police
In January this year, Gilbert Goh had planned to burn an effigy of Transport Minister, Lui Tuck Yew, at a Hong Lim Park protest event. However, the police told him that it would be illegal for him to do so. Mr Goh thus withdrew the plans to put Mr Lui to the fire, so to speak.
The incident, however, raised questions of whether burning effigies was illegal, as the police told Mr Goh.
The Online Citizen (TOC) published a report with references to various news reports, including those in 2008 when rules for Speakers’ Corner were relaxed, which indicated that burning effigies was not illegal. [Read it here: “Effigy burning – would Gilbert Goh be breaking the law?”] TOC’s enquiries with the authorities to seek clarity were met with silence.
On 27 September, Han Hui Hui organised a protest-cum-march at Hong Lim Park to call on the Government to return Singaporeans’ Central Provident Fund (CPF) savings.
Before she could begin her protest, however, a police officer who was present at the park, told her, “Police did not approve your permit regarding the march.”
He repeated it once.
When asked if a permit is needed to hold a march in Hong Lim Park, the police officer did not answer and instead referred the protesters to the NParks officer.
But the NParks officer did not address the question too.
Watch the video here, at 11:15 minutes onwards:

So, the question is: do protesters require a permit (whether from NParks or from the police) to hold a march or a procession in Hong Lim Park?
The law seems to say no.
The Public Order Act (POA), which was introduced in 2009, regulates public assemblies and processions and gives new powers to the authorities to preserve public order.
Among other things, it states that a permit is required for the conduct of any public assemblies or processions.
However, the POA also granted exemptions to certain areas and circumstances, namely:

– an assembly or a procession exempted from this section under section 46
– an assembly or a procession within any part of an unrestricted area not falling within a special event area.

Section 46 refers to the areas and people whom the minister, through the gazette, have granted exemptions from the POA.
It is the second provision which directly refers to Hong Lim Park as an exempted area.
Under the Public Order (Unrestricted Area) Order 2013, Hong Lim Park is declared as an “unrestricted area” and is thus exempt from certain provisions in the POA.
This include the stipulation that Hong Lim Park is exempt from the permit requirement for assemblies and processions, as stated in the POA:

“The area in Hong Lim Park and delineated in the Schedule is designated as an unrestricted area whereby no notice under section 6, and no permit under section 7, of the Act shall be required for the holding of all assemblies or processions or both therein.”

The law, thus, seems to be quite clear that Ms Han did not need to obtain a permit for her march at Hong Lim Park on 27 September.
It is thus puzzling why the police officer would tell her, “Police did not approve your permit regarding the march.”
Which law required Ms Han to obtain a permit for her march?
As far as anyone can ascertain, permits are required for foreigners who want to participate in any event at Hong Lim Park, for permanent residents who want to organise or speak at events at the park, or if the topic of any event there is about race or religion.
To be sure, there are also conditions for events held at unrestricted areas, as spelt out in section 4 of the POA.
However, there is no condition which says a permit is required before anyone can conduct a march or a procession at Speakers’ Corner.
Perhaps police officers should explain or cite the laws which they are referring to or basing their actions on when they confront protesters or event organisers, and not choose to keep silent with vague answers which only serve to confuse.
But above all, one would also hope that the authorities know the law well before they make declarations based on it.
So, as with the question raised in the effigy burning incident involving Mr Goh, the same is asked of the authorities: which law specifically has Ms Han contravened in going ahead with the procession without a permit?
Which law says that she is required to have one?
Was AWARE required to obtain a permit when it held a similar protest march at Hong Lim Park last year?

Subscribe
Notify of
27 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

未出征先遭港网民起底 大陆网军“帝吧”解散

大陆网军“帝吧”原本计划“出征香港”,到港社交媒体平台洗版,殊不知遭香港网民先发制人,搜出和公开帝吧管理员个资,结果“出师未捷”,群组不得不解散。 连日来港反“逃犯条例”风波延续,而中国“帝吧”群组以声援香港警察和特区政府为名,要到香港社交平台“连登”、“民间人权阵线”脸书专页等响应反逃犯条例的平台洗版。 “帝吧”原名“李毅吧”,是百度贴的论坛版块,原本是在2004年为嘲讽李毅而设,攻击模式并不是技术性的黑客攻击,而是“人海战术”,号召大量网民洗版迅速留言发帖,即便其微博群组也打着“帝吧出征,寸草不生”的旗号。 个资保护薄弱  高考分数都搜得到 帝吧扬言要在7月23日攻击连登,殊不知其主要管理员的身份迅速被起底。由于中国采网络实名制,个资关联性很高且保护薄弱,被暴露的信息非常多,包括真名、身份证号码、住家地址、照片、手机号,甚至连银行余额、支付宝记录,就连高考分数都找得到。 甚至有人代其中一名管理员报名参军,在宗教栏填写“伊斯兰教”,标明优先加入“艰苦地区部队”。 最终,“帝吧”团长尹垣程则以“不破坏香港民众正常生活秩序”为名,宣告出征连登活动落幕;至于帝吧官微公开“帝吧”解散,但强调解散不是人数,而是群组被渗透得太厉害,信息过多连微博都开不了,解散后再组另一个五千人的群组。 过去,帝吧曾攻击被指“台独”的台湾艺人周子瑜,迫使后者录视频道歉;2018年,大陆游客声称在瑞典遭不公待遇,帝吧也翻墙洗版瑞典外交部,以及攻击被指“辱华”的名牌Dolce&Gabbana。 曝露中国个资管理不足问题 而网军出师不利,个资先被起底,也显示中国个资保护的隐忧,甚至只要花钱就能获得详细的个资。

拉维被指帖文涉诽谤尚穆根 今早面控下月6日审前会议

因被指控脸书帖文涉诽谤内政部长尚穆根,律师拉维今早(16日)出庭面控。 事缘拉维在11月6日,在脸书称本地资深律师尤金.图莱辛甘(Eugene Thuraisingam),于2017年告诉他,内政暨律政部长尚穆根自称能对大法官梅达顺“施加影响”,而且还能“发号施令控制梅达顺”(“calls the shot and controlls (sic) Sundaresh Menon)。 对此尤金致函尚穆根澄清,拉维的言论不属实,尚穆根也未曾告知他上述言论。 上月7日,新加坡警方发文告,证实接到检控官援引刑事程序第16(2)项,指示警方依刑事诽谤罪名调查本地律师拉维。…

Phillip Ang: “Public healthcare subsidies are mostly non-existent” in Singapore

On Thursday (11 June), regular blogger, Phillip Ang Keng Hong published an…