My 12 tips for Political and Human Rights Activists in Singapore.
1. Read the law thoroughly, particularly the ones that the PAP will use to trip you up, namely Sedition Act, the new Contempt of Court law, Public Order Act (holding a public indoor forum featuring a foreign speaker is illegal), defamation laws, Films Act, MDA Licensing Scheme, Cooling-off Day regulations, Penal Code.
2. Being an activist is a good way to filter your friends. If certain people start avoiding you, then you know they are not worthy friends anyway.
3. Family members and close friends will try to dissuade you. They are usually the biggest fearmongers in your life. Listen politely but always follow your own conscience.
4. Bear your own responsibility for your speech and action. Never implicate others.
5. Live your life as you normally would. If you labour under the (imaginary) fear of being under constant surveillance, you already short-changed yourself and the people around you.
6. Campaigning should be fun and energizing. If it becomes a begrudging chore or bore, take a break and recharge.
7. Yes, there are government moles within the opposition ranks and in civil society. They usually have friendly and pleasant personalities. They are likely to stay in the background and will not be too strident in their political views, but will offer to photograph, video or take notes. Most people unwittingly allow them into their organisation because they are short of manpower. But do challenge these dodgy types to display a public commitment to the cause. Otherwise, keep them out of the inner loop.
8. From time to time, organise leisure activities with fellow activists from other fields. Watch the tension, friction and squabbles dissipate, like magic.
9. If you haven’t had run-ins with censorship or the police, the government probably does not take you seriously.
10. Be thoroughly prepared for your home to be raided by the police one day, to face arrest, and most of all, to spend time in prison. To be at peace with such a prospect frees you up to speak your mind fearlessly and to make decisions without regret.
11. Draw inspiration from the ones who have suffered and sacrificed so much before us. For example, whenever I think of what Chia Thye Poh, Said Zahari, Lim Hock Siew and their families had to go through, my own worries become embarrassingly trivial.
12. Forget about the results and the rewards. These things are out of your control. Do the work because your conscience is pricking you and is keeping you awake at night.
PETALING JAYA: The majority of those who responded to a survey conducted by social activist Fahmi Reza rejected the possibility of Malaysia having a non-Muslim prime minister some day.
According to a Malay Mail Online report, out of 1,344 respondents, 39% said they could accept such a situation, while 31% said that as long as the prime minister was a Muslim, they would be agreeable to it.
The other 30%, however, completely rejected the possibility of having a non-Malay premier.
The one-day survey conducted on Fahmi’s Twitter account revealed the prevalence of mistrust among the Malays towards those of other ethnicities which he said portrayed Malaysians’ failure as a society.
Speaking to the English news portal, he said the country’s education and political systems, which had increasingly become polarised based on race, were not helping the situation.
“But at the same time, this problem exists because there is a lack of interaction and sharing among races and an in-depth understanding among ourselves in society.”
Targeted only at Malays, Fahmi said he conducted the survey because he was interested in finding out their views over such a possibility.
The graphic designer acknowledged that the results of his survey may be flawed as anyone could have responded to it, but said that was a trivial matter as the survey’s primary aim was to get the public speaking on the issue.
It was also a follow-up to a previous question he posed on Facebook, asking his followers if they were prepared to openly discuss matters related to racial discrimination and racism, with those of a different ethnicity.
“I posted this question because I wished there were more spaces and opportunities where these exchanges could really happen in real life, and not just on social media,” he said, adding that the poll was merely a starting point for open talks on the rarely discussed topic of racism.
“I am actually planning to hold a few series of workshops about the issue of racial discrimination and racism that is intended to create a space and opportunity for this issue to be discussed openly by workshop participants from different ethnic backgrounds.”
Public policy advocacy group Centre for a Better Tomorrow had on March 17, released the results of a survey it conducted last year where 60% of the 1,056 Peninsular Malaysians polled claimed they were not racist.
