Source: Yahoo News.

The recent saga of couple being investigated by the police for wearing T-shirts with anti-death penalty messages at Yellow Ribbon Prison Run brought the country together to talk about this matter in a non-violent way.
For those who are not aware of this issue, Mohammad Nafiz Kamarudin, founder of non-profit organisation Happy People Helping People Foundation, revealed on Sunday (15 September) that the Yellow Ribbon Project Singapore disallowed him from participating in the run as he appeared at the event wearing an anti-death penalty T-shirt.
The T-shirt had “2nd chances means not killing them” printed on the front, and “#antideathpenalty” printed on the back.
“So they did not allow me to run, despite being clear on their site that runners can use any other tops than their official t-shirt. First they told me I need to change my bib. Now they want to police me on what to wear,” Mr Nafiz wrote in a Facebook post.
As such, he said that he will not participate in the event but will run parallel with other runners.
In an earlier post, Mr Nafiz highlighted that the organiser contacted him last week to request him to change his bib as the message written on it “is not in line with the cause”. At first, the organiser didn’t have any problem when they printed the same anti-death penalty slogan on his bib, instead of his name. However, they later changed their mind and asked him to change his bib with one that bears his name.
Mr Nafiz told TOC that after rejecting the request from different staff from the organisation to change his bib, he finally agreed to do it as he planned to wear a T-shirt with the same message on the day.
After exchanging his bib, a staff even told him that he can appear at the race with any T-shirt of his choice. But, he was still denied the permission to participate in the race.
In fact, a police report was made against him and his wife, who also attended the race adorning the same T-shirt, due to Sunday’s incident.
In a press statement released on Tuesday (17 September), the Singapore Police Force (SPF) did not identify the couple but stated that they are “investigating a 38-year-old Singaporean man and a 30-year-old Singaporean woman for offences under the Public Order Act.”
The statement added, “It is a criminal offence under the Public Order Act to take part in a public assembly or procession without a police permit. Investigations against the duo are ongoing.”
Mr Nafiz went through a two-hour interview at Bedok Police Station Tuesday and his wife attended her interview yesterday.

Public discussing the issue peacefully

Upon reading about this incident, it sparked a non-confrontational debate among the locals as they spoke about the issue on social media.
On Tuesday, local historian Dr Thum Ping Tjin highlighted in a Facebook post that Singapore’s laws are created to be extremely broad in order to “effectively make all public expression of any opinion illegal”, in reference to this saga.
Dr Thum, who is also the managing director of New Naratif, said that this incident is “an example of how systemic oppression works in Singapore.”
“First, self-censorship: you are pressured to voluntarily not express your opinion. Then, marginalisation: if you refuse to self-censor, you are excluded and made invisible. Third, intimidation: if you insist on being visible, Singapore laws are so broad as to effectively make all public expression of any opinion illegal,” he wrote.
Although Dr Thum opines that Mr Nafiz will most likely no face prosecution as it “would cross a line and make the authoritarianism too clear-cut”, but he feels that the bigger problem here is the fear and intimidation that is being disseminated to the wider population so that they don’t utter an opinion that is different from the government officials.
“And the crucial aspect – the real tragedy – is that all this happens not because of a directive from those in power, but merely out of fear and caution by those in middle management,” he said.
He continued, “Authoritarianism today is far more sophisticated than jack-booted thugs. It’s boring, bureaucratic, and administrative.”

Lynn Lee’s take on the issue

Besides him, film producer Lynn Lee also took to her Facebook page recently to point out that the act of “wearing a t-shirt with the wrong message is considered a step too far” in Singapore.
She said that Singaporeans are too “busy analysing and critiquing other people’s behaviour” without doing anything much about the issues that have been happening in their own country.
Referring to the protests in Hong Kong, Ms Lee said a large number of people in Singapore have made the events in Hong Kong as a “spectator sport” due to their comments about it.
“The loudest, shrillest people have not been anywhere near a protest, but they seem to know exactly what’s going on and can even offer up all sorts of clever theories and suggestions on how best to end the crisis. Perhaps these same people should focus on what’s happening at home instead,” she wrote.
Although Ms Lee agrees that the large-scale protests in Hong Kong might not be the best way to bring about change, but she said that it’s important to note that a simple act of wearing a t-shirt with anti-death penalty slogan is considered too much for Singapore.
She went on to quote several controversies that happened in the country in recent times:

One person can constitute an illegal assembly. A Skype call can be an illegal assembly. Hitting the share button on Facebook can invite a defamation suit. A course on dissent and resistance is seen as an attempt to advance “partisan political interests”. Meanwhile, pro-government trolls get to say whatever shit they want online, the Media Literacy Council needs media literacy training, the wife of our Prime Minister says he’s not overpaid. Oh, and Ministers are arbiters of truth – a new law gave them that privilege.

Ms Lee also noted that the method that Hong Kongers took in attempt to “wrest control of their own future” is their own choice and is none of Singaporeans’ business.
As such, she said that the locals are too busy being nosey about problems happening in other countries without knowing what to do about the issues happening in homeland.
“We’re the frog in the fable – so busy analysing and critiquing other people’s behaviour, we don’t realise temperatures in our own little pond are rising. When the water finally boils, we won’t have a clue what to do,” she explained.

