Connect with us

Current Affairs

TOC Editorial: Muzzling the madding crowd

The courts should have been allowed to decide the legality of a move-on order at the very least. TOC Editorial.

Published

15 years ago

on

The government’s arguments for the Public Order Bill are unconvincing

Over the objections of the opposition and not a few concerned queries from ruling party MPs, Parliament passed the Public Order Act on Monday to rationalise the existing Public Entertainments and Meetings Act and the Miscellaneous Offences Act.

In presenting the government’s case, Law Minister and Second Minister for Home Affairs K Shanmugam tried to square two contradictory motives.  On one hand, he presented the Act as a step forward in liberalisation, part of the government’s efforts to adjust its policies to balance the individual’s political space with the need for security and order.  To this end Mr Shanmugam cited the Act’s liberal aspects, such as a rationalisation of the permits regime that would do away with the need for permits for “50 per cent” of public activities.

On the other hand, the Act introduces potentially draconian powers, chiefly in the form of so-called “move-on” powers, which enable the police to order a person to leave an area if they think that he is about to break the law.  Mr Shanmugam argued that these are necessitated by the examples of disturbances elsewhere in the world.

Unfortunately, Mr Shanmugam’s arguments is unconvincing.  Like the new Films Act passed some weeks earlier, the Public Order Act introduces enough ambiguity and powers to – in effect – constrict civil liberties even as it retains a visage of liberalisation that allows the government to self-righteously argue that it is taking a positive step.

For example, the rationalisation of the permits regime will do away with the need for permits for commercial, recreational and sporting activities organised by statutory boards and recognised charities.  That is hardly liberalisation, since it has long been clear that activities of such nature were never a threat to public order.  Notably, political parties were excluded, which allows the government to retain discretion over the opposition’s activities – last year an application from the Worker’s Party to hold a cycling event was turned down even as the ruling party went ahead with a similar activity just some months later. 

Furthermore, the government has hazed the definition of the crowd size that would invite police action by removing a stipulation that a gathering of five or more persons would be deemed illegal.  In the face of queries from MPs, Mr Shanmugam argued that it was better to focus on the nature of the activity rather than the numbers involved.  True perhaps, but the resulting ambiguity – some MPs pointed out that a one-person assembly could be deemed illegal under the new Act – is certainly not reassuring, particularly given the government’s known proclivity for pursuing the letter rather than the spirit of the law when this suits its political purposes.

But it is with the introduction of the “move-on” powers that the government is on truly weak grounds.  First, Mr Shanmugam’s rather opportunistic mention of the turmoil in Thailand to justify the new powers does not obscure the fact that there is no precedent to show how Singapore’s existing laws are insufficient to the task of handling public disorder.  The 2006 World Bank and IMF meetings hosted by Singapore went by without a hitch and benefited more from the government’s willingness to close down large swathes of the city-centre than from any sort of crowd-control legislation.  In any case, the superseded Public Entertainments and Meetings Act, with its wide-ranging powers, was more than adequate for the purpose of keeping order. 

Second, there is reason to doubt the effectiveness of the “move-on” powers.  As this editorial previously pointed out, “move-on” powers are unlikely to discourage serious protesters from trying to make their point, which would force the police to arrest them anyway.  That will defeat Mr Shanmugam’s stated purpose for introducing “move-on” powers, which is to avoid the police having to make arrests.  In fact, one opposition MP has pointed out that the number of arrests actually went up in Australia – which is where the government is basing its Act on – after it introduced “move-on” powers.  It is also difficult to see how “move-on” powers help with combating terrorism – the government too seems to realise this and there was no mention of the spurious argument from its brief two weeks ago that the Act would help strengthen its ability to protect events from terrorists by preventing its forces from being “distracted” by “political activists, militants or mischief-makers seeking to exploit the media and political attention”.

