Singapore Democratic Party appeals dismissed | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent

Singapore Democratic Party appeals dismissed | Asia News – Politics, Media, Education | Asian Correspondent
Kirsten Han, May 26, 2012 

On 1 May 2008, a group of activists and members of the Singapore Democratic Party (among them SDP Secretary-General Dr. Chee Soon Juan) gathered at Toa Payoh Central. They wore red T-shirts emblazoned with the words “Tak Boleh Tahan” (meaning “we can’t take it” in Malay) and distributed flyers protesting high ministeral salaries, the rising cost of living and the lack of assistance for the poor and needy in Singapore.

A call was made to the police, who sent officers to investigate. They released the following statement:

Police received a call from the Bishan-Toa Payoh Town Council reporting that Chee Soon Juan was distributing pamphlets, and had set up a table selling books and T-shirts at Toa Payoh Central. Police observation in response to the call confirmed it. Chee did not stage an unlawful assembly or an illegal outdoor demonstration.

On 9 August 2008 (Singapore’s National Day), the activists were back at Toa Payoh Central. Once again they were dressed in Tak Boleh Tahan T-shirts and distributing flyers. This time, they were arrested and prosecuted for participating in an illegal assembly. They were convicted by the district court judge and sentenced to either fines ranging from S$900 – S$1000 or six or seven days’ imprisonment in default. Five of the activists appealed the conviction, but had their appeal dismissed by the High Court on 21 May 2012.

The High Court Judge Quentin Loh wrote in his judgement that

A police communique or press statement does not amount to an authoritative statement on whether criminal liability has been made out in a particular instance.

The Singapore Democratic Party disagreed with the judgement, writing on their website that it upheld “the PAP Government’s policy of banning public assembly for political purposes.” They had stated in a previous article that the group had only proceeded with the activities of 9 August after the police had said that what happened on 1 May did not constitute an unlawful assembly.

Activist filmmaker Martyn See says that he was not surprised by the judgement, but that “such verdicts generate fear amongst activists.”

“It also reinforces impression of an authoritarian state, which the government easily deals with by citing Speakers Corner and General Elections as examples that we do practise democracy,” he continued. “One can safely assume that the idea of non-violent open protests and civil disobedience remains, for most Singaporeans, an alien product not suited to ‘our way’ of doing things. It is a mindset honed by 45 years of absolute, uninterrupted control and rule of one party.”

However, citizen journalist Joshua Chiang does not feel that there will be any real impact on activism in Singapore, as civil society members often prefer not to risk breaking the law.

“Not that we agree with it, but most forms of activism here take place within clearly defined confines of the law. For example, using Speakers’ Corner instead of gathering in other spaces. I think most civil groups want their voices to be heard but at the same time not push the legal boundaries,” he says, going on to point out that regardless of what the police had said, the Tak Boleh Tahan activities had broken the law with regard to the Public Order Act, which requires all cause-related activity outside of Speakers’ Corner to have a police permit. On top of that, the activists would have needed a hawker’s license from the National Environmental Agency to sell their T-shirts.

Seelan Palay, one of those charged, has indicated that the group intends to appeal their case to the Court of Appeal – Singapore’s highest court.

Apart from dismissing the appeal of the five, the High Court also quashed the conviction of blogger Yap Keng Ho (often known as “Uncle Yap”). Judge Loh stated that there was a difference between supporting the action and participating in it, highlighting that Yap had not been wearing the Tak Boleh Tahan T-shirt or distributing flyers. Throughout his trial, Yap had also insisted that he had merely been there to cover the event as a blogger.