OPEN SINGAPORE CENTRE (Application to mark Human Rights Day)

Mr J. B. Jeyaretnam asked the Minister for Home Affairs what were the reasons for police objecting to an application by the Open Singapore Centre for 20-30 persons to run to mark Human Rights Day on 10th December 2000.

The Minister of State for Home Affairs (Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee) (for the Minister for Home Affairs): Sir, the Open Singapore Centre (OSC) applied for an assembly/procession permit to hold a marathon in conjunction with the International Human Rights Day on 10th December last year. The marathon was proposed to start at Mount Pleasant Road and end at Hong Lim Park.

Police noted that the Think Centre had announced, through its website, that the event was organised by both OSC and the Think Centre. From the information made public by the Think Centre, the run would culminate in a demonstration at Hong Lim Park. The demonstration would call for an apology by the Government to Mr Chia Thye Poh and those detained without trial as well as for the abolition of the ISA. Members of the public were urged to attend.

Police could not exclude the possibility that those participating in the run may also participate in the demonstration, especially since the Think Centre's press release mentioned that the runners were "activists". As the entire event, including the intended demonstration, had the potential to lead to law and order problems, Police rejected the application.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Am I to understand from the Minister of State that this request for 20 to 30 runners was refused simply because the Police or the Ministry did not want any calls for the abolition of the ISA or any other calls on the Government to be made at Hong Lim Park? Is that the reason for refusing this permit?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Jeyaretnam, I think, did not listen to my answer. Anybody can make a call to abolish the ISA. Mr Jeyaretnam himself has made the call many times. The fact is that Police rejected it because of law and order considerations. The website of Think Centre had publicised it as one event - marathon leading to Hong Lim Park where a demonstration would be held. So from that point of view, Police said, "Well, possibly law and order problems will arise. Hence, no permit for the run."

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister tell us, without speaking in riddles, what were the problems that the Police were foreseeing? Were these based on concrete evidence or did they have a nightmare the night before?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the Police makes its decision professionally based on factors which are well known. Here you have an application for a run which will end in Hong Lim Park, and it was explicitly stated in the publicity materials that there would be a demonstration. When one talks about a demonstration, there will be possibility of law and order problems.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Would the Minister tell this House, is it or is it not true that his Cabinet Minister - I am again surprised that he is not here - said in this House that anybody could go to Hong Lim Park and speak freely and he or she would not be arrested, harassed or questioned at all? Did he or did he not say that?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I do not want to respond to that if Mr Jeyaretnam is referring to current investigations as to what happened at Hong Lim Park on 10th December. What we said in this House is that people can speak at Hong Lim Park. Conditions are very easy. You register, you speak on any topic, unless it is a topic that is religious in nature or a topic that will create enmity, hostility, ill-will amongst different religions and races which is prohibited. You can speak on any other topic but you are subject to the laws of the land. So you cannot assemble without a permit at Hong Lim Park.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is the Minister of State now telling this House that every speaker there needs a permit because there might be an assembly of persons listening to him? Is that what he is telling the House - that you need a permit before you go and get an assembly of people to listen to you?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Jeyaretnam is straying from the original question which talks about permit for a run. Now he is talking about incidents happening at Hong Lim Park which are currently under Police investigation, which I do not think we should go into details.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Why not?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: It is being investigated. It may be the defence of the defendants in these cases that they have not assembled without a permit. So I do not think we should discuss these details in this House.

Mr Jeyaretnam: Is the Minister saying that it is a criminal act for people to go to Hong Lim Park and join the speaker in calling for the abolition of the ISA or for any other Acts which they find repressive or oppressive in Singapore?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Since the opening of the Speakers' Corner six months ago, there have been more than 800 registrations to speak at the Park. Perhaps not all have spoken. But many speakers have spoken and hundreds of people have listened to these speakers and no one has been prosecuted. So, here is a place where people can speak any time, just register and speak on any topic, except those which I have mentioned, and people can gather, and indeed Singaporeans of all backgrounds have gathered, some more interested than others, but nevertheless many have gathered and none has been prosecuted or investigated.