It therefore seems that, contrary to Mr Shanmugan’s assertion that his Bill will not reduce the rights that Singaporeans currently enjoy, the new law is an unwarranted constriction of a citizen’s already restricted constitutional right to expression and assembly.  Yet it is hard to discern why the government has chosen to do so.  Perhaps it is to further curtail the ability of Dr Chee Soon Juan to embarrass it at high-profile international events to be held in Singapore; Dr Chee, an opposition figure that is a perennial thorn for the government, had some mild success at previous events.  It might even be a sign of the government’s anxiety that worsening economic conditions could spill over into the streets, particularly since Singaporeans have made enthusiastic use of their Speakers’ Corner in recent instances.

Whatever the case, one thing is quite clear: Mr Shanmugan said that the Act will allow the police to act “without people being able to argue about it”.  Worse, there will be no judicial review of a move-on order: the home minister alone can decide on an appeal. 

That leaves too much room for politicisation: for a potentially intrusive Act of this nature, the courts should have been allowed to decide the legality of a move-on order at the very least, particularly since Mr Shanmugan himself has made so much about the impartiality and non-partisan nature of the judiciary in recent months.  In winding up his arguments, Mr Shanmugam rhetorically asked the House whether the government had struck the right balance between protecting the individual’s political space and the public’s need for security – the answer is an unequivocal “no”.

—-

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Hotel Properties Limited suspends trading ahead of Ong Beng Seng’s court hearing

Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has halted trading ahead of his court appearance today (4 October). The announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at about 7.45am, citing a pending release of an announcement. Mr Ong faces one charge of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts and another charge of obstruction of justice. He is due in court at 2.30pm.

Published

2 days ago

on

4 October 2024

By

SINGAPORE: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL), the property and hotel developer co-founded by Mr Ong Beng Seng, has requested a trading halt ahead of the Singapore tycoon’s scheduled court appearance today (4 October) afternoon.

This announcement was made by HPL’s company secretary at approximately 7.45am, stating that the halt was due to a pending release of an announcement.

Mr Ong, who serves as HPL’s managing director and controlling shareholder, faces one charge under Section 165, accused of abetting a public servant in obtaining gifts, as well as one charge of obstruction of justice.

He is set to appear in court at 2.30pm on 4 October.

Ong’s charges stem from his involvement in a high-profile corruption case linked to former Singaporean transport minister S Iswaran.

The 80-year-old businessman was named in Iswaran’s initial graft charges earlier this year.

These charges alleged that Iswaran had corruptly received valuable gifts from Ong, including tickets to the 2022 Singapore Formula 1 Grand Prix, flights, and a hotel stay in Doha.

These gifts were allegedly provided to advance Ong’s business interests, particularly in securing contracts with the Singapore Tourism Board for the Singapore GP and the ABBA Voyage virtual concert.

Although Iswaran no longer faces the original corruption charges, the prosecution amended them to lesser charges under Section 165.

Iswaran pleaded guilty on 24 September, 2024, to four counts under this section, which covered over S$400,000 worth of gifts, including flight tickets, sports event access, and luxury items like whisky and wines.

Additionally, he faced one count of obstructing justice for repaying Ong for a Doha-Singapore flight shortly before the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) became involved.

On 3 October, Iswaran was sentenced to one year in jail by presiding judge Justice Vincent Hoong.

The prosecution had sought a sentence of six to seven months for all charges, while the defence had asked for a significantly reduced sentence of no more than eight weeks.

Ong, a Malaysian national based in Singapore, was arrested by CPIB in July 2023 and released on bail shortly thereafter. Although no charges were initially filed against him, Ong’s involvement in the case intensified following Iswaran’s guilty plea.

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had earlier indicated that it would soon make a decision regarding Ong’s legal standing, which has now led to the current charges.

According to the statement of facts read during Iswaran’s conviction, Ong’s case came to light as part of a broader investigation into his associates, which revealed Iswaran’s use of Ong’s private jet for a flight from Singapore to Doha in December 2022.

CPIB investigators uncovered the flight manifest and seized the document.

Upon learning that the flight records had been obtained, Ong contacted Iswaran, advising him to arrange for Singapore GP to bill him for the flight.

Iswaran subsequently paid Singapore GP S$5,700 for the Doha-Singapore business class flight in May 2023, forming the basis of his obstruction of justice charge.

