Police permits won't be given for political events
-
Licensing officer finally admits permits won't be given for political events
Sunday, 17 May 2009
Singapore Democrats
The police have declared that no licenses will be given for outdoor political events. This is no secret. However, they have repeatedly avoided stating this stand in court. Until now, that is.
Licensing officer Mr Yeo Kok Leong said in court last week that the police would not issue a permit if they received an application from a political party.
He was testifying in the continuing trial of five SDP members and activists (Mr Gandhi Ambalam, Ms Chee Siok Chin, Mr Chong Kai Xiong, Mr John Tan, and Mr Charles Tan who is away) who are charged with taking part in an illegal procession on 16 Sep 07 to mark the anniversary of the protest at the Speakers’ Corner during the WB-IMF annual meetings in Singapore in 2006.
Under cross-examination by Mr John Tan, Station Inspector Yeo said that even if the defendants had applied for a permit for the procession, it would not have been granted.
Mr Tan had cited a letter written by the assistant director of media relations, DSP Paul Tay, that said that the "police do not issue permit for outdoor political events in public places, due to the potential for disorder and unruly behavior. This applies to events organized by all political parties."Tan: You are saying now, that if this outdoor event [16 Sep 07 anniversary walk] is political, then sorry, no permit. Is that right?
Yeo: DSP Paul Tay issued a press statement that outdoor political party events will not be issued with a police permit. That's all.
Tan: So you knew about this outlawing of political outdoor events, and in your routine practice, you are applying that?
Yeo: Yes.
Tan: Would it be correct to say that you know that the SDP is a political party?
Yeo: Yes.
Tan: And so, if I as the assistant secretary-general of the SDP or any of our members were to apply for an outdoor event, you would have said no?
Yeo: Yes.
Tan: Therefore in the trial today would it have made any difference if we had applied for a permit?
Yeo: There was no application received. If the application was received to commemorate the first anniversary of the WB/IMF event, the police may reject the application.
Tan: Mr Yeo, can I suggest what you're saying that the police would have rejected, not just may, but would have rejected the application?
Yeo: We will reject the application.
This is a significant admission by the licensing officer who had hitherto refused to categorically state that he would not approve applications for outdoor political events.
Mr Yeo, who processes all applications for licences ranging from massage parlours to public protests, has repeatedly evaded answering questions in the past about whether he rejects applications just because they are outdoor political events. In other cases, the judges disallowed the defence to ask the licensing officer questions along this line. (Mr Yeo is also the witness in the cases involving the distribution of flyers by SDP leaders on 10 Sep 09 and the Tak Boleh Tahan protest on 15 Mar 08.)
In the present case, Mr Yeo only made his position clear because District Judge John Ng had directed the officer to answer Mr John Tan's questions.
It is spurious to charge citizens for not having a permit to conduct a protest when no such permit will be granted. This is basic common sense.
More than common sense, however, the law is very clear on such a matter. A policy to ban all outdoor political events is ultra vires (in excess of) the Constitution and should be void.
The House of Lords, from which much of Singapore law is developed, has stated unambiguously that "a man commits no crime if he infringes an invalid byelaw" and that "it is open to a defendant to raise in a criminal prosecution the contention of a byelaw or an administrative act undertaken pursuant to it is ultra vires and unlawful and that if he establishes that he has committed no crime."
The hearing could not be completed with its alotted period (30 May - 15 Jun 09) and was adjourned to another set of dates. -
Everybody knows this.
-
Originally posted by charlize:
Everybody knows this.
Hanor. Its not a secret.4 opposition politicians stand in front of cpf building, full riot squad shows up.
man gets beaten up by a gang in full view of the public, police wants victim to make a complaint at the magistrates court and fill in a pile of paperwork before they will even do anything.
haiz. this is singapore.
-
Originally posted by Ah Chia:
Licensing officer finally admits permits won't be given for political events
Sunday, 17 May 2009
Singapore Democrats
The police have declared that no licenses will be given for outdoor political events. This is no secret. However, they have repeatedly avoided stating this stand in court. Until now, that is.
Licensing officer Mr Yeo Kok Leong said in court last week that the police would not issue a permit if they received an application from a political party.
