Rule 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) (Assemblies & Processions) Rules: Any person who participates in any assembly or processions in any public road, public place or place of public resort shall, if he knows or ought reasonably to have known that the assembly or processions is held without a permit, or in contravention of any term or condition of a permit, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.

-- ibid

... which is very similar to the wording of the statute.

It is difficult to imagine that the legislative intent of this law was to curb the handing out of flyers, or similar communicative-type activity. I daresay the law was meant to prohibit gatherings that pose a threat to public peace, e.g. gangs out to intimidate or fight, or sit-ins that block traffic. The name of the law, after all, is Miscellaneous Offences (Public order and nuisance) Act.

Moreover, in actual practice, no action is taken against the hundreds, if not thousands, of people who stand at metro stations handing out flyers, or even those who interfere with traffic in some way, e.g. stopping people to sell them insurance or trying to persuade them to attend church (usually without saying so explicitly.)

Another kind of communicative-type activity is walkabouts by members of parliament or aspiring politicians. Somewhere every weekend, this goes on, the MP or aspiring politician accompanied by supporters. Not only do they hand out (or sell) their party newsletter, they go around in a procession greeting residents and voters in the hope that they'd become familiar faces.

Likewise, we have university students going about in a bunch trying to spread the message of recycling and collecting old newspapers.

All this is part and parcel of civic and commercial life. That none of the above examples are regularly stopped by the police only goes to show that the law was never meant for such instances.

What emerged in court during the trial supports this view: that it has never been considered an offence under this law to distribute flyers. Police officers tasked on that day to intervene didn't know why they were ordered to intervene. As reported on the Singapore Democratic Party's website,

Sgt Damien Oh Jin Wei said that when he first confronted Mr Jeffrey George on the day of the incident, he was unsure what offence Mr George was committing.

"But after checking my law book, I realised that there could be an offence under the Miscellaneous Offences Act," the officer added. "But I'm not sure."

"By saying that you are unsure you are also saying that you don't know what the offence is, am I right?" Dr Chee queried.

"Yes," Sgt Oh admitted.

"And with everything that you know about this case right up until now, are you saying that you are still unsure about what offence has been committed?" asked Dr Chee.

"Yes."

[snip]

Mr Oh's colleague, Sgt Derrick Lim Yong Khiang, was also at a loss as to what offence was being committed. Under cross-examination by Ms Chee Siok Chin, the officer admitted that he did not know what the offence was when he confronted Ms Hakirat Kaur.

"So why did you tell Ms Kaur that she was committing an offence?" asked Ms Chee.

"I was under instructions," Sgt Lim replied.

[snip]

Even a commissioned officer was equally flummoxed about the law that he was called to enforce. Inspector Patrick Lim, who was deployed to look out for "public disorder incidents", told the court that the accused persons had not committed an offence.

"From your observation of the defendants distributing flyers, they have not breached the peace?" prosecutor Anandan Bala asked during re-examination.

"Correct," Mr Lim affirmed.

"As far as you're concerned," the DPP went on, "they have not committed a crime?"

"Based on my personal opinion, they are not committing an offence."

DPP Bala tried his best to salvage the situation by hinting to the Inspector about the law under which the defendants have been charged: "On 10th September 2006, were you aware of the subsidiary legislation of the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA)?"

"No," came the reply.

-- Source: SDP website.

You can sense that the prosecution realises that it is most unusual to prosecute someone for passing out flyers, from the fact that the charge includes the words "intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government". It sounds like an attempt to justify the exception.

Yet, this raises even more questions. Do certain kinds of flyers make a crime, while other kinds of flyers don't? How can that be since the law mentions no such thing?

Well, it turns out that there is another clause in the not-available-to-the-public Rules, this time with details not foreshadowed by the statute as passed by Parliament:

The first question is whether it is fair to the public that subsidiary legislation is not freely available to the public. That said, the Police website does intimate that such rules exist. See this page. 

Beyond that, there is the question: Does the ordinary meaning of the words "to demonstrate support or opposition..." encompass the distribution of flyers? I think not. I think the words "demonstrate" must mean a protest of some sort that inconveniences the public. Again, refer to the name of the law, wherein are found the words "Public order and nuisance".

Do Singaporeans consider the distribution of flyers a nuisance? Some of us do, and some of us don't. But I doubt if even those who think it is a nuisance would say that there is a difference in nuisance value between commercial and political flyers. So why prosecute one and not the other?

We first rape the concept of democracy by passing all sorts of laws that choke off free speech and assembly. Then when the laws themselves don't specifically cover certain situations that the government dislikes, we interpret the laws any way we please. Frankly, it is disgraceful.

© Yawning Bread