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

人民党将迎来年轻化领导团队更迭?

随着人民党宣布将在下月16日举行党大会和选出新一届中委,坊间也在猜测,该党也希望终结近年很长一段时间未更新领导团队的现象,换新血相信能展现革新气息,提升该党形象。 目前,该党主席为罗文丽,秘书长为前波动巴西议员詹时中。他最近一次出席的公众活动,是在上月22日的詹时中体育基金会募款晚宴。当时也受邀出席为主宾的荣誉国务资政赞扬,詹时中是诚实、正派的政治家,尽管政见不同,惟詹一直在实践建设性政治,为我国文明国会辩论奠下基调。 除了曾担任议员的詹时中外,人民党还有两位前非选区议员,即罗文丽和2017年加入该党的谢镜丰(Steve Chia)。 该党在今日的文告称,今年的11月将迎来25周年,随着该党来到一个重要里程碑,看见许多热诚、能干和关心社会的年轻领袖挺身而出为国家服务,深感欣慰;也预示将迎来新一代领导团队的更迭。 预料包括积极走动波动巴西选区的乔立盟(Jose Raymond)、凯威古玛、谢镜丰等,可能被赋予更重要的领导担子。 乔立盟在去年初加入人民党。他曾分享,早在1984年他还是13岁小伙子时,就随同父亲聆听詹时中在波动巴西的竞选政治讲座。 但是真正影响乔立盟政治信仰的,还要回溯到1990年的一件事。当时,乔立盟一家不敷偿还抵押金,导致房屋发展局要拉回他们在西裕廊的组屋单位,乔立盟的父亲只好硬着头皮向詹时中求助。 詹时中当时二话不说,就签了支票帮乔立盟一家偿还了组屋押金,他们一家才免受流离失所之苦。詹的无私和真诚慷慨助人,使乔立盟深深敬仰,决心继承这种奉献精神,辅助社会弱势群体。 乔立盟在2015年选举前曾助阵行动党,受询及为何最终选择加入反对党,他表示这是他感念詹时中对他一家的付出,也希望能把詹的政治抱负传承下去,“希望能帮助更多的人。” 至于谢镜丰,打从1997年就参与过四次选举,曾在2001年担任非选区议员。近期可见他勤于走动人民党曾派将参选过的碧山-大巴窑集选区;另一位商界新星凯威古玛(Kavickumar…

【读者来函】防疫警戒级别升橙色 为何非必要活动仍照办?

致人民协会李显龙主席和陈振声副主席: 尽管早在2月7日,我国宣布进入疾病爆发应对系统”(DORSCON)橙色警戒,但如此大规模、非必要的活动(指2月15日,在裕廊SAFRA举办的歌唱班团拜晚宴)仍如常举办,实令人难以置信。 活动还被指是“私人活动”,误导群众以为是小型家庭聚会,结果才发现,是两场共数百人出席的活动,而他们曾参与在人民协会(PA)或居民委员会(RC)管辖下的歌唱班活动。 我想公众也好奇,人民协会或居民委员会到底知不知情是,这个在封闭式冷气环境底下聚集数百人的活动,再者出席者部分来自上述歌唱班。 假设人协/居委会是知情的,那我们政府经常吹嘘的社会责任又在哪里,当初不断强调遏制武汉冠状病毒传染的措施又有何用?作为一个基层组织是否应该“以身作则”,作为人民的表率? 既然警戒级别已升至橙色,考量到活动的规模,为何裕廊战备军人协会俱乐部不多长点心?如今许多私人公寓已停止让居民使用或预订多功能厅与烧烤设施,甚至神召会恩典堂(AOG Church)原本预定在2月8日举办的活动,也随之取消。 这些主办方,或允许活动进行的人,对我来说,就如同在玩俄罗斯轮盘一样在豪赌。然而,现在的结果可见,非常不幸的,是让我们的医疗人员和社区承受更多的风险和负担。显然在这场俄罗斯轮盘中,这些玩风险游戏的人赌输了。现在裕廊战备军人协会俱乐部私人晚宴,已然成为第二大感染群。 所以,这绝不是一场我们能以手上有限资源这样玩下去的游戏。 作者:Maurice Tay 原文阅读在此

SPF issues alert to avoid Upper Thompson Road due to overturned truck and oil spillage

Singapore Police Force (SPF) has earlier announced that there was heavy traffic…

United Airlines CEO apologised for series of failures of Flight 3411 at O'Hare International Airport in Chicago

United Airlines CEO Oscar Munoz apologised for a series of failures that…