He was testifying in the continuing trial of five SDP members and activists (Mr Gandhi Ambalam, Ms Chee Siok Chin, Mr Chong Kai Xiong, Mr John Tan, and Mr Charles Tan who is away) who are charged with taking part in an illegal procession on 16 Sep 07 to mark the anniversary of the protest at the Speakers’ Corner during the WB-IMF annual meetings in Singapore in 2006.
Under cross-examination by Mr John Tan, Station Inspector Yeo said that even if the defendants had applied for a permit for the procession, it would not have been granted.
Mr Tan had cited a letter written by the assistant director of media relations, DSP Paul Tay, that said that the "police do not issue permit for outdoor political events in public places, due to the potential for disorder and unruly behavior. This applies to events organized by all political parties."
This is a significant admission by the licensing officer who had hitherto refused to categorically state that he would not approve applications for outdoor political events.
Mr Yeo, who processes all applications for licences ranging from massage parlours to public protests, has repeatedly evaded answering questions in the past about whether he rejects applications just because they are outdoor political events. In other cases, the judges disallowed the defence to ask the licensing officer questions along this line. (Mr Yeo is also the witness in the cases involving the distribution of flyers by SDP leaders on 10 Sep 09 and the Tak Boleh Tahan protest on 15 Mar 08.)
In the present case, Mr Yeo only made his position clear because District Judge John Ng had directed the officer to answer Mr John Tan's questions.
It is spurious to charge citizens for not having a permit to conduct a protest when no such permit will be granted. This is basic common sense.
More than common sense, however, the law is very clear on such a matter. A policy to ban all outdoor political events is ultra vires (in excess of) the Constitution and should be void.
The House of Lords, from which much of Singapore law is developed, has stated unambiguously that "a man commits no crime if he infringes an invalid byelaw" and that "it is open to a defendant to raise in a criminal prosecution the contention of a byelaw or an administrative act undertaken pursuant to it is ultra vires and unlawful and that if he establishes that he has committed no crime."
The hearing could not be completed with its alotted period (30 May - 15 Jun 09) and was adjourned to another set of dates.It is spurious to charge citizens for not having a permit to conduct a protest when no such permit will be granted. This is basic common sense.
More than common sense, however, the law is very clear on such a matter. A policy to ban all outdoor political events is ultra vires (in excess of) the Constitution and should be void.
The House of Lords, from which much of Singapore law is developed, has stated unambiguously that "a man commits no crime if he infringes an invalid byelaw" and that "it is open to a defendant to raise in a criminal prosecution the contention of a byelaw or an administrative act undertaken pursuant to it is ultra vires and unlawful and that if he establishes that he has committed no crime."This is a prime example of the grand efforts of LKY's administration in the 1960s at bastardizing the Singapore Constitution with bye-laws that raped the original sanctity of the intent and spirit of the printed words.
Under the guise of law and order to have an environment of peace to allow economic progress, draconian bye-laws were consistently passed by a One-Party dominated Parliament that swept common-sense for any checks and balance in Singapore.
All the bye-laws passed in Parliament had been done without any objections - even as the PAP assured Singaporeans that their back-benchers will be more capable than any checks from any other political parties serving in Parliament.
Nothing was ever mentioned that the PAP Parliamentary Whip will never allow their own PAP Backbenchers to vote according to their conscience, and every Member of Parliament from the PAP must follow the dictates of the PAP Central Committee.
For 52 years, the Singapore experience has seen new laws being made without honest debate or the gathering of authoritative opinions from any relevant bodies - as LKY and his PAP see this as the sole prerogative of the PAP Government.
Even the obligation of the Singapore Law Society towards its social responsibility role had been shut out of the legislative process, with their participation seen by LKY as a clear interference in politics and a political challenge to the Government.
-
Originally posted by av98m:
Hanor. Its not a secret.4 opposition politicians stand in front of cpf building, full riot squad shows up.
man gets beaten up by a gang in full view of the public, police wants victim to make a complaint at the magistrates court and fill in a pile of paperwork before they will even do anything.
haiz. this is singapore.
The beating is not severe enough to warrant immediate police attention. If a bone was broken or a limb was dislocated, then police will take immediate action.
