By Andrew Loh
The National Parks Board (Nparks) said on Friday that it did not cancel the approval given to activist Han Hui Hui to hold the “Return Our CPF” protest on 27 September at Speakers’ Corner.

Straits Times
Straits Times
This was revealed to the Straits Times by the unnamed spokesman for Nparks.
The 27 September protest has resulted in several participants, including Ms Han, being given conditional warnings or being charged with the offence of public nuisance.
Ms Han, and blogger Roy Ngerng, face an additional charge of organising a demonstration without approval.
Altogether 14 people were investigated by the police for the incident.
Out of the group, five have been issued conditional warnings, which means that they are not to commit a similar offence within a stipulated period (usually between 12 to 24 months). If they did the conditional warning would be withdrawn and the charge against them will proceed, along with the charge for the new offence.
Six of the 16 will face charges in court on Monday, while the outcome of police investigations into the remaining three people “will be made known to them in due course”.
Under the Penal Code, anyone found guilty of causing public nuisance may be fined a maximum of S$1,000.
For organising an illegal demonstration, the penalty is a maximum fine of S$5,000.
Nparks has also confirmed that those facing police charges will not be allowed to hold any events at Speakers’ Corner.
This is an extension of the decision it made earlier this week when it barred Ms Han and the rest from holding an event at the park today, 25 October.
It is unclear when Nparks would lift the ban.
Those who have been given conditional warnings, however, are free to hold events at Speakers’ Corner, the spokesman for Nparks said.
The second charge against Ms Han and Mr Ngerng falls under the Parks and Trees Act (Parks and Trees Regulation) which says that

“… no person shall, except with the approval of the Commissioner and in accordance with the terms and conditions of such approval —
(a) carry out any public speaking;
(b) organise or participate (other than solely as a member of an audience) in any performance or exhibition; or
(c) organise any demonstration,
at the area in Hong Lim Park known as the Speakers’ Corner and delineated in the Schedule to the Public Entertainments and Meetings (Speakers’ Corner) (Exemption) Order 2008…

On the day of the event on 27 September, the investigation officer at Hong Lim Park had told Ms Han:

“Police did not approve your permit regarding the march.” [See here.]

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 who was also there with the police.
But the NParks officer did not address the question too.
Under the Public Order Act, Hong Lim Park is gazetted as an “unrestricted area” where permits for “assemblies and processions” are exempted.
The POA states [emphasis added]:

“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.”

So, while Nparks now says it did not cancel the approval given to Ms Han to hold the “Return Our CPF” event, the police are nevertheless charging her for “organising a demonstration without approval.”
Mr M Ravi, the lawyer who is acting for the six protesters facing charges, said, “The Public Order Act exempts any requirements for permits for free speech and protests in Speakers’ Corner. It is unclear if there is a requirement in law to apply for a permit.”
“So the Commissioner may be exceeding his jurisdiction in this matter,” Mr Ravi added.
As for the public nuisance charge, Mr Ravi said, “The definition of public nuisance is too broad and lacks certainty.”
He also described the police as being “overzealous” in its prosecution of the six protesters, given that it has given warnings to five others.

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


数只鸽子似乎是吃了某些食物后,开始在地上挣扎,飞不起来。有数人站在不远处的树下,看到大部分鸽子飞不起来了,就戴上面罩,将鸽子捡起来,一一丢到黑色大垃圾袋内处理掉。网传的这段视频引来网民纷纷关注,其中有反对诱杀手段者,也有赞成的一群。 昨日,关爱动物研究协会(ACRES)上载了一段有关诱杀鸽子的视频,引起网民注意。 有关的视频也接合了脸书用户Suraiyah K Abdulla于2018年9月上载的诱杀鸽子视频,并表示有关的诱杀行为非常不人道,令人感到不安。 视频中除了看见人们将无法动弹的活鸽子,装入黑色大垃圾袋内,也可见到他们或扫、或踢地将鸽子装进簸箕内。 食用了毒药的鸽子大部分都无法逃离被捕捉的命运,只有疑似食用较少有毒物品的鸽子得以逃离被消灭的命运。 网民对有关的诱杀行动感到震惊和愤怒,纷纷在社交媒体上表达他们的不满和难以置信。 “诱杀鸽子是不对的,但是可以考虑不要饲养鸽子。我住家附近都是鸽子的繁殖地和排泄场所,因为有一批不体谅的人士正在喂养这些鸽子。” 为他人想想 但是,部分网民则觉得这是不得不进行的工作。因为一些鸟类可能是病原带菌体,且粪便不清理也会导致污染环境和水的卫生。 “鸽子四处觅食,它们身上可能携带诸如禽流感、H5N1等病菌。试想像这些携带病菌的鸟类到小贩中心的桌上觅食的情况。你的免疫系统若不够强壮,你最终将会生病。想象一下那些体弱的小孩和老人们。”

MHA among “relevant parties” consulted by IMDA prior to approving Watain concert; MHA cited “public order” as grounds for cancellation: IMDA

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) was among the “relevant parties” consulted…

《联合早报》发公开信 向当事人柯政杰道歉

本月7日,《联合早报》在官方网页分享文章《阻断措施期间足不出户 南大生不解为何染疫》。内容描述一名许姓南大生,阐述自己一家四口足不出户,但发现自身出现冠病症状等。 对此,事主柯政杰则在个人脸书分享,尽管自己确实确诊冠病19 ,但本身并没有授权记者使用他的个人资料和照片,也未同意受访。然而有关记者还是根据他在社交媒体Instagram的照片,撰写上述报导。 政杰指出他的社媒贴文,仅描述在博览中心隔离设施的情况,然而,记者的报导却提及他的家人、日常生活等,都是不实的资讯,认为对方已违反新闻伦理。 对此, 《联合早报》总编辑韩咏梅也在今日(13日)发表致读者公开信。 他先是解释《联合早报》并没有刊登上述新闻;也指记者认识柯政杰,留意到他的贴文而要求采访,不过后者已拒绝。 “记者在尝试说服柯先生接受访问不果后,仍然选择了错误的方式根据柯先生当时公开的贴文以及对他的认识,当成对方受访写了新闻。然而,记者这么做时,并没有告诉他的直属上司,柯先生其实并不愿意接受访问。” 该文承认有关记者确实违反工作守则,也不应指事主已接受访问;至于报导中事主被“改性”、家庭成员也被修改,则解释记者希望避免他人对柯政杰对号入座。不过,此事未得到事主同意。而有关报导也从zaobao.sg官网撤下。 不过,《联合早报》仍坚称报导未有虚构,而是根据柯政杰的社交媒体贴文撰写。 《联合早报》也对柯政杰郑重道歉。“我们不应该在柯先生拒绝受访的情况下说他接受访问。这件事提醒我们,必须不停地审视我们的作业,贯彻我们做新闻的原则与程序。”

考量疫情局势 人协决定取消今年斋戒月市集

有鉴于武汉冠状病毒(COVID-19)疫情,人民协会宣布将取消所有斋戒月市集。 受影响的斋戒月市集包括芽笼士乃大厦、兀兰和淡滨尼天地市集。 人协指这是考量到市集届时将吸引大批人潮,为了减少群众和接触,避免传染风险,才决定暂停举办非必要活动。 不过已得标的商家主办方仍会按条约处理,保障他们的利益。至于目前仍在进行的市集和商展,人协表示当局采取防疫措施如现场量体温、提供洗手液等。 早前,我国防疫跨部门工作小组在本月13日宣布,由于此前发生有聚会出现感染群的案例,举凡超过250人出席的活动受促延后或取消。