Out of the 60%, half however said they would not vote for a candidate coming from a different race, while another 34% felt race-based politics was still relevant.
To start, we should also note that PAP activists Victor Lye, who made a Facebook post thanking his team for distributing the fliers, and Muralidharan Pillai, who confirmed to media that the flyers were from PAP, have both clearly indicated the origins of the flyers. In spite of that, the documents in question do not carry any PAP logo. The flyers were also distributed past midnight, as if done to avoid direct contact with residents.
Notwithstanding the highly mysterious and secretive air surrounding the distribution, Muralidharan had insisted to media that they had nothing to hide and that “there was no difficulty in understanding that (the flyer) was from the PAP”.
Precedence set by the SDP
Ms Chee Siok Chin was jailed for a week for distributing flyers which were critical of the Government.
You are charged that you, on the 10th day of September 2006 at about 12:15 pm, in the vicinity of Raffles City Shopping Centre, North Bridge Road, Singapore, which is a public place, together with 5 persons did participate in an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government, which assembly you ought reasonably to have known was held without a permit under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) (Assemblies & Processions) Rules, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 5 of the said Rules.
Mark Chua
Senior Investigation Officer
Central Police Division
29 December 2008
The SDP members were charged under Rule 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) (Assemblies & Processions) Rules which states: Any person who participates in any assembly or processions in any public road, public place or place of public resort shall, if he knows or ought reasonably to have known that the assembly or processions is held without a permit, or in contravention of any term or condition of a permit, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.
It is difficult to imagine that the legislative intent of this law was to curb the handing out of flyers, or similar communicative-type activity. I daresay the law was meant to prohibit gatherings that pose a threat to public peace, e.g. gangs out to intimidate or fight, or sit-ins that block traffic. The name of the law, after all, is Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.
Moreover, in actual practice, no action is taken against the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who stand at metro stations handing out flyers, or even those who interfere with traffic in some way, e.g. stopping people to sell them insurance
The point made by Mr Au definitely makes sense – the execution of laws should target the intended consequence, rather than the offending act itself. Unfortunately, the way the law was applied in the case must be taken into account in evaluating the present facts.
In the judgement passed by District Judge Chng Lye Beng, it is understood that, if a group of five or more persons distribute flyers of a political nature in a public place without a permit, they may likely be in breach of the law. Let us now compare the first three elements of the offence with the facts of the case at hand.
Five or more persons?
After the distribution of the flyers, Mr Lye posted this image on his Facebook page. According to his post, the people featured in this picture are the “(PAP) activists who worked through the night… to distribute flyers.” From this picture, one can easily make out seven people, which suggests that there were more than five people who helped to distribute the flyers. There might also have been more who helped out in the distribution but were not featured in this photo.
Post on Mr Lye’s Facebook page after the flyer distribution
Public places?
The flyers in question were placed at the doors of HDB flats, as seen in the picture above. This means that Mr Lye and his team were operating at the common corridors of HDB flats. It is also clear from the photographs taken from Mr Lye’s Facebook page that the flyers were left outside the flats – which suggests that they in no way entered into the home, or what might be considered private property.
Flyers of political nature?
To give the reader a better understanding of what would constitute ‘political nature’, it would be good to look at the contents of the flyers that the SDP members distributed. The flyers contained the following words:
Tired of being a voiceless, 2nd class citizen in your own country without any rights? Sick of the Ministers paying themselves millions of dollars while they tell you to keep making sacrifices for Singapore? Then join us for the
EMPOWER SINGAPOREANS
RALLY & MARCH
Saturday, 16 Sept 2006, 11 am
Speakers’ Corner, Hong Lim Park
FOR MORE INFORMATION, GO TO
www.singaporedemocrat.org
In comparison. here are the contents of the flyers that the PAP activists distributed:
Comparing the contents of the two flyers, I opine that if the former can be constituted to be of a political nature, the latter undoubtedly is of a political nature too. The later also makes explicit references to the Workers’ Party and its Town Councils which should dissipate any doubts one may have about the political nature of the flyers.
