In his reply, released yesterday, Mr Wong said the Myanmar nationals disregarded Singapore laws by staging illegal activities, like outdoor protests, to pursue their political agenda.

This was despite repeated police advice to stick to lawful avenues.

[snip]

'The OBP is by no means the only patriotic group in Singapore or the only group that has organised activities to express their concern about the situation in Myanmar. However, unlike other groups which have conducted their activities in a lawful manner, the OBP has chosen to do so in open and persistent defiance of our laws.'

One such activity was a street protest on Nov 20 last year during the Asean Summit. Some 40 people, carrying banners, walked down a pavement outside the Orchard Parade Hotel to voice their discontent with the junta.

Citing the incident, Mr Wong said the group intentionally protested near the summit's Shangri-La Hotel venue to court public and media attention.

'Their unlawful behaviour was an unnecessary distraction to our security forces and could have compromised the security arrangements for the summit delegates, some of whom were heads of Asean governments.'

-- Straits Times, 18 September 2008,
Myanmar activists 'defied our laws'

The full articles in the Straits Times and Today are archived here. 

The Straits Times helpfully provided a list of the "unlawful" things that the Overseas Burmese Patriots (OBP) organised, compared to the "lawful" things that other Burmese groups did. You will see from the list that everything that was outdoor was "unlawful", but indoor things permitted, a point I will come to later.

Does a country have the right to decide who enters and who should leave? Of course. On that principle, there should be no dispute. The question is what considerations go into deciding who should leave? If the considerations are arbitrary or poorly founded, are they rightful?

The [Immigration and Checkpoints Authority] considers this small group to be "undesirable" persons and "rightly decided" they should leave...

[snip]

... Mr Wong denounced them for politicising the issue through the media and through "uninformed foreign groups".

He accused them of "distorting the (ICA's) actions... as being politically motivated.

-- 'Today' newspaper, 18 September 2008, 
'Undesirable' persons should leave, House told

As you can see above, Wong said these individuals had persistently defied the laws of Singapore. I think Singaporeans need to ask themselves, how lawful are these laws, or at least, how lawful is the manner in which these laws are interpreted? Because if they are unlawful, then there is no moral justification for doing what the government did.

 
Unlawful laws

It is important in this discussion to grasp the concept that laws can be unlawful. For example, if Parliament passed a law that made capital punishment mandatory for organising an opposition party, many people would be aghast by how unjust and disproportionate such a law would be. Laws that do not meet a test of justice and proportionality are unlawful, as are those that contradict some fundamental principles of human rights.

For example, refer to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights:

What is the Universal Declaration of Human Rights?

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the primary international articulation of the fundamental and inalienable rights of all members of the human family. Adopted by the United Nations General Assembly on December 10, 1948, the UDHR represents the first comprehensive agreement among nations as to the specific rights and freedoms of all human beings.

Among others, these include civil and political rights such as the right not to be subjected to torture, to equality before the law, to a fair trial, to freedom of movement, to asylum and to freedom of thought, conscience, religion, opinion and expression. The rights outlined in the UDHR also include economic, social and cultural rights such as the right to food, clothing, housing and medical care, to social security, to work, to equal pay for equal work, to form trade unions and to education.

Originally intended as a "common standard of achievement for all peoples and all nations", over the past fifty years the Universal Declaration has become a cornerstone of customary international law, and all governments are now bound to apply its principles.

 
The law the Wong claimed the Burmese broke was that regulating the freedom the assembly. In essence, Wong said these individuals were instrumental in organising protest marches without a licence from the government.

It is possible to argue that this law regulating public assembly is lawful in that there are public concerns, e.g. public safety, that justify having to obtain a licence before going ahead. Unlike some anti-government groups, Yawning Bread does not dispute the principle behind such a law.

But the reality is that licences are almost never given, except for such government-promoted events like the Chingay float parade. This pattern of refusal strongly suggests that the intent of the law has been thwarted; instead of applying a reasoned consideration of public safety, it has been used to stifle dissenting opinion – a breach of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, now regarded as customary international law.

Hence, the manner of implementation of this law is unlawful.

If the law itself, or its implementation, has been unlawful, how justifiable is the government's claim that ignoring these laws is then "unlawful"? And is a poorly founded claim a good enough reason to justify deportation?

Can you penalise someone when the rule he is said to have broken is an unjust rule in the first place?

 
Diplomatic mission closed

Our local newspapers have not reported that Singapore's diplomatic missions abroad have been the target of protests. These must have been organised by what Wong derisively referred to as "uninformed foreign groups", out to "court public and media attention".

Here are pictures of protests mounted outside our High Commission in London on 29 August 2008, forcing a staffer there to put up a notice saying it's closed for the afternoon.

 
On 1 September, there were more protests, this time in front of our High Commission in New Delhi.

 
A pertinent question would be whether these protestors with placards outside our missions in London and New Delhi were doing "unlawful" things and if they would soon be deported by the British and Indian governments.

If we do not think it likely that they would suffer such a fate, then we must ask ourselves: Why is Singapore different? Why is our idea of lawfulness so strange?

© Yawning Bread