|
|
Dr
Chee Soon Juan's one-man protest not allowed.
Right
to protest? As long as you are with the PAP.
|
In
Singapore even one person cannot hold a protest
16
Oct 07
The PAP continues to treat the Constitution with
utter contempt.
Ignoring the fact that the Constitution
guarantees the right of Singaporeans to freedom of speech and
assembly except in emergency situations that threaten national
security, the PAP government continues to abuse its executive
powers to deny SDP leaders and activists their fundamental
rights.
On 8 Oct, five SDP leaders (including our
video-grapher) were arrested for holding a four-person protest
outside the Istana against Singapore's involvement in Burma. The
reason? Under the Istana Order, two or more people are considered
illegal assembly and procession!
To circumvent this absurd
"law" that took effect only in November 2002, Dr Chee
Soon Juan staged a one-man protest on Monday to drive home the
point that Singaporeans have the right to know the extent of PAP
government's involvement, both in arms supplies and business
deals with the Burmese military junta.
Even this, the
police are saying it's an offence. They had warned him that he
had no permit under the Public Entertainment and Meetings
Act.
Today, on the second day of his protest, Dr Chee was
approached by a woman officer from the NPark. According to her,
the place comes within the purview of her department and he had
to remove his poster and leave the vicinity immediately. But Dr
Chee refused to budge, and the officer threatened to call the
police. Dr Chee told her to help herself since the police are
just across the road. After making a phone call, she left.
Sometime back, when four activists staged a peaceful
protest outside the CPF building, the PAP government dispersed
them with fully armed riot police. But PAP ministers and MPs
continue to flout the law and hold protests and marches.
Recently, a PAP MP was at the forefront of scores of protesters
outside the Parliament House (see photo on the left) and nothing
happened to them.
It looks like as long as it's political
in nature and not favorable to the PAP, it is banned.
Where
in our law book does it provide for such political
decisions?
Would any lawyer or legal professional care to
enlighten?
|
|
