cantonment police complexBy Ghui
With the proliferation of the Internet, the increase in opposition representation in Parliament, the ground-breaking GE2011 results and the People Action Party government promising change and a more inclusive society, most Singaporeans are hopeful that would usher in a new era of politics in Singapore.
Most Singaporeans believe that the PAP have done a good job overall. That said, there are areas where there can most definitely be improvements.
Apart from basic concerns such as rising house prices and transportation issues – which the government has taken some measures, even if token, to rectify – many Singaporeans are increasingly feeling a disconnect with what they deem as the “ruling elite” in Singapore. The government’s response was a pledge to be more inclusive.
However, this promise for inclusiveness is somehow contradictory to some of the actions that have been taken by the government. The MDA online regulation reforms and the banning of the film “To Singapore With Love” are but a few examples of these actions that seem at odds with the building of a more inclusive society.
The proceedings that have been taken against protesters of the controversial Return Our CPF protest on 27 September is the most recent example of actions that conflict with the sentiment of inclusion.
There have been reports of how protesters have been visited by the police at midnight and how interviews have stretched on for hours without refreshment while the police embark on apparent fishing exercises for information with which to incriminate participants of the protest.

han hui hui martyn see
Return Our CPF protest organiser Han Hui Hui was reportedly denied access to legal counsel and had her note book confiscated during police questioning.
Most disturbing are revelations of how interviewees have not been given the right to legal representation and how their personal belongings such as note books, containing notes taken by interviewees at interviews, have been confiscated.
The law and the process of law enforcement exist to ensure that there is order in society. However, for there to be effective order, all participants of society need to know what their rights are and what is part and parcel of the process.
How can a system function efficiently if the rules of engagement are a moving target? If the police are going to show up in the dead of the night and confiscate personal belongings without good reason, surely this possibility should be flagged to the public?
If it is not flagged in advance, then the police should not be permitted to act as they please. To confiscate items without permitting legal representation seems to run contrary to an inclusive society. How can one feel included if one does not even know his or her rights?
How can member society participate in all aspects of societal living if he does not know the rules of the game?
Perhaps our law enforcement services need to get up to date as to what the social contract is. They serve Singaporeans. They do not serve any party agenda. Singaporeans have called for a more inclusive society and the government has pledged this. The police should therefore facilitate this by behaving like a professional force from a democratic party.
The rights of Singaporeans in an “interview” situation need to be spelt out in black and white publicly. It is even more vexing that such clarity has to be put forward by members of civil society, not the authorities.
The problem is that most Singaporeans are exercising their democratic rights to have a voice while not knowing clearly what the boundaries are and indeed what the pitfalls could be. If the police are going to call people up for interviews then it is only fair that the people know how to prepare themselves. The element of catching people unaware late at night is surely unfair and would be described by many as harassment.
Society has to progress in tandem. Singaporeans are clearly ready for progress and it would seem that the government wants to be as well given that they have publicly promised inclusiveness. The government therefore needs to put some meat on the bones and the police need to catch up.
To be inclusive, Singaporeans need to engage. To engage, they need to know the rules of engagement. These have to be crystal clear so that we are on the same page.
Catching people by surprise is not just an unfair advantage, it can also be perceived as the government not meaning what it says and using the police force to employ harassment tactics in order to remain in power.
Society is entitled to freedom of information and the government should be committed to providing this. This is the only way Singaporeans can be included in the affairs of the state and fully engage in the future of the country. Understanding their rights, comprehending the potential consequences, having open discussions as to whether the level of their rights are acceptable are the hallmarks of an inclusive society.
Singapore is a democratic country and Singaporeans should not have to operate in a vacuum when exercising their rights.

Notify of
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Tighten labour laws to protect older, vulnerable workers

S’pore should keep in step with first world practices in employment laws. Gilbert Goh.

内政部调查 新天地教会未经注册本地设分会

根据新加坡内政部文告,五名南韩籍人士和两名新加坡人,正协助当局调查,有关未经注册在本地设立南韩新天地教会分会的事件。 文告指出,新天地教会在1984年由李万熙创立,在一些国家曾被指是邪教。根据前会员的说法, 李曼熙自称是耶稣转世,将在审判日带14万4千人回天国。 他还声称是唯一可诠释圣经的人,甚至指责其他教会和牧师都属于“撒旦的”,教导信徒若符合上帝旨意,欺瞒手段是可以接受的。 内政部指上述教会本地分会也使用了类似的欺瞒招募信徒手法,以公司为幌子,物色年轻人或年轻基督徒。且教会对信徒施加控制影响,不准他们相互联系、与其他教会核实教义或者告知他们的家人,借此隐蔽他们的存在。 内政部解释,2019年2月,该教会成员试图以“天堂文化,世界和平与复兴之光”(HWPL)为名在本地注册公司,引起内政部注意,相信可能被拿来作新天地教会幌子,而予以拒绝。 然而,后续的调查却发现,该教会和另一家公司“Spasie Pte Ltd”合作,后者自称提供咨询和开发软件服务。近期,新天地教会则开设一家名为“ Kings Ave”的独资企业,声称目的是提供企业培训、激励课程和个人发展工作坊,实则“挂羊头卖狗肉”,乃是为了方便租用地点来作为“会所”。 内政部称原本调查仍需数周才能结案,但碰上武汉冠状病毒疫情爆发,故此当局必须加速调查,特别是韩国大邱的新天地教会如今已成为当地最大感染源之一。…

Over 5,000 dengue cases in 2019 so far, about 37% more than total cases in 2018

There appears to be a surge in dengue cases this year with…

Falsehoods fester far more when the facts are available but not made public, says WP chief Pritam Singh

In Parliament on Monday (6 Jan), Worker’s Party MP Pritam Singh asked…