Mr Ong is recognised as the figure who brought Formula One to Singapore in 2008, marking the first night race in the sport’s history.

He holds the rights to the Singapore Grand Prix. Iswaran was the chairman of the F1 steering committee and acted as the chief negotiator with Singapore GP on business matters concerning the race.

 

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Chee Soon Juan questions Shanmugam’s $88 million property sale amid silence from Mainstream Media

Dr Chee Soon Juan of the SDP raised concerns about the S$88 million sale of Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow at Astrid Hill, questioning transparency and the lack of mainstream media coverage. He called for clarity on the buyer, valuation, and potential conflicts of interest.

Published

2 weeks ago

on

23 September 2024

By

On Sunday (22 Sep), Dr Chee Soon Juan, Secretary General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), issued a public statement on Facebook, expressing concerns regarding the sale of Minister for Home Affairs and Law, Mr K Shanmugam’s Good Class Bungalow (GCB) at Astrid Hill.

Dr Chee questioned the transparency of the S$88 million transaction and the absence of mainstream media coverage despite widespread discussion online.

According to multiple reports cited by Dr Chee, Mr Shanmugam’s property was transferred in August 2023 to UBS Trustees (Singapore) Pte Ltd, which holds the property in trust under the Jasmine Villa Settlement.

Dr Chee’s statement focused on two primary concerns: the lack of response from Mr Shanmugam regarding the transaction and the silence of major media outlets, including Singapore Press Holdings and Mediacorp.

He argued that, given the ongoing public discourse and the relevance of property prices in Singapore, the sale of a high-value asset by a public official warranted further scrutiny.

In his Facebook post, Dr Chee posed several questions directed at Mr Shanmugam and the government:

  1. Who purchased the property, and is the buyer a Singaporean citizen?
  2. Who owns Jasmine Villa Settlement?
  3. Were former Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and current Prime Minister Lawrence Wong informed of the transaction, and what were their responses?
  4. How was it ensured that the funds were not linked to money laundering?
  5. How was the property’s valuation determined, and by whom?

The Astrid Hill property, originally purchased by Mr Shanmugam in 2003 for S$7.95 million, saw a significant increase in value, aligning with the high-end status of District 10, where it is located. The 3,170.7 square-meter property was sold for S$88 million in August 2023.

Dr Chee highlighted that, despite Mr Shanmugam’s detailed responses regarding the Ridout Road property, no such transparency had been offered in relation to the Astrid Hill sale.

He argued that the lack of mainstream media coverage was particularly concerning, as public interest in the sale is high. Dr Chee emphasized that property prices and housing affordability are critical issues in Singapore, and transparency from public officials is essential to maintain trust.

Dr Chee emphasized that the Ministerial Code of Conduct unambiguously states: “A Minister must scrupulously avoid any actual or apparent conflict of interest between his office and his private financial interests.”

He concluded his statement by reiterating the need for Mr Shanmugam to address the questions raised, as the matter involves not only the Minister himself but also the integrity of the government and its responsibility to the public.

The supposed sale of Mr Shamugam’s Astrid Hill property took place just a month after Mr Shanmugam spoke in Parliament over his rental of a state-owned bungalow at Ridout Road via a ministerial statement addressing potential conflicts of interest.

At that time, Mr Shanmugam explained that his decision to sell his home was due to concerns about over-investment in a single asset, noting that his financial planning prompted him to sell the property and move into rental accommodation.

The Ridout Road saga last year centred on concerns about Mr Shanmugam’s rental of a sprawling black-and-white colonial bungalow, occupying a massive plot of land, managed by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), which he oversees in his capacity as Minister for Law. Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Vivian Balakrishnan, also rented a similarly expansive property nearby.

Mr Shanmugam is said to have recused himself from the decision-making process, and a subsequent investigation by the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) found no wrongdoing while Senior Minister Teo Chee Hean confirmed in Parliament that Mr Shanmugam had removed himself from any decisions involving the property.

As of now, Mr Shanmugam has not commented publicly on the sale of his Astrid Hill property.

Continue Reading

Trending