Without a permit?
Prima Facie, it seems as though the actions of the PAP Aljunied team on Friday evening have satisfied the first three elements of the offence. In other words, Mr Lye and his team of five or more persons did distribute flyers which were of a political nature in a public place.
The question now would really be whether they had a permit for the distribution of the flyers. Both Mr Lye and Mr Muralidharan had not any any point in time produced any evidence to show that a permit has been obtained. If they do not have such a permit, they would technically be in breach of the law.
Alternative charge of Sedition
However, the SDP is not the only precedence we have of people distributing flyers without a permit and getting into trouble for doing so.
In what was popularly referred to as the “poison letters“, a flyer that was critical of the PAP was distributed to residents in the heartlands via letter boxes. The Strait Times described the flyer as “an A4-sized sheet with the criticisms in English and Chinese, made allegations about corruption and exploitation and complained about cost of living issues, among other things.”
It was reported that Police investigations were ongoing although we didn’t get to hear the end of the matter. TODAY reported that the flier was in breach of the Sedition Act which states, among other things, that a seditious tendency is one which seek:
(a) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the Government;
(b) to excite the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure in Singapore, the alteration, otherwise than by lawful means, of any matter as by law established;
(c) to bring into hatred or contempt or to excite disaffection against the administration of justice in Singapore;
(d) to raise discontent or disaffection amongst the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore
The “poison letter” incident raises another bag of issues for the PAP flyer distribution in Aljunied GRC. While the target of the flyers – the Workers Party – do not form the government, its members are rightfully elected Members of Parliament, who are part legislative arm of the government. The contents of the flyers might possibly be also be construed instigate dissatisfaction among the residents of Aljunied against WP. Might it have the consequence of causing political unrest? The potential is unthinkable. However, to a certain extent, it may be possible to interpret the contents of the flyers to amount to a “seditious tendency” under subsections (b) and (d).
Conclusion
Ultimately, if this case ever goes before the courts, the issue of the legality of the flyer distribution lies with the Judiciary. Personally, I do hope that it never will, just as I wished the case of SDP and the “poison letter” never did. Even though I believe the actions of Mr Lye and team are akin to a political lowblow, I am of the firm opinion that, as far as the law is concerned, they should be free to do what they do – just like how all political parties distribute flyers during their house visits. I an no fan of laws that can be interpreted and applied in a manner that is over-reaching and discretionary.
However, should a police report be made by a recipient of the flyers against the PAP activists, might it be an uphill task for PAP activists to justify the legality of this flyer distribution?
Activist and blogger Han Hui Hui turned up at the Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon (Feb 25), to file a judicial review application against the Attorney-General. Channel NewsAsia understands Ms Han is challenging what she calls a “Blanket Refusal” to permit her to speak or organise a demonstration at the Speakers’ Corner.
Last October, the National Parks Board had cancelled approvals granted to Ms Han to speak and demonstrate at Speakers’ Corner, and said it would not approve further applications for her to use the space at Hong Lim Park, until a police case against her was concluded.
Ms Han, along with five others, including fellow blogger Roy Ngerng, had been charged on Oct 23 last year, for causing public nuisance by disrupting a charity carnival last September. They reportedly led several hundred people in a march around Hong Lim Park and encroached into the area where YMCA’s annual carnival Proms @ The Park was held. They also allegedly frightened some children with special needs who were about to perform on stage.
Ms Han and Mr Ngerng were also charged with organising a demonstration without approval.
Regarding her judicial review application, Ms Han told Channel NewsAsia she had hired a lawyer to represent her – the third one so far, but he did not show up, due to “personal matters”.
Ms Han had earlier told the media she would be appearing at State Courts at 2.30pm. She arrived at 2.17pm, accompanied by two friends, but was told she should be at the Supreme Court instead.
