Crisis-hit Singapore tightens grip
By Tony Sitathan
SINGAPORE - New legislation passed by parliament in the name of combating
terrorism has raised concerns that discretionary powers could be used by
authorities to further silence political opposition and suppress public dissent
when the island nation is facing its worst economic crisis since achieving
independence.
The Public Order Act (POA), which was rapidly drafted and passed without much
fanfare in April, represents the latest legislation to boost the discretionary
powers of the People's Action Party-led government, which has ruled the city
state uninterrupted since 1959, in the name of upholding national security.
The new law will primarily extend the draconian Public Entertainment and
Meeting Act, which bars gatherings of more than five people without a
government-granted permit. Under the
POA, now even one person with a "cause-related" intention in public will also
apparently need a permit. According to opposition politicians, the new act
effectively bans any outdoor activity deemed by the state as political in
nature.
It also represents a blow to already limited press freedoms, as it contains a
new ban on the filming of security force operations and actions. That, some
say, will limit the ability of citizen journalists and bloggers, who have
offered an important counterpoint in recent years to the state-controlled
media, to check the government's actions. Yet another repressive provision of
the POA empowers the police, under a so-called "move on" order, to force anyone
to leave public areas if their actions are considered "disorderly".
This provision would appear to run contrary to Article 13 of the constitution,
which states that Singaporean citizens have the right to move freely throughout
Singapore subject to any law relating to security, public order, or public
health. Although there have not been any demonstrations related to the island
state's spectacular economic downturn, some believe the POA's passage was
designed specifically to forestall possible anti-government rallies or
assemblies.
The export-oriented economy contracted 10.1% year-on-year in the first quarter,
shaking the PAP's traditional claim to legitimacy through its management of
fast economic growth. The government has said it needs the POA's enhanced
powers to create a more transparent and coherent framework for managing public
order and security, including when it hosts the Asia-Pacific Economic
Cooperation (APEC) summit in November which various world leaders are scheduled
to attend.
According to a Hong Kong-based risk consultant who requested anonymity, the
government was motivated by the recent destabilizing public street protests
seen in Thailand and the terrorist attacks on a tourist hotel in Mumbai, India.
He noted that deputy prime minister and home affairs minister Wong Kan Seng has
said that the APEC summit may attract "terrorists" or "anarchists" bent on
stirring violence.
The political opposition, a group of parties that won 33% of the votes at the
2006 election but through gerrymandering command only two seats in Singapore's
84-seat parliament, have strongly criticized the POA, claiming it could be used
to suppress further their political activities. Chee Soon Juan, leader of the
opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), claimed in an interview that the
POA's passage violates Singapore's constitution and specifically undermines
Article 14, which guarantees freedom of rights, association and speech.
"The constitution states that any law that runs contrary to the constitution
will be void. This is something that needs to be brought up internationally,"
he said. Chee is an embattled opposition figure, who has on several occasions
been detained for his political activities and was recently rendered bankrupt
by a court ruling after crossing swords with several ministers in the PAP
government's cabinet. Chee is currently banned from traveling outside of
Singapore on order of that ruling.
Chee's resistance in the name of democracy promotion has in recent years earned
him significant international support, namely from Liberal International, a
world federation of liberal political parties. His SDP, along with three other
pro-democracy political parties, including Myanmar's National League for
Democracy (Liberated Areas), was granted observer status to Liberal
International at its annual general meeting in May held in Vancouver, Canada.
The SDP's nomination was championed by Dean Peroff, from the international law
firm Amsterdam & Peroff. In passing the unanimous motion, Peroff maintained
that Singapore's political order was authoritarian, autocratic, run by a
one-man system and that SDP's new observer status to Liberal International
would be an important first step towards reaching out to the broader
international community for the cause of promoting basic human rights and
freedom of expression in Singapore.
International appeal
"SDP has signed an agreement with the Commonwealth countries, where Singapore
is a party, to include respect for fundamental human rights and civil
liberties," said Chee, who has also hired Amsterdam & Peroff to take up his
case against the government, whose members have recently filed law suits
against news publications that have run Chee's critical comments. "We are
trying to pursue this and some of the international community would hopefully
pay more attention and encourage Singapore to be part of the civilized world."
Robert Amsterdam, a human-rights lawyer who has represented individuals against
oppressive states across the globe, including in Nigeria, Venezuela, and
Russia, has recently taken up Chee's case. He sees the passage of the POA as
symptomatic of the lack of basic civil liberties in Singapore and said that the
new law would have wide-reaching implications beyond providing greater
protection to the upcoming APEC conference.
"Democratic countries in Asia need to ask themselves if they accept the POA
that further tears away whatever small rights ... that remain in Singapore,"
said Amsterdam. "Suppressing opposition in Singapore is a full time occupation
for the pro-disciplinary regime," he added.
He said the motivation for undermining human rights by repressive regimes,
whether in military run Myanmar or nominally democratic Singapore, often boils
down to money. "They clamp down on human rights and distort information because
it is profitable for them to do it. It is not just a thirst for power; it is to
gain a financial interest," claimed Amsterdam. The PAP-led government opaquely
manages two of the world's largest sovereign wealth funds, which have seen
their holdings badly hit by the global economic crisis.
Singapore's law and second minister for Home Affairs, K Shanmugam, stoutly
defended the POA on April 16 at the fourth annual gathering of the Attorney
General's Chambers of Singapore, Malaysia and Brunei. He said that the POA has
helped to streamline current rules on public assemblies and rightly empowers
police to halt the filming of security or covert operations, which could be
compromised by public broadcasting.
"It's directed at and motivated by two situations: one, as a result of what
happened in Mumbai when security operations are ongoing, you can see the
security officers rappelling and preparing for an attack. But so could the
terrorists. The second situation is where the identity of the officer has to be
protected because it is a covert operation," he said.
"We need to establish a commonality of legal concepts and, more importantly,
structures for co-operation and a strengthening of the relationship between our
law enforcement agencies," he added. In an apparent concession to criticism,
the Ministry of Home Affairs said the government is considering exempting
certain social, recreational and commercial activities that don't pose a threat
to security from the POA.
Sylvia Lim, an opposition member of parliament, said changes made to the
definition of "assembly" and "procession" in the POA were disturbing because
they were no longer restricted to gatherings of five or more people. That, she
said, means that now even one person can constitute an illegal assembly, thus
giving the state complete control over individual civil liberties.
She also highlighted the limitations of the "move on" powers vested in the POA,
which has shown to be problematic in other countries due to the wide
discretionary powers given to police and could also be in Singapore without an
independent watchdog to monitor law enforcement agency actions.
The general public, according to one poll, is equally concerned by the POA's
rights-eroding provisions. According to an online poll conducted by the
opposition Workers Party, 91% of respondents opposed POA provisions that will
allow police to order, if necessary by force, the stoppage of filming of law
enforcement activities and search without a warrant any person whom the officer
has reason to believe is in possession of such a film or picture.
While the poll's sample size was small, the results indicate average
Singaporeans are concerned about the POA's prohibitive provisions,
significantly at a time the island country faces a severe and accelerating
economic downturn.
Tony Sitathan is a correspondent for several Asian and foreign news
publications. He may be reached at tony_sita@yahoo.com.
(Copyright 2009 Asia Times Online (Holdings) Ltd. All rights reserved. Please
contact us about
sales, syndication and
republishing.)
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road,
Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