-
Originally posted by Atobe:
This is a prime example of the grand efforts of LKY's administration in the 1960s at bastardizing the Singapore Constitution with bye-laws that raped the original sanctity of the intent and spirit of the printed words.
Under the guise of law and order to have an environment of peace to allow economic progress, draconian bye-laws were consistently passed by a One-Party dominated Parliament that swept common-sense for any checks and balance in Singapore.
All the bye-laws passed in Parliament had been done without any objections - even as the PAP assured Singaporeans that their back-benchers will be more capable than any checks from any other political parties serving in Parliament.
Nothing was ever mentioned that the PAP Parliamentary Whip will never allow their own PAP Backbenchers to vote according to their conscience, and every Member of Parliament from the PAP must follow the dictates of the PAP Central Committee.
For 52 years, the Singapore experience has seen new laws being made without honest debate or the gathering of authoritative opinions from any relevant bodies - as LKY and his PAP see this as the sole prerogative of the PAP Government.
Even the obligation of the Singapore Law Society towards its social responsibility role had been shut out of the legislative process, with their participation seen by LKY as a clear interference in politics and a political challenge to the Government.
huah like that arrrr, i don't know about this thanks for your inform that why today said tomorrow do already. -
Worse than a communist country. The ruling party rules with tyranny, oppression.
Waiting for the demise of the great senile oppressor.
-
Originally posted by charlize: Everybody knows this. yes, and like what lky said many years ago - after many many years of deprivation(repression) we would cease to realise the evil in it.
-
Originally posted by av98m:
Hanor. Its not a secret.4 opposition politicians stand in front of cpf building, full riot squad shows up.
man gets beaten up by a gang in full view of the public, police wants victim to make a complaint at the magistrates court and fill in a pile of paperwork before they will even do anything.
haiz. this is singapore.
I heard somebody mention before that the law now is that even 1 person standing around is considered "illegal assembly" , no need 4 persons.
Anybody can confirm?
-
Here are some extracts taken from the ‘Public Order Bill No 8/2009’ - that has yet to be passed into Law, and had its first reading in Parliament on 23 March 2009.
Part 1 - Interpretation
2. (1)
"assembly" means a gathering or meeting (whether or not comprising any lecture, talk, address, debate or discussion) of persons the purpose (or one of the purpose) of which is :-
(a) to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government;
(b) to publicise a cause or campaign; or
(c) to mark or commemorate any event,
and includes a demonstration by a person alone for any such purpose referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or (c);
"procession" means a march, parade or other procession (whether or not involving the use of vehicles or other conveyances) -
(a) comprising 2 or more persons gathered at a place of assembly to move from that place substantially as a body of persons in succession proceeding by a common route or routes; and
(b) the purpose (or one of the purposes) of which is -
(i) to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government;
(ii) to publicise a cause or campaign; or
(iii) to mark or commemorate any event,
and includes any assembly held in conjunction with such procession, and a march by a person alone for any such purpose referred to in paragraph (b)(i), (ii) or (iii);
Meanings of "organising" and "taking part in"
3. (1)
In this Act, a reference to a person organising an assembly or a procession shall be a reference to a person who is responsible for holding, convening, forming or collecting the assembly or procession, and includes -
(a) any person who assists or promotes the holding, convening, forming or collecting of any assembly or procession; and
(b) where any person will receive revenue from the sale (if any) of tickets to the assembly or procession, that person,
but does not include a person carrying on a demonstration by himself or marching alone.
3. (2)
A reference to a person or persons taking part in an assembly or a procession shall include, as the case may be, a person carrying on a demonstration by himself, or a march by a person alone, for any such purpose referred to in the definitions of an assembly and a procession, respectively, in section 2(1).
This piece of legislation has quite a few contradicting and conflicting interpretation that seems to be designed purposefully to sow confusion that will allow the law to be interpreted in any ways that suit the circumstances.
This piece of law will only lead to a purposeful act to entrap Singaporeans as this confusing piece of legislation is purposefully drafted to be vague and allows for any interpretations that provides an all encompassing effect as needed by the Attorney-General working at the behest of the Government.