A 'White Curtain' has descended...

The passing of the Public Order Act (POA) on 13 April 2009 is a sad day for freedom and democracy in Singapore. The Act, in the guise of maintaining public safety and order, will slowly erase any semblance of individual freedom guaranteed under our Constitution.

Winston Churchill, in his speech on 5 March 1946, said an 'Iron Curtain' had descended across Europe just to warn the world about the increasing influence and control of Soviet Union on Central and Eastern Europe. A similar 'White Curtain' has descended on Singapore too. Singaporeans should be warned that the POA will restrict our basic citizen rights further.

To the outside world, Singapore is seen as 'clean and white' and full of law-abiding citizens. But behind the 'White Curtain' lies a nation legislated beyond comprehension, silenced and highly strung.

Under the POA, an illegal 'assembly' could mean a gathering of only ONE person and a 'procession' could comprise of just TWO! Sadly, the highest paid Government in the world has also the lowest tolerance for dissent.

The new 'Move On' power now allows the police to ask a person to leave a premise in the interests of 'public safety, public order, and the protection of the rights and freedom of other people'. What about the rights and freedom of the poor guy slapped with the 'Move On' order? Doesn't that deserve protection too? The right to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly guaranteed under Article 14 of our Constitution apparently does not apply to that poor chap if the police think otherwise.

To complete the whitewash of our rights, a public-spirited citizen can no longer film any law enforcement activity even if that person witnessed a serious case of police brutality. It is sad that justice for victims like Ian Tomlinson and Oscar Grant could never happened behind this White Curtain.

Second Minister for Home Affairs, Mr K Shanmugam, in taking the POA, said in Parliament:

"The approach is to seek the optimal balance between the freedom to exercise political rights while not affecting public safety security and not affecting stability. Have we gotten that balance right? Well, ask yourselves two questions. In our region, which country would you rather be in? And amongst the countries in the world which became independent in the 1950s and 60s, which country would you rather be in? The answer to these questions would be the answer to the main question I asked."

Have we really gotten that balance right? It seems to me that this Government likes to pick and choose any country in turmoil to justify the need to restrict civil liberty on its own citizens without first understanding the cause of the unrest overseas. Does it mean that any outbreak of protest in this world must impel Singapore to tighten its public order laws?

The event unfolding in Thailand is not about lax public order laws. It is about the need to uphold democracy. NCMP Sylvia Lim said in Parliament:

"If there is a lesson to be learnt from Thailand, it is about upholding democracy. It is not about the consequences of having weak public order laws because the Thai people felt cheated. The Thai police and army are not weaklings either. They are more battle-hardened than our equivalent as they have been fighting Muslim separatists for many years. Many of these security people are just sympathetic to the 'Red shirt' cause. Does the PAP government think that slapping a 'move on' order on 100,000 Thais will work?

The Singapore Government should not take advantage of the situation in Thailand to justify the implementation of draconian laws to inhibit the basic rights of citizens further. The Thais may be exercising their basic human rights to the extreme. On the other end, Singaporeans, who have done nothing remotely close to what the Thais are doing, are being penalised further for nothing. As long as this government respect and uphold democracy, the problem we are seeing now in Thailand will not happen here. But if the government wants to tinker with individual freedom and democracy to an oppressive level, it will actually become the source of public order problems."

So has Singapore really opened up in recent years?

Mr Shanmugam said the opening of Speakers' Corner in 2000 was the start of the process by the Government to liberalise the political space.

The Minister went to say that restrictions were also lifted on speeches by elected MPs at community events albeit with conditions attached. Constituency activities organised by MPs and held in the constituency were also exempted from police permits - again with conditions attached.

Indoor political activities are now exempted from permits too. You can even demonstrate at Hong Lim Park provided there is no community event going on there.

And finally (drum roll please), the outright ban on party political films was lifted on 23 Mar 2009.

Apart from the Speakers' Corner experiment, which was a baby step in the right direction, there is nothing worth shouting about in the 'opening up' of our political space so far. Most of the previously banned activities are harmless and should not be restricted in the first place.

And remember, it is technically a 'procession' when you go out walking with your date. If you are single and you enjoy loitering outside some shops, you could be deemed as an illegal 'assembly'.

Strange but that is life behind the 'White Curtain' after 13 April 2009.

http://forums.delphiforums.com/n/mb/message.asp?webtag=sunkopitiam&msg=27096.1