activity” to make the distinction that the political rights of citizens are different from those of non-citizens.”

“There are no limits (to the protests) subject to public safety,” said the then Singapore Police Force director (operations) Wong Hong Kuan.
However, following Saturday’s fare hike protest at Speakers’ Corner, the rules seem to have changed, in particular with regards to the burning of effigies.
Mr Gilbert Goh, the organiser of the protest, had planned to burn an effigy of the Minister of Transport, Mr Lui Tuck Yew, at the event, which was scheduled to begin at 5pm.
At 4pm, Mr Goh told The Online Citizen (TOC), several police officers in plainclothes approached him and asked about his plans, in particular about burning the effigy.
Mr Goh says he is unsure how the police came to know about the plan but he had posted about it on his Facebook page days before the event on Saturday.
He said the police told him that he is not allowed to burn the effigy as it would or might “stir up the crowd”, Mr Goh says.
The police warning was confirmed by the Sunday Times, in its report the next day:

Sunday Times, 26 January 2014
Sunday Times, 26 January 2014
The police’s warning to Mr Goh seems to contradict what the TODAY newspaper reported in 2008, and what the Ministry of Home Affairs had reportedly said.
Even an article in the Singapore Law Review in 2008 said the MHA had “indicated express permission for activities including effigy burning” at Speakers’ Corner when the rules were relaxed.
The new rules were to be administered by the National Parks Board, or NParks for short.
In the TODAY report, it said that NParks is ready to take on this new role and specifically mentioned that “effigies can be burnt.”

“Our primary motivation is to keep Speakers’ Corner for use in as well-maintained conditions as possible … If there’s a need to make good on anything, we can follow up,” said Dr Leong.
“So, don’t damage our shrubs.”
Which means effigies can be burnt but with care.

Whether one agrees with the burning of effigies or not, what is of more concern is how rules and regulations are enforced, and whether they are enforced with consistency.
As with the anti-gay sex law, Section 377a, at times our law enforcers seem not to know the government’s position on these things.
Also, should Singaporeans and members of the public believe what the mainstream media report? Was the TODAY report accurate? Why were there no corrections all these years from the authorities if TODAY’s report was erroneous?
Which law would Mr Goh have contravened if he had burned the effigy? Would he be prosecuted if he had burned the effigy, although news reports and distinguished publications like the Singapore Law Review had said the authorities had in fact allowed such a thing?
Why did the police warn Mr Goh that burning effigies was “illegal” when in 2008 the MHA seemed to have indicated that it wasn’t?
TOC has written to NParks to ask for clarification of the rules regarding the burning of effigies at Speakers’ Corner.
We will post NParks reply if or when we receive it.
After he was warned, Mr Goh then told the police that he will not be carrying out the planned burning.
“We still want to be law-abiding,” he said.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

女子为本地居留权 与本国男子假结婚被捕判半年监禁

42岁中国籍女子为取得我国居留权,与47岁我国男子假结婚,结果东窗事发,判处半年监禁。 根据移民与关卡局(ICA)周三(7日)发文告表示,两人于2015年在娱乐场所相识,当时女子王晓燕(译名,Wang Xiaoyan)正于娱乐场所内工作。 2015年3月,女子的工作证已结束。尽管已離境,但仍然与男子苗成聪(译名,Mow Cheang Chong)保持联系,她仍有意留在新加坡工作,便达成假结婚协议,协助女子申请工作准证,而女子则与男子进行性行为为回报。 兩人于2015年10月28日中国结婚,随后女子于2016年期间经常出入新加坡,而男子则成为女子探访准证的担保人,为女子数次延长女子的居留期限。 2017年2月22日,女子获得长期探访准证(Long Term Visit Pass),申请探访准证期间,男子一再向当局坚称两人已同居,但事实上却没有住在一起。 2017年3月2日,女子位于乌节路的按摩场所中,一次突击检查中被逮捕。经调查后涉嫌与协议结婚有关,便将女子与其“丈夫”转交移民与关卡局,另开案侦办。移民与关卡局随以进入协议婚姻和作出虚假声明,以获取通关证明控诉“夫妻”。…

Low-income can replace 93% of their income when they retire?

By Leong Sze Hian – I refer to the report “Young working…

K Shanmugam says politicians should focus on key issues like jobs and COVID-19 pandemic at hustings

Politicians should focus on addressing issues like jobs and the COVID-19 pandemic…