Demonstrations to be allowed in Hong Lim playpen

In his National Day Rally speech delivered on 17 August 2008, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong crowed about three new liberalisations:

1. Demonstrations will be permitted at the Speakers Corner in Hong Lim Park, in addition to speechmaking (without loudhailers);

2. Political videos will now not be totally banned, but permitted subject to censorship;

3. During the next general election, Singapore will reluctantly join the world in allowing podcasts and vodcasts.

The second and third are grudging concessions to the inevitable, and the first is mere tokenism.

Regarding demonstrations, much will depend on the details yet to be announced. That they are likely to be restrictive can hardly be a surprise to anyone.

Already, Lee said some topics are verboten. "Our concern is law and order, and security. It comes back to race and religion, because one incident could undermine our racial harmony, and confidence in Singapore." On that basis, just as speeches touching on race and religion are not permitted without a prior licence (often not granted) you can expect that demonstrations with the slightest element of race or religion will not be allowed either.

Nor will Permanent Residents and foreigners be allowed to participate, I assume, since the existing rules about who can speak at the Speakers' Corner bar them. So what good does it do for the large Burmese community in Singapore with huge grievances about the military junta there, many of whose generals are treated royally when they come to Singapore for medical treatment, like Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe?

The point about demonstrations is to garner attention for an issue. To be meaningful, they must be in a location that allows interaction with the public, and that allows the activists' placards to be seen and their voices heard. Quarantining them in the hot open field of Hong Lim Green is the opposite of what they need.

This move therefore is meant more to help the government's public relations than to truly permit greater freedom. It allows the government to say to its critics, "Oh, but we DO allow outdoor demonstrations in Singapore; we are not a police state," when in fact, there is no substantive freedom to demonstrate where and when one wishes to.

Of course, the question of inconveniencing others has to be taken into consideration. That is why the system of police permits grew up in the first place, so that a neutral body -- and yes, the police are supposed to be neutral between the government and its opponents, between one group of citizens and another, in case we have forgotten -– can weigh the competing claims of different people over shared public space.

If someone wants to close off a major thoroughfare like Orchard Road to hold a demonstration, perhaps there is good reason to deny it a licence. But if someone wants hold a small to medium-sized march on the pedestrian mall alongside, why not?

Last year, the Substation wanted to convert Armenian Street and the nearby car park into a street festival for various civil society groups. They would have stalls for different NGOs, food and music, and thereby create a fun opportunity for these groups to draw the public's attention to the work they are doing and the causes they promote.

Now, Armenian Street is one of the quietest streets downtown, and anyway, the Substation proposed a weekend. But the police adamantly refused and the whole thing had to be called off.

You don't have to wonder whether law and order considerations went into the refusal. They didn't. It was simply a blanket ban on any outdoor activity by non-governmental groups that had even the slightest whiff of advocacy.

The issue isn't whether we should let people hold demonstrations without a permit at certain predefined places. That's no more than a red herring. The real issue is why the police (paid for by us taxpayers) are acting like goons for the ruling People's Action Party, protecting their partisan interests.

The right solution isn't allowing the "letting off steam" at the playpen that is Hong Lim Green. It should be a more liberal granting of permits for outdoor festivals, demonstrations and marches anywhere in the city subject to genuine considerations of obstruction and chaos. The default should be to permit unless there are clear reasons why not.

Another bit of tokenism was Lee's mention that the management of the Speakers' Corner at Hong Lim Green will be transferred from the Police to the park authority, NParks. This means nothing. NParks can be just as much a tool of the paranoid authorities as the police.

Last year, during our gay and lesbian pride season, Indignation, one of the scheduled events as a Pink Picnic at the Botanic Gardens. Just days before it was to be held, I received a letter from -– guess who -– NParks telling us they would not allow it and that if we persisted, they would call in the police.

So what's the difference?

By the way, we persisted nevertheless, though plainclothes police circled us like a pack of hyenas throughout, looking for any excuse to nab us.

* * * * *

Likewise, the so-called liberalisation of political videos seems like too little too late. Needless to say, the advance of technology makes this inevitable. Lee himself conceded that it was time to update the rules or risk them being made obsolete by the rapidly changing new media landscape.

Footnotes

None

Addenda

None