Bertha Henson questions the Public Order offence in the act

On the other hand, veteran journalist Bertha Henson questioned the Public Order offence committed by Mr Nafiz and his wife in the Sunday’s run.
“So what is the Public Order offence here? He took part in a run that was properly organised I am sure. So his Public Order offence is wearing a different bib?” she asked in a Facebook post.
She continued, “I can understand if the bib is about kangaroos and courts…but this is simply making a statement. So could he have used the bib at other runs not organised by the authorities?”
The husband-and-wife duo are being investigated by the police for offences under the Public Order Act, which carries a maximum fine of S$3,000, with repeat offenders liable to be fined up to S$5,000.

In a separate post, the journalist also listed down a compilation of recent happenings in the country, which includes Mr Nafiz’s incident.
She wrote:

What a crazy country we live in….a place where a toddler’s death surfaces only after five years, where the PM sues others for talking about what his siblings said but not his siblings, where the Media Literacy Council isn’t literate enough to define fake news properly, where you can be accused under the Public Order offence for wearing the wrong bib, where most workers believe that they are getting bullied, where subsidies get eaten up by fee increases, where students need to have a workshop on how to make posters….while we’re being enveloped by the haze.

Her post also garnered a lot of attention from netizens, as it received more than 200 comments and over 600 shares.

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

高官不满报导 《海时》政治编辑被调职? 华伦澄清乃编采室重组

《雅虎新闻》揭露,《海峡时报》政治组编辑李雪盈(译音),疑似遭高官不满其部分政治新闻报导,而在今年八月被调任财经组。 《雅虎新闻》是根据《海时》内部职员披露消息,指在一则誌期7月20日的公司内部电邮,指出李雪盈在今年8月调任财经组,其职责包括“在《周日时报》和《海时》等平台,生产原创和具影响力的新闻内容。” 《海时》总编辑华伦斐迪南斯,则在同一电邮宣布将组成新加坡新闻组。该编采组将涵盖所有本地的政治、经济和生活新闻,以“促进跨平台的紧密合作”。 目前,新加坡新闻组是由执行编辑Sumiko Tan领军。 在10月29日的一则电邮,《海时》职员则被告知,资深助理编辑Paul Jacob受委为副新闻编辑(政治),他将负责政治和国外新闻的编采工作。不过,政治组编辑至今仍悬空。 《雅虎新闻》收到两名《海时》职员(其中一名已离职)透露消息,指总编华伦是在今年7月中旬,告知政治新闻组,有关李雪盈的调任消息。 据内部消息称,李雪盈的调任原因,可能是基于高官不满她在今年5月6日的一则报导:《王乙康:没有文凭也可当总理》(“A PM without a…

The Constitution and the need for Straightforward Simplicity

By Ghui – I read about the High Court ruling against the…

精英制度忽略贫富差距复杂因素 严燕松冀扶持同胞携手共进

尽管并没有出现在国家信约、国歌中,但似乎精英治国(Meritocracy)被吹捧为治国的“金科玉律”。工人党阿裕尼集选区议员严燕松提醒,精英政治固然对于打击贪腐、裙带关系是很好的准则,但似乎对每个公民都以能力和成就角度看待,而分出次优等级。 他打个比方,对于小孩我们是否也要以精英制度来苛求他们?如果考了不好的成绩,就只能吃快熟面、睡小房间?但对于我们的社会却是:你赚的不多,你就活该拥有糟糕的生活条件。 对此严燕松提及贫富差距中的复杂因素,则就好比一些人起跑条件优越,提前20米、跑道畅通无阻、还有良师指导,但遗憾的是,有些人的起跑线却可能从后方10米开始。 他指出,工人党对新加坡的愿景是国人都能达成他们的梦想,透过有竞争力的本地公司、活力经济,国人能合力打造这个家园。同时,一个有问责制的健全机制,比任何政党都更能持久。 要实现这愿景,就必须确保家庭能抵御生活中的风暴、校园能让学生为生存做好准备;社会安全网也能确保那些不慎跌倒的人,能够再次站起。 然而精英制度不看这些复杂因素,仅强调个人成就。“但我们是一个国家,不是一家企业。我们是同胞们的守护者。我们需要扶助彼此走完赛道。” 严燕松是在新加坡透视论坛,为“展望2030年新加坡政治”的对话会上,这么指出。 受邀嘉宾也包括卫生部兼通讯及新闻部高级政务部长普杰立医生,以及前进党非选区议员潘群勤。 严燕松也强调,目前面对的问题尤为复杂,需要各界的集思广益,而不是比赛谁能更快提出好主意,异议人士也不该被指责,“所有利益相关者应该合作而不是竞争,以找到应对挑战的最佳解决方案。” 普杰立:两党制由国人决定 回溯2011年,新加坡总理李显龙,曾表示两党制在新加坡根本行不通。治国最关键的是人才,唯有让A队有最大的成功机会,才能保障国家的前途,不能为了反对党所说的“买保险”,而去削弱A队。 对此,有与会者在会上抛出质问,从去年选举可见,人民希望看到更多反对党声音,行动党是否支持这种观点。…

Training centres to domestic workers – You have to obey

By Sha Najak & Roderick Chia As of mid-2010, Singapore is home…