Jolovan Wham at the public forum which featured Joshua Wong as one of the speakers, through skype

The Community Action Network and Demosisto have released a joint statement criticising the prosecution ofJolovan Wham, a social worker and activist, for holding a Skype discussion which the police have deemed an ‘illegal public assembly’.

Five members of the Community Action Network along with the Secretary-General of Demosisto, Joshua Wong endorsed the statement which says the prosecuting a citizen for a Skype conversation that took place within the confines of a private space only enforces the perception that the Singapore government does not respect the fundamental rights of their citizens.

The strong statement echoes the sentiment of the international community over the absurdity of the law that seems to go against common sense where a person can be detained and prosecuted for something he does in his own space just because the government does not like what he has to say.

The International Commission of Justice has called for Singapore to amend the Public Order Act, under which Mr Wham is being charged, to ensure that it is consistent with international human rights law and standard.

Read the Joint Statement by The Community Action Network and Demosisto here:

Prosecuted for holding a Skype discussion: Singapore Should Respect the Right to Freedom of Assembly 

Singaporean social worker and activist Jolovan Wham will be back in court on October 1, 2018. This time, he’s being tried for organising a Skype discussion with Joshua Wong, a prominent leader of Hong Kong’s Umbrella Movement. 

Police are describing the closed-door talk which took place in November 2016, as an “illegal public assembly”. Authorities say they contacted Wham prior to the event to tell him to apply for a permit. Wham did not have enough time to do so, and now faces a fine of up to S$5,000 if he is found guilty. 

Whether or not Wham broke the law is a matter for the judges to decide. But commonsense says police should not have been involved and prosecutors should not have charged him to begin with. Skype conversations that take place within the confines of a private space are private matters that should logically, not require permits before they can be carried out. 

Freedom of assembly is a fundamental human right. But in Singapore, attempts by citizens to come together for a shared cause are often viewed with suspicion by the government. Protests are only allowed to be held in one location. A single person can constitute an “illegal assembly”. Such restrictive rules have given authorities plenty of leeway to prosecute activists like Wham, but virtually anyone can be a target.

Citizens of a first-world nation should not have to worry about whether or not an indoor event constitutes an “illegal assembly”, or whether or not police permission is required before a Skype conversation can even proceed. Such exchanges are normal in any healthy society. Wham’s discussion with Wong ended peacefully and would not have drawn any further attention if authorities hadn’t decided to act. 

Wham is also being prosecuted for refusing to sign his police statement. Wham says he declined because he was not allowed to have copies of the statement. It is puzzling why an accused person should be denied access to such an important document. The policy should be amended. 

Wham faces a further two charges for organising “illegal assemblies”. He’s also been charged with “vandalism”, for using scotch-tape to stick two pieces of paper on a train, and another two charges for not signing police statements. If found guilty of these offences, he faces a fine of up to S$5,000 or a jail term of up to three years. 

By prosecuting Wham for his involvement in peaceful, non-violent protests and related activities, the Singapore government has only reinforced the perception that it does not respect fundamental rights taken for granted by citizens in other first-world democracies. This is deeply regrettable. Public resources and taxpayers’ money can be put to far better use. This kind of gross over-reaction only serves to reflect the state’s paranoia and inability to trust its own people.

Endorsed by: Joshua Wong, Secretary-General, Demosisto, and the following members of Community Action Network, Singapore: Lynn Lee, Roy Ngerng, Shelley Thio, Vincent Wijeysingha, Rachel Zeng.

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

DPP in Parti’s case used to join perm sec dad in expensive French cooking escapade in Paris

It was reported yesterday that Liew Mun Leong’s former maid, Parti Liyani,…

国大生对前女友动粗案 判决引坊间哗然

针对国大牙科生对前女友动粗后被判短期拘留的判刑,人民行动党妇女团表示失望,并认为刑期和被告的罪行不成正比。内政兼律政部长尚穆根,则承诺将会重新检讨现有法律框架,提呈国会。 日前23岁的国大牙科生殷子勤(Yin Zi Qin译音),因女友拒绝复合,而对她动粗,被判12天短期拘留。拘留结束后须遵守日间报到、进行社区服务等。 不甘女友在去年5月9日提出分手,被告当晚到在女友家人不知情下爬进她睡房,还拿出玫瑰花试图挽留感情,但遭拒绝。 凌晨1时10分,被告表示很难过,女友原本还想解释,却被被告掐住脖子。女友尖叫挣扎,被告又用拇指紧紧压住女友左眼,直到她左眼流血昏迷才住手。 被告在2月21日认一项蓄意伤人罪。7月17日,获法官开恩,被判12天短期拘留,这意味着他不会留案底,也可从牙科学院毕业并到政府牙医诊所服务,逃过支付40万元毁约金的下场。 校方昨日(20日)针对有关判决表示,在国大完成纪律调查之前,涉案的23岁牙科学生殷子钦(译音,Yin Zi Qin)将不准踏入校园。 针对相关判决,也引起各界关注,指该判决过于宽松。人民行动党妇女团发表声明,强烈谴责针对妇女的暴行。但她们也表示,尊重我国的机构和司法制度,并且明白目前已有程序,处理人们所提出的合理疑虑。 人民行动党的女性议员也纷纷转贴声明,表达支持。其中包括丹绒巴葛集选区议员英兰妮、麦波申单选区议员陈佩玲、东海岸集选区陈慧玲也在脸书上转贴有关声明,以示支持。…

Police report filed against PAP’s Murali Pillai over “falsehoods” regarding “scurrilous attack” on his family

A police report was made against PAP candidate Murali Pillai on 8…

行人过马路看手机要被罚?警澄清没这回事!

针对网络谣传,行人过马路看手机可能会违法,警方澄清,行人过马路时使用手机其实并不违法,但出于安全考量,并不建议行人在过马路时使用手机。 日前网络上流传一则以中英文信息的截图,文内表示, “新加坡交通规则修正。从今天(1/12/2019)开始行人在过马路时边使用手机将可以被罚高达1000新元”,引起网民关注。 对此,警方于脸书上澄清并无此事,但也提醒民众,在过马路时需要保持警惕,注意自己和其他行人的安全。 “我们建议行人在过马路时避免使用手机,因为使用手机会分散他们的注意力。行人在路上必须时刻保持警惕,顾及个人与其他使用道路者的安全”,警方表示。 让路紧急服务车辆 由于信息内提及12月1日刚修订的高级驾驶理论(Highway Code),警方也在脸书中强调,高级驾驶理论的三项重要修订,包括过马路时避免使用手机,并遵守交通标志与规则、让路给紧急服务车辆、正确使用个人代步工具。 2018年,共有887名行人因交通意外受伤,其中39人因此而失去生命,因此有关当局才需要行人在使用道路时,提高警惕,保护自己与其他人的生命安全。 此外,高级驾驶理论表示,未能及时让位给紧急服务车辆的驾驶者,将可被处以最高200元的罚款,并扣除4分;个人代步工具则需要在规定的道路上限速行驶,并鼓励民众以安全有序的方式使用工具。 据总检察署网站,高级驾驶理论仅是一系列行为准则,不算是交通法令摘要,旨在强调道路使用者之间的相互责任。 因此,警方呼吁民众勿随意散播未经证实的信息,民众也可上有关当局网站查询证实消息来源。