Mr K Shanmugam

Minister for Home Affairs and Law

New Phoenix Park

28 Irrawaddy Road

Singapore 329560

Dear Mr Shanmugam,

Permit Application Nos PP/20101125/003 and PP/20101128/001 Pursuant to Section 6 of the Public Order Act 2009 – An Appeal under Section 11 of the Public Order Act 2009

We write to express our regret that the above applications for permits to conduct a vehicle procession and to distribute flyers on Saturday 18th December have been rejected. These activities are to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the United Nations International Convention for the Protection of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families which falls on 18th December.

Migrant workers who are transported in the open decks of lorries are vulnerable to traffic accidents which may lead to injury and even death. Such tragedies have been widely reported in the media and discussed in Parliament. To raise awareness of the danger of workers being transported in this way, we had proposed to drive a lorry around selected areas in Singapore with the banners ‘Migrant Workers are Humans, not Cargo’ and ‘Ratify the Migrant Workers Convention.’

To raise awareness of the United Nations International Convention for the Protection of Migrant Workers and Members of their Families, we had also planned a separate activity to distribute flyers to members of the public. Samples of the flyers can be found in the email attachment. (see below – Ed) 20 volunteers who will be dressed in construction work outfits such as helmets and boots, or wearing domestic work outfits such as kitchen aprons with the slogan ‘Respect the Rights of Migrant Workers’ emblazoned on them, will be grouped in pairs to distribute the materials and will not be holding any banners or placards.

We would like to appeal against the decision for the following reasons:

  1. Our activities are public education initiatives, which are in line with the stated objectives of our Registry of Societies-approved constitutions, which is to raise awareness of the need to protect migrant workers under Singapore’s existing laws. We have included in the appendix the content which will be printed on our flyers. These messages are focused on promoting a humanitarian cause and contain no political, racial, or religious content.
  2. There is no risk of disorder in our flyer distribution activity since there are only 20 volunteers involved and they will be grouped in pairs and spread out over different areas in Singapore. The volunteers will not be initiating or taking part in a march. Details of our locations where our volunteers will be based when distributing flyers and the approximate time they will be there were indicated in our application and in a subsequent email correspondence with a police officer.
  3. Our procession consisting of one lorry which is on the move will not lead to a gathering crowd or cause public disorder. We had also indicated the route which our lorry will be travelling in our initial application and in a subsequent email correspondence with a police officer.
  4. The cause we are supporting and raising awareness of is in line with government policy to increase the number of migrant workers in Singapore and also to improve their conditions and safety.
  5. The Prime Minister, in his National Day Rally Speech this year, supported the view that Singapore must be made more attractive to migrant workers and that public policy should address barriers to their security and integration.

In 2009, a similar worker’s rights gathering (May Day Solidarity Walk) by the tripartite partners, on a much larger scale involving thousands of people, was allowed by the police. We therefore fail to understand why our modest activity has been prohibited. Similarly, in March 2008, the Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) held a nationwide event entitled ‘Walk with CASE’ to commemorate World Consumer Rights Day. The Minister of Health, Mr Khaw Boon Wan was the guest-of-honour at that event. It was also not prohibited.

It is also important to note that there are many not-for-profit organisations and religious groups who gather to canvass support for their cause or their beliefs. These may be large scale events or small scale activities involving only a few people distributing flyers, such as ours. Furthermore, flyers are distributed daily up and down the island by property agents and other commercial entities. We believe that the police have not disallowed those events from taking place and know of no incident where these have been proscribed.

Our activities are in line with national interests and do not pose a threat to public disorder. Migrant workers play a significant role in Singapore’s economic development and our proposed activities are meant to acknowledge, recognise and raise awareness of their contributions, and the problems they face when they are in Singapore.

We hope that the Police will reconsider its decision.

