This past week, the city of Hong Kong has made headlines as over 2 million people took to the streets to protest the incendiary Extradition Bill proposed by the Executive Council which many say would impact the city’s autonomy from China.

Starting on Sunday 9 June, a record-breaking number of protesters stood their ground, bringing the city to a standstill as businesses closed and streets were blocked. The largely peaceful protesters marched through central Hong Kong and parked themselves outside the Legislative Council building and surrounding areas to demand that the government withdraw the Bill entirely and demanding that the China-backed Chief Executive Carrie Lam resigns.

On Wednesday, things turned ugly as police engaged the crowd with tear gas and rubber bullets, claiming that the protesters were the one who instigated the clash. On the other side of the fence, protesters slammed the authorities for taking such drastic measures on what was just a handful of provocateurs.

After Wednesday’s events, however, the protests regained a measure of control as protesters worked hard to maintain public order, making way for ambulances to get through the crowd and not succumbing to ill behaviours such as looting. The police as well were much calmer as they watched the crowd and gave way to marching protesters. As of today (Monday, 17 June) reports estimate the crowd to be about 2.3 million strong, that’s about 30% of Hong Kong’s population and the largest demonstration in the city’s history, well above the Umbrella Movement protest back in 2014.

For the moment, the Legislative Council has suspended the second reading of the bill while Ms Lam has come out to apologise for causing tension. She did not, however, give in to demands of her resignation.

Will this work in Singapore?

Considering the events in Hong Kong, it makes you wonder how Singapore’s police force would manage a movement of that scale. Will the police know what to do? Will they be able to control a crowd of that magnitude without resorting to violent measures?

In December 2013, Singapore was shocked by a riot in Little India involving about 300 migrant labourers. Triggered by a fatal accident in the area involving a bus, an angry mob attacked the bus and emergency vehicles that had arrived to deal with the injured party. This was the second riot in Singapore since independence and the first since the massive race riots in 1969.

After the Little India riot in 2013, a committee of inquiry (COI) was convened to look into the event. After then-DPM Teo Chee Hean presented the government’s response to the COI report, Aljunied GRC MP Sylvia Lim raised the question of whether the police force could use more practice in handling situations involving large crowds.

Specifically, Ms Lim pointed out the COI’s recommendation that frontline officers should be trained and equipped to deal with public order disturbances. Following that, Ms Lim asked DPM Teo if training alone is a substitute for actual practice in policing such incidents.

She said, “In this light, would he consider, for example, that the Police should allow more peaceful protests in Singapore in certain designated roads, so that the Police can actually on a regular basis test their policing capabilities in terms of policing cause-based crowds. Riots, of course we do not want that, but they progress, basically, from some sort of cause-based protest. I would like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether he would consider that.”

Ms Lim argued, “We do not want damage in property or loss of life, but peaceful protests are arguably a freedom and civil liberty we want to project.”

In response, DPM Teo said “We can see the logic, or lack of it, in purposely allowing protests and demonstrations just in order for the SOC to practise.”

“But I should say that one of the reasons why I do want to increase the size of the SOC is because we do have more events in Singapore, large scale events, and you do not really need to deliberately allow protests to take place in order to give the SOC practice. A typical football match and other events like that already provide the SOC quite a lot of activity and action,” he added.

Elaborating further, DPM Teo said he didn’t think many Singaporeans would want to see more “chaos” or demonstrations “disrupting their daily lives” and taking up resources which can be used for other purposes.

Permits for protesting in Singapore

Enshrined in the Singapore Constitution is the freedom of expression and assembly. However, these freedoms come with caveats. Section 14 of the Singapore Constitution states that every citizen has a right to the freedom of speech, expression, and peaceful assembly. However, these freedoms are restricted by Section 14(2):

Screen shot of Singapore Constitution, Section 14.

The Public Order Act (Section 5) enacted in 2009 states that public assemblies are processions requires advanced notice and approved permits. Basically, it’s illegal to protest in Singapore without a police permit.

While that may seem easy enough to obtain, TOC editor Terry Xu experienced just how difficult it is to actually get a permit request approved. Back in 2018, he had tried several times over months to obtain a permit for various purposes including a one-man assembly on the issue of live streaming parliamentary sessions.

In a post on Facebook, Terry recalls:

I have made a few applications to the Singapore Police Force over the past months to hold an one man assembly due to the signing of parliament petition to hold live parliament streaming. Some with signage, some not.

