At Singapore General Hospital (SGH) on Wednesday night, the mood was understandably muted.
A number of people had made their way down especially for one reason – to keep vigil for Singapore’s first Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew.
Mr Lee has been warded at SGH since Feb 5 with severe pneumonia.
On Tuesday, the Prime Minister’s Office said his condition had worsened due to an infection. On Wednesday, it was announced that he was still critically ill.
The people at SGH waited and sat in small groups scattered around the Block 6 waiting area. They spoke in hushed tones, making no commotion, even as some of the lights were turned off.
People like Ms Julie Minhat came to offer their prayers for Mr Lee.
Yet when Ms Julie, and others like her, spoke to The New Paper, a sense of hope could be heard in their voices.
When asked why she made the journey, Ms Julie, 50, who was accompanied by her sister and three other friends said: “It’s better than getting updates on TV or social media. (Being) here, at least I feel close to him (Mr Lee).”
Ms Julie, a resident of Ang Mo Kio, said she was at the hospital since 8pm.
In that time, she had seen a build-up of media personnel. Close to 10pm, an area was cordoned off for the press.
For most of the well-wishers at the hospital, some posts on social media proved painful to read. PMO issued a statement that a police report was being lodged against the hoaxers.
Said Ms Julie’s sister, who declined to give her name: “At a time like this, it is distasteful to poke fun. When a person is in such a state, we should show respect.”
That sentiment was shared by three men who arrived at the hospital’s waiting area at about 10.30pm.
The trio — all former school mates from North Vista Secondary School — came to show support.
One of them, Mr Jason Gan, 25, said: “I know some do not like Mr Lee because he is strong-willed. But I appreciate what he has done for the country. Had he been soft or lacked focus, I don’t think Singapore would be where it is today.”
Mr Gan, together with his friends Anthony Tan and Herman Loh, said they were unsure how long they would stay at the hospital.
Likewise, Ms Julie’s entourage said they would stay until “the security guards tell us to leave”.
Added Ms Julie: “The rumours currently floating online will not tarnish the image and reputation of the Singapore that Mr Lee has built.
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?
Singaporeans have been urged to stay in the country to take part in its 50th birthday celebrations over the Golden Jubilee weekend that now spans four days after Aug 7 was declared a public holiday yesterday.
Speaker of Parliament Halimah Yacob said it will be “really sad if a quarter of Singapore goes overseas to celebrate”, The Straits Times reported on its website.
“My appeal to Singaporeans is to please stay in Singapore during the long weekend. I understand that Singaporeans take the opportunity during periods of long weekends to chill out with their families overseas, and on other occasions that’s all right, but on this occasion, I hope that they will stay and really celebrate together as a nation,” Madam Halimah was quoted as saying.
She hopes that the travel industry will support her call, The Straits Times added. With National Day falling on Sunday this year, making Monday a public holiday, one can get a 10-day break by taking just four days off from the rest of the week.
“I know the travel business will be affected but I hope they will understand and see the reason why we are making this call. In Singapore, the government does not declare public holidays willingly, it is really something that they thought about carefully,” Madam Halimah said in The Straits Times report.
“It is important that everybody come together and celebrate in their own way together with family, friends and neighbours and then really we have that real meaning of being part of a nation.”
People’s Action Party (PAP) activists in Aljunied GRC have gone on the offensive, distributing flyers today (March 13) urging residents to quiz their Workers’ Party (WP) Members of Parliament (MPs) over the accounting and corporate governance lapses committed by Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC).
Titled “What You Should Ask WP’s Aljunied Hougang Punggol East Town Council”, the flyer — which was in English and Chinese and came complete with a chart — compared AHPETC’s managing agent rates with those of some PAP town councils. Among other things, it charged that there was improper governance by AHPETC and that the town council had “overpaid its friends at FMSS by at least S$6.4 million”.
“This is our ‘lost money’. It means we have less money to clean and maintain our estate,” the flyer said, reiterating that serious problems that could affect residents were flagged by the Auditor-General’s Office (AGO).
The lapses, which were highlighted by the AGO in its audit report on AHPETC, prompted National Development Minister Khaw Boon Wan to table a motion in Parliament last month. Among other things, the motion called on town councils to uphold higher standards of accounting and reporting to safeguard residents’ interests.
During the parliamentary debate, PAP ministers and MPs had zeroed in on a potential conflict of interest: AHPETC secretary Danny Loh and his wife, the town council’s general manager How Weng Fan, are also the main directors and shareholders of AHPETC’s managing agent FM Solutions and Services (FMSS).
Adding that the WP had deliberately remained silent to queries posed by auditors and in Parliament, the flyer also listed questions that residents should confront the WP MPs with, including how much FMSS and other businesses owned by AHPETC employees earnt from the town council, as well as what the town council’s latest financial situation is. The flyer added: “Why did AHPETC allow the husband-and-wife team to verify and approve payment on work done by FMSS, which is owned by them?”
It was not stated on the flyer who had come up with the contents. When contacted, PAP Paya Lebar branch chairman K Muralidharan Pillai confirmed that the flyers — which were distributed to units in Kovan — were handed out by PAP activists today. Adding that it was a ground-up initiative by the activists, he said they had nothing to hide and that “there was no difficulty in understanding that (the flyer) was from the PAP”. The plan is to distribute the flyers throughout Aljunied GRC, he said.
He pointed out that the WP MPs had said in Parliament that they would answer to residents directly on AHPETC’s lapses. Adding that the flyers contained publicly available information, Mr Muralidharan said: “Our activists decided to help residents understand the core issues and suggested questions that they may wish to ask of their MPs. Residents are free to make up their own minds as to what they wish to do after reading the flyer.”
The WP did not respond to queries by press time.
Some Kovan residents who received the flyer told TODAY that they were wondering who had distributed them. Nevertheless, a resident who gave his name only as Mr Seah said: “Everything in the flyer is directed at WP. It is quite obvious that it is from the PAP.”
Three more towns — Toa Payoh, Woodlands and Pasir Ris — will be given facelifts under the Housing and Development Board’s (HDB) Remaking Our Heartland (ROH) programme, said Senior Minister of State for National Development Lee Yi Shyan on Tuesday (Mar 10).
Plans for Toa Payoh include a revamped town centre and town park, as well as improved pedestrian access to the town centre. There are also plans to develop more public housing and parks around Caldecott MRT station, when it is upgraded to an interchange station along the upcoming Thomson-East Coast Line.
More recreational spaces will be created along the Woodlands waterfront and the entire waterfront stretch will be opened to the public.
Residents in Pasir Ris can look forward to redeveloped neighbourhood centres and parks that will feature family-centred facilities.
HDB will be gathering feedback from residents and community stakeholders to refine these plans, Mr Lee told Parliament during the National Development Ministry’s Committee of Supply debate.
He added that following a successful pilot of the HDB Greenprint in Yuhua, another precinct will be selected for the programme, which aims to promote sustainable and eco-friendly living in existing HDB estates.
The ROH programme is aimed at breathing new life into young and mature estates. Six towns have been lined up for revitalisation since its launch in 2007 — Punggol, Yishun, Dawson, East Coast, Hougang and Jurong Lake.
Addressing Jurong GRC Member of Parliament Ang Wei Neng’s concern that only a handful of neighbourhood centres have been able to tap the Revitalisation of Shops scheme — introduced in 2007 to enhance the competitiveness of HDB shops — Mr Lee announced that a new committee will be set up to fine-tune the scheme.
So far, about S$8.4 million has been disbursed under the scheme, and one in two HDB shops have benefited from it, Mr Lee said.
