"About seventy", was my answer.

I don't think I was far off the mark. Although there were about 400 people at Hong Lim Park on Sunday, 31 May 2009, at the Peace Vigil for the liberty of Aung San Suu Kyi, Burmese outnumbered Singaporeans about 4:1 or 5:1.

The Peace Vigil was organised by Maruah Singapore [1] and was the Singapore end of a simultaneous vigil also held in Malaysia, Cambodia, the Philippines and Indonesia. There was also to be an event in Thailand, but I heard that it had to be cancelled at the last minute because of some unknown problem [Correction: it finally did go ahead].

At 6 p.m. Singapore time, a minute's silence was observed in all the participating countries' vigils, to honour the courage of Aung San Suu Kyi.

The Nobel Peace Prize winner has spent 13 of the last 19 years under house arrest since the military junta refused to recognise her party's landslide victory in the country's last elections, in 1990. [2]

Her house arrest was officially ended 26 May 2009, but not only was she not freed, she was transferred to Rangoon's notorious Insein prison to face trial for breaking the rules governing her detention. These charges are related to the incident when an American, John Yettaw, swam across a lake to her house and stayed three days there against her wishes. If convicted, she faces five years' imprisonment.

The charges are ridiculous, because her house was guarded by the Burmese military, who therefore should have been responsible for security.

By any measure, this is outrageous behaviour from any government. From the Burmese junta, alas, it has become entirely routine.

* * * * *

 
Am I disappointed with the turnout of Singaporeans at the event? Somewhat. Not that I expected more. In my opinion, Singaporeans take very little interest in foreign affairs. Between a low interest in what goes on outside our shores and an equally low interest in issues of human rights and justice, one might even say that seventy Singaporeans at Hong Lim Park is not bad at all.

The day before, at a blogging seminar, I briefly pointed out to the audience that while the mainstream media in Singapore provide a good level of reporting on foreign news --  if you've seen the pathetic amount of foreign news in Malaysian, Thai and Filipino newspapers, you'll know what I mean -- we hardly ever get any commentary or discussion about Singapore's foreign policy. What commentary you find is either in syndicated columns commenting on other countries' foreign policy or by local journalists talking about ..... other countries' foreign policy.

We give our government carte blanche to conduct foreign policy as they please with virtually no questioning.

Singapore's Burma policy is one ripe area for debate. Are we being too soft with the regime? Are the allegations that we are selling arms to them true? How much business do our government-linked companies do with Burma? Why are they still continuing to do so?

A typical refrain from our government is that sanctions and attempts at isolation won't work, because China and India will continue to deal with the regime for their own strategic reasons, so we too have to engage. What the government fails to explain is what strategic interests Singapore has with Burma that we must compete with China and India for influence.

In any case, do we really expect the regime to last forever? Isn't it much more likely that one day they will fall and eventually a more democratic government will take over? In that case, wouldn't our own interests be better served by being on the right side of history?

For this selfish reason alone, even if you are not much moved by the plight of Aung San Suu Kyi and millions of ordinary Burmese people, we should be speaking up. We should be calling loudly on our government to take a stronger line with the vile regime ensconced in their fortress capital Nay Pyi Daw. We should insist that Singapore, the people and government together, nail our colours to the mast of human rights for our friends and neighbours, the Burmese people.

* * * * *

 
Ah, human rights.

The first thing everybody arriving at Hong Lim Park noticed was a red-and-white tape forming a cordon about 20-metre square. What did it demarcate?

It was explained by Braema Mathi, the pro-tem president of Maruah, that under the Speaker's Corner permit, only Singapore citizens and permanent residents could participate, and therefore foreigners were requested to stay behind the tape, so that nobody would get into trouble.

Despite her trying her best to be apologetic about it, pointing out that this rule came from the powers above, it was still very troubling that a distinction had to be made. After all, human rights affect all of us as members of a common humanity. Especially for an event like this, concerning the barbarity of the Burmese junta, to exclude the Burmese just felt wrong.

The Burmese present mostly ignored the request; many stayed put within the area. I secretly applauded them.

But here's an interesting twist. Maruah also had a licence for a public assembly issued by the police under the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (PEMA). The police had asked Maruah to apply for one, and granted it within 24 hours.

Such licences generally do not specify that only citizens and permanent residents can participate. That being the case, shouldn't the Burmese be wholly included?

That depends on whether the PEMA licence operates in parallel with the Speaker's Corner permit, or whether it supersedes it. Frankly, I don't think anybody really knows the answer. Quite possibly, even the Attorney-General's Chambers might be stumped.

Maruah obviously decided to play it safe and demarcate an area where the Speaker's Corner event would take place (the smaller square), while treating the rest of Hong Lim Park as the area covered by the PEMA licence. That way it was perfectly safe for the Burmese to participate so long as they stayed outside the tape.

I have a suspicion however that the PEMA licence superseded the Speaker's Corner permit. My reasoning goes like this:

1. The Speaker's Corner permit (obtained from NParks, see application form) is derived from two pieces of legislation: the Parks and Trees Act and PEMA..
    
2. From the Parks and Trees Act, NParks has the authority to impose conditions for the use of the Speaker's Corner at Hong Lim Park, such as "not [to] damage or destroy any property, tree or plant within the park".
    
3. Other conditions are imposed pursuant to the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act (PEMA). Introducing these conditions, the NParks' website says,

   In addition to the conditions of park usage specified in paragraphs 3 and 4 above, an approved person should also be aware that he is exempted from the provisions of the Public Entertainments And Meetings Act (Cap. 257) ('PEMA') only if he complies with the conditions specified in the Public Entertainments And Meetings (Speakers' Corner) (Exemption) Order 2008 relating to any public speaking, performance, exhibition or demonstration organised or held at the Speakers' Corner, Hong Lim Park. These conditions are highlighted in paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 below.

   (my emphasis in bold)

4. Read it carefully, It basically says: If you comply with this, this and this, you are exempted from the provisions of PEMA.
    
5. The main condition of PEMA is that you must get a PEMA licence from the police for any public assembly.
    
6. Now, since Maruah does have in hand a PEMA licence, surely having the licence must supersede the exemption?

In that case, the whole event would have been covered by the licence, and there should have been no need to operate under the Speaker's Corner rules except in relation to trees and plants.

Well, at least that was what I thought, when I had some time to think in the quiet moments before the speeches began, but of course, I don't know if my interpretation is correct. Thus, Maruah was quite justified to play it safe, however odd and alienating the red-and-white cordon looked.