Fridae put out a statement on Saturday, but on Tuesday, 'Today' newspaper carried a report that contradicted Fridae's statement in parts. Hence the picture is now quite confused.

I'd rather take a knife to the public statements made so far and bring a critical eye to them. The result though is still no more than a shortlist of educated guesses as to what really could have happened.

We need to bear in mind that there were 3 parties: Fridae the organiser, the Ministry of Sound (MoS) and the police. We also need to remember that at no time did the police speak to Fridae. The police spoke to MoS.

Immediately, this raises the possibility of miscommunication, or filtering of communication.

The only 2 significant facts that are not disputed are these:

1. Kelvin Yeo [1] from the Tanglin Police Division called Clement Lee, Executive Director of LifeBrandz (which operates MoS) sometime on Friday evening. 
    
2. Clement Lee called Stuart Koe of Fridae soon after.

What did Kelvin Yeo say to Clement Lee?

According to Fridae's statement, Yeo "demand[ed] that the club cancel the event, failing which enforcement officers would come to the club on Sunday to shut the party down. The reason given by the police to Mr. Lee over the telephone was that the party would 'promote gay activities.' "

There is, unfortunately, no clue as to what those conditions might have been.

Perhaps it was something along the lines of "when we show up on Sunday night and see gay activities, then we will stop the party and possibly prosecute the management", leaving very vague what "gay activities" meant.

Alternatively, the police could have told MoS that they should not have permitted their standing entertainment licence to be used as cover for a party organised by Fridae. If Fridae didn't have its own licence for the party, and MoS permitted it to proceed within its premises, then MoS' own licence might be at risk. This could be what MoS meant by "above board".

The sheer impossibility of Fridae getting a licence on a "Friday evening after office hours" (quoted from Fridae's statement) meant that such a condition (if true) would effectively be a demand to cancel the event.

 
Isn't there a case for a legal challenge?

Logically, such a move by the police ought to face judicial challenge. "Gay activities" is not a crime under our laws. That being the case, suspicion of "gay activities" or of "promoting gay activities" cannot be a basis for pre-emptive police action.

As for the second scenario -- demanding a separate licence for the Feelin' Good party -– the question that naturally follows is what has been the usual practice to date? Have other clubs played host to events organised by outside parties, without anyone having to obtain a separate event permit?

I wish I knew the answer to this question, but I don't. Perhaps some readers familiar with industry practices may be able to tell me.

If -– and it's a big if -– the police have previously never made an issue about clubs being host to outsiders' parties so long as the clubs themselves have standing entertainment permits, then imposing such a condition on the Feelin' Good party would be a mala fide act. The police would be acting in bad faith and with prejudice.

The trouble with Singapore is that most people believe the judicial system is stacked against them if they have to go up against the government. Our absence of a tradition of judicial review of administrative acts leaves one with little encouragement.

Furthermore, who should sue whom? Fridae is naturally the most aggrieved party, but should MoS have been the plaintiff?

Again, it depends on exactly what was said and what was in the contract between Fridae and MoS, to which naturally, I am not privy. But even a cursory understanding of MoS' position would suggest that they'd be the last to sue even if they had a case.

MoS recently closed its Bangkok operation. Word has it that they couldn't make it profitable given the Thai government's insistence on a 1 a.m or 2 a.m. closing time. This is part of the Thaksin government's "social order campaign".

It was only recently, in December 2005, I believe, that MoS moved to Singapore and they would not yet have recouped their fitting out costs. Understandably, they would hardly want to jeopardise the entire venture by taking on the police. Easier to just bend over.

It's no surprise then that when the police denied demanding a cancellation,  MoS' Clement Lee tried to finesse it with his comments to Today – "If everything had been above board, the Ministry of Sound would have allowed the party to go on as planned."

 
Lack of transparency breeds abuse

Aside from the speculation about what transpired in the phone conversations, the very fact that we have to speculate reflects poorly on the standard of governance in Singapore. It's well-known the world over that opacity allows abuse to fester. Moreover, the attempt at concealment itself suggests abuse.

In this connection, it is noteworthy that the police's reply to Today is couched in euphemism and includes what appears to be a red herring -– that bit about traffic.

MoS seems also to have taken the cue, speaking in riddles.

Charles Tan wrote a letter to Today pointing out that "the lack of recorded documentation" -– I suppose he meant absence of clear answers -– "highlights the need for more openness and transparency within our bureaucracies and businesses."

Pointing to MoS, he wrote, "It appears that the 'middlemen' were led into a difficult position and forced to remain tight-lipped."

Indeed, on both counts, that is so, especially from a public agency such as the police, who are supposed to uphold the law and be accountable to the people. Instead, the opacity in this case has only given observers the impression that they have been behaving with less than utmost integrity, abusing their powers while pursuing an anti-gay agenda by fair means or foul.

© Yawning Bread