|
|
Can the
Government explain why
(A)
this is not allowed...
(B)
and this is?
(C)
this is not allowed...
(D)
and this is?
(E)
this is not allowed...
(F)
and this is?
(G)
this is not allowed...
(H)
and this is?
Above Events:
(A):
Anniversary walk of Sep 16 WB-IMF protest
(C): Gay group's
Pink Run by the Singapore River
(E): John Tan arrested at
SDP's Burma Protest
(G): Freedom Walk, International Human
Rights Day
(B):
CASE's Consumer Rights Day Walk (Parliament House)
(D): PAP
Womens Wing's Yellow Ribbon Walk
(F): CASE executive director,
Seah Seng Choon
(H): Central Singapore CDC's Mass Walk
|
Public
assembly ban: Beware the con
26
Oct 06
The
Government's explanation of why protests cannot be allowed in
Singapore is meretricious. Singaporeans must beware the con.
In
the first place the Constitution, the supreme law of the land,
does not give the Government power to ban protests. Public
assembly is the right of each and every citizen, not some
privilege accorded by the Government.
The exception is
made only when national security is threatened, for example, in
times of war, in an outbreak of insurgency, or during natural
disasters. Even then the declared period of emergency is
temporary, not last for half a century.
This is where the
Judiciary needs to check the powers of the PAP Executive.
Unfortunately, our Courts have failed the people and failed us
miserably.
The lie
The PAP pretends that
the threat of violence is the reason why outdoor demonstrations
are banned.
If that's the case why did it allow the NTUC
to stage a protest against the US embassy in 1998, PAP women MPs
to march in 2005, CASE to stage a consumer rights demonstration
in 2007, and the Central CDC to conduct a mass walk in 2007?
Why does the Government organise Swing Singapore
and permit other outdoor parties where tens of thousands of
people gather and where liquor, the main cause of rowdy
behaviour, is allowed?
Is there no potential
of violence at these public activities?
If there are
disturbances at any outdoor gathering, political or otherwise,
there are laws and law enforcers to deal with unruly individuals.
But to decree a blanket ban on an activity just because
the Government thinks that a few individuals can't behave
themselves is incomprehensible and, to repeat, unconstitutional.
Would the authorities ban football matches just because a
rowdy few cause trouble in the stands? Should driving be banned
just because a few irresponsible drivers speed or drive drunk?
Similarly, should the right of the overwhelming majority
of peace-loving citizens be denied of their right to peaceful
assembly just because a few mischief-makers (or perchance agent
provocateurs) have other ideas?
Or is the PAP
suggesting that the majority of Singaporeans are a riotous lot
and that a ban on public protests is the only way to keep their
violent impulse in check?
When
the Government cannot answer questions with logic and reason (see
letter below), and resorts to intellectual and political
dishonesty, its authority takes a beating.
The
reality
Witness the recent massive street protests in
Hong Kong, Taipei, London, etc. where workers and executives,
students and teachers, and even grandmas and grandpas take part
in peaceful demonstrations.
They were a sight to behold.
These people showed that protests are nothing to be afraid of. If
they have the maturity to conduct such events, why haven't
Singaporeans?
Such mass participation does something to
society; it gives the people a sense of belongingness, a sense of
patriotism that no jingle or slogan chanted during the month of
August can ever hope to achieve.
A politically engaged
citizenry is a motivated citizenry. Such politicization creates
the "buzz" that the Singaporean society – and
economy – so badly needs.
Most of all, public
demonstrations empower the people. They give citizens a voice to
which a government must listen.
It is this empowerment
that the PAP fears, not some baloney about the potential of
violence.
The ruling clique knows that its illegal hold
on power is possible only because it keeps the people isolated
from one another.
Political power, as demonstrated by the
courageous monks in Burma, when flexed by the people is a force
that despotic regimes are only too aware of – and fear.
Is it any coincidence why Singapore remains one of the
very few places – together with the likes of Vietnam, Cuba.
and North Korea – that prohibits public assemblies?
Even
countries like China, Malaysia and Iran do not forbid their
peoples from protesting in public.
The truth
There
are two ways that the public can make its voice heard –
through the ballot box and by conducting public protests.
The
PAP knows that that while it can manipulate the former, there is
little it can do to control the voice of the people in mass
demonstrations.
Singaporeans
must realize that the election system, in its present form and
under present management, will not allow the electorate a genuine
say in who it wants in parliament and, by extension, what
policies it supports or rejects.
By
controlling the Elections Department through the PMO, changing
the election process through the GRC system, intimidating voters
through HDB upgrading, buying votes through the Progress Package,
and crippling the opposition through defamation suits the PAP
invariably gets the total control it demands.
Think about
it. Despite the discontent over the withholding of CPF savings
from retirees, the proposed annuity scheme, the fat ministerial
salaries, the GST and fee hikes, the incoming disparity, etc.
representation in Parliament doesn't change. It hasn't since
Independence
Until and unless Government relinquishes its
arm-lock on the election system and the media, Singapore will
continue to live under the tyranny of the PAP few.
But
how are we going to compel it to make system open and democratic?
Imagine if Singaporeans were to conduct a sit-in outside
the Elections Department at Prinsep Street until the Government
agrees to an independent elections commission.
Imagine if
we were to protest outside Parliament House until the Government
agrees to stop its control of the local media and liberalise the
industry.
Imagine if Singaporeans were to walk to the
Istana demanding that the PAP stops behaving like it owned
Singapore.
Now imagine the ruling clique cornered and
forced to institute reforms.
And there you have the real
answer as to why the Government bans public assemblies.
The
Govt's explanation on 'peaceful' demos
Forum, The Straits
Times
25 Oct 07
A few
letters in the press have argued that peaceful demonstrations
should be permitted and even encouraged.
If
there can be complete assurance that peaceful outdoor
demonstrations cannot turn violent, the case for permitting such
activities would be straightforward.
Those with violent
goals typically do not declare their intentions upfront.
While
most demonstrations and protest marches may not start with
violence in mind, instances when they do turn violent are many.
Illustrative of this are the violent clashes at WTO meetings in
Seattle (1999) and Hong Kong (2005) and, more recently, the G20
meeting in Melbourne (2006).
When Singapore hosts such
international events, we must account for the enhanced security
threat level they attract. Our top priority must be to ensure the
security and safety of the event and participants. We cannot
afford to let our guard down or allow activities which undermine
our security arrangements to address this threat by diverting and
locking down forces for demonstration control and law-and-order
functions.
The argument that such violent instances of
demonstrations are occasional when compared to the total number
of peaceful demonstrations is valid only if we are prepared to
bear the costs of such outbreaks, however occasional.
The
worst race riots in Singapore history began as peaceful
processions. Hence even one such violent riot in Singapore with
its attendant loss of lives, injury to persons, and damage to
property is one incident too many. Deeper than the physical
damage are the scarred relations between communal groups and the
erosion of the sense of order and security which Singaporeans
value and cherish.
The existing law on outdoor assemblies
and processions therefore requires organisers to apply to the
police for a permit which the police will evaluate for potential
impact on law and order.
Indoor political events organised
by Singaporeans for Singaporeans are exempt from having to apply
for any permit. This is because the potential for disorder in an
indoor setting can be more easily managed should it occur and the
extent of damage more reasonably contained from the outset.
We
will evolve our policies, as we have, over time but there can be
no abdication of the need to always balance maintaining order and
security for the larger society while adjusting the parameters to
accommodate aspirations for different forms of political
expression among some segments of our society.
Toh Yong
Chuan
Deputy Director
International and Corporate Relations
Division
Ministry of Home Affairs
|
|