Yours sincerely,

Bridget Tan

President

Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics

John Gee

President

Transient Workers Count Too

cc. CP Ng Joo Hee

Commissioner of Police

New Phoenix Park

28 Irrawaddy Road

Singapore 329560

Page one of the flyer that was meant to be distributed

Page two of the flyer that was meant to be distributed

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

苏利亚恳求批准提积蓄救妻 失望公积金局转移话题

针对印裔丈夫苏利亚为救妻子,申请转移自己的普通和特别户头存款遭拒,中央公积金局在上周五(12日)和卫生部发表联合声明作出回应。 文告中公积金局解释,自2017年,患有卵巢癌的莎若吉妮,选择在伊丽莎白私人医院和百汇癌症中心(PCC)寻求治疗。百汇癌症中心和国大医院告知莎若吉妮夫妇,她的癌况近末期已无法治愈。 “莎若吉妮选择继续在私立、无津贴的百汇癌症中心接受治疗, 她的终身健保到目前为止为她支付六万元医疗和住院费用。而加上她的私人保险,保险至今为她支付了30万元,涵盖了她在百汇和伊丽莎白医院90巴仙的医疗费。” 公积金局续解释莎若吉妮获得的保障,指自2017年10月,莎若吉妮可从乐龄健保每月领取1100元,至今累积2万3000元,得以为他们减轻财务负担。从该局允准的保险配套,迄今为止为她支付了51万新元,而从他们夫妇俩的公积金户口共提取了3万4000元。 未解释为何拒绝苏利亚提普通、特别户头救妻 但值得注意的是,尽管公积金局尝试解释苏利亚夫妇透过公积金储蓄、私人保险等承担医疗费用,但却未解释,为何不允许苏利亚提取其个人公积金特别和普通户头,转移到妻子的健保储蓄,让莎若吉妮能积蓄抗癌。 公积金局的此番回应,也导致网民质疑苏利亚夫妇,既然知道私人医院无津贴,为何莎若吉妮仍坚持在私人医院治疗,而且认为他们已经得到终身健保等医保配套的照顾。其中网民MIke Ng也质疑,此前的访谈短片,就如同只是单方面说法。 苏利亚:只有伊丽莎白医院有一线生机 对此,莎若吉妮的丈夫苏利亚,不得不在公积金局脸书回应,呼吁那些指责他和妻子的经历是假新闻的,不要太快下定论,“如人饮水,冷暖自知,我们也有证据证明,国大医院教授建议与其让内子接受治疗,应该要陪着她去走走看看。对此,当我申请提取我的普通户头存款时,也有反映给公积金局。” 他说,只有伊丽莎白医院给予莎若吉妮一线生机,而他不算富有,也没有要求群众捐款,而他最后的希望只能祈求公积金局让他把钱提出来。但结果一些网民们都在对他冷言冷语。…

SBS Transit apologizes for “Marry Christmas” typo mistake

Commuters caught a mistake shown on a display board at an MRT station…

善心女体谅德士司机谋生不易 搭九分钟车给90元小费!

体谅到德士司机在冠状病毒阻断措施当前所面对的生活困境,一善良女乘客在乘搭了九分钟车程后,却给出将近90元的小费,令司机感动非常。 德士司机昨日(5月14日)和媒体分享这段经历时指出,“这次的小费足以让我付五天的租车费了!”。 司机何先生指出,他周三(5月13日)下午,在高岛屋百货公司(Takashimaya Shopping Centre)接了一名50余岁的女乘客,将她送到牛顿伊芙琳路(Evelyn Road)一带,九分钟的车程只需要10.47元。然而女乘客给了他一张100元后,对他说不用找零钱了。 “我本来值准备收她10元,但是当她说不用找零钱时,我真的不敢相信”。 他当时感到难以置信,再三追问后,女乘客才透露,她眼见德士司机当前的生活不易,因此才给了90元做小费。 他指出,德士司机的生意本来就不好做,在疫情打击之下,生意更是大幅度下跌。虽然部分公司都有豁免旗下德士司机的租车费,但是他所租用的德士,每日还是需要缴交21.40元。 他表示,这是他首次收到小费,而这小费几乎可以应付他五天的租车费,真的是感激不尽。“我还跟她说:‘你让我很开心’(You make my…

PAP ministers failing to relate cause and effect

Joseph Teo Two articles in the Sunday Times 10 April 2011, demonstrate…