I read with much concern an incident which happened to a group of gay and lesbian joggers along the Singapore River. A detailed account has been written in Yawning Bread. My perspective on this issue is that it's about time we review the Assemblies and Processions section of the Miscellaneous Offenses Act and it's legal boundaries. The following are sections taken out of the Singapore Constitution and Miscellaneous Offenses Act.
Constitution
Freedom of speech, assembly and association
14. —(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —
Constitution
Freedom of speech, assembly and association
14. —(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —
- (a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
- (b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and
- (c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.
(2) Parliament may by law impose —
- (a) on the rights conferred by clause (1) (a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;
- (b) on the right conferred by clause (1) (b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and
- (c) on the right conferred by clause (1) (c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality
Miscellaneous Offenses Act
Assemblies and processions
5. —(1) The Minister may make rules —
5. —(1) The Minister may make rules —
- (a) regulating assemblies and processions in public roads, public places and places of public resort;
- (b) providing for the grant of permits for holding assemblies and processions in public roads, public places and places of public resort, and the fees to be charged therefor;
- (c) for keeping order and preventing obstruction or inconvenience in public roads, bridges, landing places, and all public places and places of public resort; and
- (d) prescribing the punishment by a fine not exceeding $5,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or both for any act or omission in contravention of the provisions of any such rules.
[10/89]
(2) The Minister may by order prohibit or restrict, subject to such conditions as may be specified in the order, the holding of any assembly or procession in any public road, public place or place of public resort specified in the order.
[10/89] (3) A Deputy Commissioner of Police may, with the concurrence of the Minister, prohibit or restrict the holding of any assembly or procession in any specified public road, public place or place of public resort in any particular case where the Deputy Commissioner is satisfied that the holding of such assembly or procession may result in public disorder, damage to property or disruption to the life of the community.
[10/89] (4) Any person who —
- (a) organises or assists in organising any assembly or procession in any public road, public place or place of public resort in contravention of any order under subsection (2) or any prohibition or restriction under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both; or
(b) participates in any assembly or procession in any public road, public place or place of public resort where he knows or ought reasonably to have known that the assembly or procession is held in contravention of an order under subsection (2) or any prohibition or restriction under subsection (3) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.
Adherence to law is no doubt the thread of civility that keeps a society bound together in an orderly fashion and brings about general peace. It's true the organizers committed an infringement by not submitting an application for the Pink Run along Singapore River. This is the case in strict accordance to the legislation. Let us not forget however that the law is also highly dependent on interpretation and reasoning. As stated in the Constitution, citizens are supposed to have their freedom of expression and assembly. To protect the interests of the Republic further laws were passed to ensure that assemblies of unwanted nature are prevented. Unwanted nature has been specified as: 1.Threats to the security of the republic 2.Disruption to diplomatic relationships 3.Impacts to public order/morality 4. Threats to restrictions designed to protect privileges of the Parliament 5. Contempt against court 6.Defamation or incitement to any offense. Frankly I don't see how a group of people jogging in pink T- Shirts are in anyway considered an assembly of unwanted nature. They are gay but they are not doing anything unwholesome, just jogging. Apparently gay people jogging does not fall into the category of public disorder/damage to property/disruption to the life of the community either. So I ask is it illegal if one organizes a Chinese New Year dinner for an extended family of 20 people and lead the family in walking a few hundred meters along the road to the restaurant?Do I have to apply for a permit? This is the kind of ridiculous questions that we want to ask the police? If so I guess the legislation might be the real cause of public disorder/ disruption if Chinese New Year comes and everyone starts jamming their hot line with the same question.
Its fearful when one realizes that the law enforcers sworn to uphold the law are so meticulously concerned in applying the law to the letter that they forget what the letters mean as a sum. Another question, who checks on the Minister then in ensuring that his/her prohibitions are just and non-partisan? Why are there no exclusions included in the act to make allowances for non-political social gatherings? It's been a good 40 years and a new generation has sprung up. A literate and law-abiding populace, so are we being too hung up on the 1960s riots? Yes, riots are detrimental to the well being of the society but what about diminished space for personal expression? Is it healthy for the Singaporean psychology? If we want graduates to progress from washing test tubes its time for a change in perspective. My Professor fielded a question to the class today and he said: "Come on people...think! Have an opinion. I'm not going to call your names from the register and ask you questions individually. You are not kids." Absolutely true. If our leaders in the 1960s had the bonsai mentality, where would Singapore be today?The thought of eking out a dwarfed existence without bearing fruit is unbearable.
Its fearful when one realizes that the law enforcers sworn to uphold the law are so meticulously concerned in applying the law to the letter that they forget what the letters mean as a sum. Another question, who checks on the Minister then in ensuring that his/her prohibitions are just and non-partisan? Why are there no exclusions included in the act to make allowances for non-political social gatherings? It's been a good 40 years and a new generation has sprung up. A literate and law-abiding populace, so are we being too hung up on the 1960s riots? Yes, riots are detrimental to the well being of the society but what about diminished space for personal expression? Is it healthy for the Singaporean psychology? If we want graduates to progress from washing test tubes its time for a change in perspective. My Professor fielded a question to the class today and he said: "Come on people...think! Have an opinion. I'm not going to call your names from the register and ask you questions individually. You are not kids." Absolutely true. If our leaders in the 1960s had the bonsai mentality, where would Singapore be today?The thought of eking out a dwarfed existence without bearing fruit is unbearable.
