By Kumaran Pillai

Kumaran Pillai, the Chief Editor of The Online Citizen spoke to Dr. James Gomez over the recent announcement that Singaporeans For Democracy’s has moved to de-register as an ROS society and the launch of its report next week.

 

Dr. James Gomez
Why did Singaporeans For Democracy choose to de-register?

SFD’s membership chose to dissolve the society to draw attention to two sets of rules that hinder its work as a political association in Singapore. One set of laws pertain to the registration and the day-to-day operation of SFD. These laws are found in the Societies Act, Political Donations Act and Broadcasting Act. The other set of laws pertain to the operation of SFD’s program of activities. These laws are the, Films Act, Public Order Act and several others. The report entitled “Democracy and Civil Society in Singapore: The Politics of Control” will enumerate in detail how these have affected our work in the last two years. The upcoming report authored by Roderick Chia will be launched at 10am on 25 August 2012. The event is free, free copies of the report will be available then and all are welcome. See this link for event details:

 

What is involved in de-registering SFD?

Dissolving a society registered with the Registrar of Society involves the following steps. First, you need to hold a General Meeting of the membership to decide on the dissolution. SFD did this on 28 April 2012 and got the approval of its membership. Second, some forms need to be completed and a series of documents needs to be compiled such as minutes of the meeting and financial statements and these have to be submitted to ROS. SFD has now complied all the relevant documents and plans to submit these documents to the ROS in the next days. Third, once the ROS has validated these documents it will officially finalize the dissolution.

 

What will happen once SFD is officially “dissolved” by the Registrar of Societies?

While the SFD’s dissolution is being processed by ROS, we will update our website one last time to upload the SFD report “Democracy and Civil Society in Singapore: The Politics of Control” so that it is also available online. But once the dissolution is processed and finalized, SFD as a society under the ROS, will cease to exist and operate. However, SFD’s Facebook Page with its over 800 members will remain and continue to be a platform for the page members to continue posting and sharing information on civil society and politics in Singapore. We welcome, the phrase Singaporeans For Democracy to be appropriated by Singaporeans to continue their work on civil and political reform.

 

What will happen to SFD’s members?

Our members were already active in civil society when they came together to set up SFD. Even during their time with SFD our members were concurrently involved in other initiatives. As such it will be business as usual for our members as they continue their contributions in Singapore’s civil society landscape.

 

So what are your personal plans after SFD?

At the moment, I am busy supervising the completion of the SFD report and its release later next week. I will continue to contribute to civil society as there is still a lot of work to bedone, however the manner and approach of contribution I will decide after the launch and dissolution.

 

So what can we expect to see in the Report next week?

The report will chronicle the history of the first and second generation political associations and the evolution of civil society related laws in contemporary Singapore. It will contain never before published correspondences to the Internal Security Department and exchanges with the Elections Department. There will also be an analysis of local media coverage of SFD and a projection on the future of political associations in Singapore. There will also be a section on recommendations for legal reform to improve the functioning of civil society in Singapore.

You May Also Like

Attempts to smuggle 1,250 cartons of duty-unpaid cigarettes foiled by ICA

1,250 cartons of duty-unpaid cigarettes were discovered in a consignment declared as…

AWARE称防犯罪海报为罪行“标价”欠妥 警:旨在强化震慑信息

相信有坐地铁的读者,不难注意到近期多了些防范罪案的新海报吧?一些反性骚扰海报,显示犯罪者在未经同意下抚摸女性,写着“2年监禁:不值得”。 冀重新审视对性暴力的界定 不过,妇女行动及研究协会(AWARE)对上述海报颇有微言。该协会在上周四发文,反驳将罪行“标价”的意义,认为海报没有考虑到受害人承受的痛苦,并将性暴力并非以标价来判定,视为不妥当。 “为什么我们必须在性暴力上“标价”,并判断它的价值?是否判刑一年,就显得比较“值得“?还是六个月?这对造成伤害的人又值多少?我们迫切需要改变对性暴力的讨论与界定。” 对此,警方也作出回应,该海报是连同全国罪案防范理事会,以及新加坡理工学院制作的,其罪行如盗窃或不诚实盗用也被列入其中。 警方续指海报所针对的对象是潜在犯罪者,如无法自我约束的犯罪者,透过视觉化的效果,强调犯罪行为的处置,试图发出强而有力的震慑信息给他们,并指AWARE不了解海报设计的意义,而且还表明AWARE的建议无法对这类犯罪者产生任何阻赫作用。 此外,警方也了解受害者在经历伤害后的痛苦,因此才会想要透过视觉化的效果,强化犯罪者的意识,阻止性暴力行为。 警方称遗憾AWARE未曾与他们有任何的接触,了解警方的观点,就公开批判。 全国罪案防范理事会则认为,在海报上列出干案者面对的刑罚,更能突出防范罪案的信息。在防范罪案方面,理事会寻求的是实际和有效的方案。  

“存数点失实” 前进党反击律政、新闻部联合声明

新加坡前进党(Progress Singapore Party)在本月10日发声明,批评《防假消息法》赋予部长权力,来宣布哪些消息内容是假的,但欠缺明确的阐释和标准,该党认为这并不符合透明和问责的原则。 不过,律政部联合通讯及新闻部,也很快在隔日发表声明反驳该党,坚称上述法令要求部长明确说明为何相关内容存伪;也反问前进党党员毕博渊(Brad Bowyer)的言论自由可曾被堵住? 该部强调更正不实消息并不会打压任何人都言论自由。 前进党则在今日(16日)于脸书留言中作出回应,针对两大部门联合声明中存有数点“不实之处”,其中提及“前进党声称部长可随意施加任何惩处。”对此前进党驳斥这是不确实的。 从未提到部长可施加任何惩处 “我们的声明呼吁,要裁定哪些新闻是假消息、该做出怎样的惩处,我党认为,为了彰显中立理应由新加坡法庭来处理。”,故此,从来没有提到部长可以施加人和惩处。 在两大部门的声明中,指“前进党续而提及部长在使用《防假消息法》时没有任何标准或理据”,对此前进党澄清“该部有所误会”,该党针对的是如何定义假消息,而不是法令的使用。惟该党接受这点值得争议,故此同意原有文章中移除“理据”(justification)这字眼。 “不过,这不会改变在如何裁断假消息这点,仍欠缺明确的标准。”该党在声明中举例,《防假消息法》2(2)项阐明:不论是整体或是单独部分,如存有虚假或误导性,即有关陈述即属虚假。 对此前进党认为这样的定义显得迂回也,未见能清楚解释。…