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

Celebrate National Day – but is this necessary?

At S$3,300 for each billboard, are town councils spending unnecessarily?

新加坡能源公司:第四季度住家电费平均下调3.3巴仙

新加坡能源公司今日发文告表示,今年第四季度(10月份至12月份),住家电费平均将下调3.3巴仙或每千瓦小时0.79分。 该集团称电费下调的因素,只要是与上季度相比,用于发电的天然气成本减少。 从10月1日至12月31日,住家电费(未含7巴仙消费税)将从原本的每千瓦24.22分,下调至23.43分。这意味着,四房式组屋的电费平均将下降2.84新元。 但是,在今年7月,新能源公司曾指出,比起上一季度,天然气的价格成本已提高,故需调涨电费。7月1日至9月30日,增长平均6.4巴仙或每千瓦小时1.43分。 住家电费(未含7巴仙消费税)将从原本的每千瓦22.79新元调长至24.22分。当局称这也是五年来最高的电费增幅。 新加坡能源公司亦表示,每季度的电费调整有赖于能源市场管理局。能源市场管理局作为电力与天然气市场的监管机构,其职能是负责推动能源市场的有效竞争,保障能源供应的可靠性,安全性和可持续发展性。

【冠状病毒19】9月15日确诊病例增34起 六入境病例

卫生部指出,截至今日(9月15日)中午12时,我国新增的冠状病毒19确诊病例多达34起,包括六起入境病例,没有本地社区病例。 加上今日的新增病例,我国确诊病例已累计到5万7488起。 六起入境病例在抵达我国后,已经开始履行居家通知了。

全国雇联主席称外籍人才乃“陪练对手” 新加坡不应过于封闭

据《海峡时报》报导,全国雇主联合会主席(SNEF)叶进国向透露,新加坡不应该对外国人才过于封闭,甚至一定程度的多元化,能为本地雇员提供一个基准或“陪练对手”(“sparring partner”)。 当然,这似乎和全国职工总会秘书长黄志明,提议政府缩紧就业准证政策的建议有冲突。 “那种(就业准证)政策必须存在…否则,我们只是自己在战斗,我们一直认为我们是冠军,可是我们也只是在实乞纳(Siglap)是冠军。但我们要成为世界的冠军。就像你号称是结霜桥选美小姐冠军,但你就只是属于双溪路,那环球小姐呢?” 他认为我们必须保持平衡,否则会过于封闭,然后失去竞争优势。本地人会失去竞争本能,自以为本身已经是最棒的。 针对民间建议,人力部应公开那些将列入公平考量框架观察名单的企业,叶进国则认为,对于首次犯错的公司无需公开,只需公开屡犯不改的公司。 然而,对于叶进国此番言论,有者认为“不接地气”,似乎他作为全国雇联主席不了解一般打工人士的焦虑。不少网民也同样留言提醒,人们并不是反对外籍专才,而是必须避免职场上为了外籍专才,反倒造成歧视新加坡人就业的不健康现象。 即使人力部在本月初的文告,也证实了多达30个金融、专业服务行业的雇主,他们聘请的外籍PMET(专业人士、经理、行政人员和技术人员),大部分来自同一国家。还有18家公司,PMET过半都是外籍人士。 至于一名退休银行家也直接投稿《海时》,揭露“一些大型、老牌外籍银行”,倾向雇用外籍人士、排挤新加坡人才,已是业界熟知之事。 还有前人资主管透露,聘雇歧视确实存在,她遇过一些老板,“强烈推荐”她先查阅外籍人士的履历,即使他当时面试的本地人都符合职缺条件。 叶进国除了是全国雇联会长,他也担任叶水福集团的掌门人。叶水福集团则为本地物流业老字号。他也担任新加坡技能、创新与生产理事会(Council For…