The last one sent, was to hold a protest against the recently passed Public Order and Safety (special powers) bill was pretty much the extreme settings where one man sit-in silent protest with no signage at the middle of the night of the Central Business District during weekend is denied by the police because of “risk of causing public disorder, as well as damage to property”

The risk to public order and damage of property is the catch-all reason that the government uses to explain why assemblies and organised protests are usually not permitted in Singapore. Even a one-man silent protest is deemed too risky.

A little risk goes a long way

Back in 2016 at the “Poverty and Inequality in Singapore” conference organised by “Let’s Talk, Singapore”, former Chief Economist, GIC, Adjunct Professor, LKY School of Public Policy Mr Yeoh Lam Keong noted that Singapore’s economic system relied heavily on foreign capital and labour.

The system’s architect, Mr Goh Keng Swee had said at the time in 1972 that there would be serious implications if Singapore continued to rely on the system he came up with. Mr Yeoh noted how Mr Goh’s prediction is coming true.

He further said that this particular arrangement of relying on multi-national corporations meant that the government could use it as a point to argue upon when come to issues of organising strikes and other liberties.

“And that created its own economical and political dynamic, by the justification of continuing the dependance on foreign captial, you have said, we cannot afford strikes, we cannot afford any industrial actions, we cannot afford any democratic “noise” on the street, we can’t even afford to have an occupy movement that we saw in Hong Kong. Otherwise, we will lose all these capital,” said Mr Yeoh

Coming back to Hong Kong – the ongoing protests have, thus far, not affected the city financially or economically all that much. In fact, unlike what one might expect, the stock prices in Hong Kong did not tumble after the record-breaking protests.

In fact, it appears that the Hong Kong market rallied after a week of losses, thanks in part to the decision of the government to suspend their plans of pushing through the Extradition Bill. As you can see from the Hang Sang Index for example, there was a spike in the market from the start of transaction before gradually dropping to the level it was at the time the market closed:

If anything, the people of Hong Kong are showing the world – including Singapore – that the excuse commonly used by the Singapore government to curtail the constitutional rights of its citizens is not entirely valid.

Or perhaps the SPF has to simply acknowledge that it is less capable than that of the Hong Kong Police when it comes to managing its city’s residents, particularly that the SPF seems unable to manage a one man protest let alone one by millions of people.

But as Mr Yeoh Lam Keong said of Singapore, its founders have “created and perpetuated” a system that even they find faulty for economic reasons, but it also has “severe political negative implications that you must forever remain a muted and docile polity.”

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Aljunied-Hougang Town Council to receive $12.9m of MND grants

The Ministry of National Development (MND) announced on 14 April that it…

Sibling duo Preeti and Subhas Nair spoke to VICE about the recent 'brownface saga'

“When you imply someone is a liar and call someone a racist,…

在美涉间谍案 姚俊威今抵国门即被捕

承认替中国套取美方情报的新加坡男子姚俊威,今年10月在美国被判14个月监禁,三个月后驱逐出境。 据《亚洲新闻台》报导,姚俊威在今日(30日)返国,甫抵境就被内部安全局(Internal Security Department)依内安法令逮捕。相信他将被盘问,是否涉及任何有损新加坡安全的活动。 当局指出,我国不容许任何“国外势力”(foreign actors)利用我国公民从事可危害我国安全和利益的活动,也重视这类与外国政府建立暗中关系、从事间谍或颠覆活动的国人,并将依法对付。 今年7月,内政部答复媒体询问时表示,姚俊威此前活动未对新加坡安全构成直接威胁。 美国司法部指控姚俊威承认自2015年至2019年期间,以顾问公司为掩护,替中国向美政府及军方人员套取情报。 他被控作为“外国特务”,从事非法行为,初期以其他亚洲国家的目标为主,其后专注于美国。 2018年,杨俊伟成立一家虚构顾问公司,他开始寻找掌握非公开信息的美国军方或政府人员,聘雇他们撰写报告,付2千美元给上钩对象,要他们交出报告。 其中还包括“一名参与空军F-35B匿踪战斗机计划的文职人员”、“一名国防部官员”、“一名曾在阿富汗服役的国防部军官”,杨会声称这是他亚洲客户要的资料,但事实上是交给中国政府。 2019年11月,杨俊伟飞抵美国时被捕,华盛顿法院在10月9日作出裁决。

The Rise Of The Political Internet

By leounheort   Friday, 24 November, 2006The internet is one of the…