But like I have said, Sir, the use of the Park is subject to the laws of the land, and Mr Jeyaretnam, as a lawyer, should know the provisions of the Miscellaneous Offences Act and the rules, in particular Rule 2 which defines what is an illegal assembly, when people plan, organise together to publicise a specific cause, then possibly an offence has been committed. That is all I want to say in terms of the general broad framework of the law. In terms of the specific case, it is being investigated and I should say no more.

Mr Speaker: Mr Jeyaretnam, I think we are digressing away from your main question.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Minister in his reply rolled up the whole thing into one. He said the permit was refused because of what the Police feared might happen at Hong Lim Park. So he has rolled it up into Hong Lim Park. May I ask the Minister of State then to tell us what were the Police fears about these persons running?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Jeyaretnam said that it was one event. It was publicised as one event. That was the import of Mr Jeyaretnam's original question which was rightly asked: why was the permit for the run refused? The permit for the run was refused, like I have said, because the publicity had said it was one event where you end up in Hong Lim Park, where demonstrations would be held to abolish the ISA and activists would be invited to join in. And it was very likely that these activists who join in might also end up in Hong Lim Park and be part of the demonstration.

So from the viewpoint of rejecting the application for the run, it was one event. But now Mr Jeyaretnam is asking specific questions on events that happened thereafter which are currently under Police investigations, which I think we should not discuss.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask a final question?

Mr Speaker: Provided it is related to your main question.

Mr Jeyaretnam: All right. The main question is about the running. If you separate the two, what was wrong about the 20-30 members of the public running together, if you now separate the two distinctly? Could you answer that?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: It is a hypothetical question. We are dealing with realities here. Public safety is a very real concern of Police. You cannot separate the two because the website of Think Centre which publicised the event had said this would happen - the run, and, in fact, it states specifically, 12 noon, it will end there where a demonstration will be held. In reality, Sir, that is what Police has to consider. Let me assure Mr Jeyaretnam that the Police will consider all these points professionally. Uppermost in the minds of the Police will be the question of potential law and order and breach of the peace problems.

Mr Chiam See Tong: Sir, the permit asked for specifically says that there shall only be 20 to 30 persons running. If the number is more than 30, the Police could declare and just ask everybody to disperse because they are breaking the conditions of the permit there. So if there are only 20 to 30 persons confined to that demonstration, is there a security, law and order problem for the Police?

Mr Jeyaretnam: Yes, answer that.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: I think Mr Chiam is not cognisant with what may happen on the ground. A demonstration can start with 20 or 30 people, but who is to say that other supporters will not gather? And who is to say that other people who are against the cause may not gather? Then, problems will ensue. I think from Police's point of view, uppermost in their minds is the protection of citizens, like you and me, the safety of ordinary citizens. Hence, if there is a potential law and order problem, they will have to say no. They cannot wait for things to happen and hope that the 31st runner would not join in, or hope that at the Speakers' Corner there will be no 31st listener. They cannot do that.

Mr Chiam See Tong: You do that just because you are speculative of what will happen. But the point is that the number will be specifically confined to 20 or 30. As long as that number is limited there, I do not think there will be any problems with the permit. But as soon as it exceeds that number, the Police can immediately disperse the crowd and say, "Look here. That is the end of your demonstration. That is the end of your event.", because you break the conditions of the permit. And if they do not break up, you can start the arrest.

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Sir, the law says that if five or more people gather, you will need a permit under the law. But 30 is neither here nor there because six, seven or eight people can also cause problems. So it is not so much the numbers per se. Police looks at it professionally, looks at the nature of the event and assesses whether or not there would be potential law and order problem, and then it decides accordingly.

Mr Speaker: I must caution Members from repeating the same questions. You just get the same answers. Mr Simon Tay.

Mr Simon Tay: A slightly different question, Sir. The application seems to be by the Open Singapore Centre, a different entity from Think Centre. The event seems to be separate, given that your Ministry decided to roll it together. Was this thinking of your Ministry shared with the applicant and is it a regular practice to rely on other parties' publicity information in order to reject a different person's application?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: The Think Centre website had announced very clearly on 23rd November that this was an event jointly organised by Think Centre and Open Singapore Centre (OSC). So very clearly, they were joint organisers.

Mr Jeyaretnam: May I ask a final question?

Mr Speaker: All right, Mr Jeyaretnam.

Mr Jeyaretnam: The Minister of State speaks about some danger to the public arising out of these 20 to 30 persons running. Could he try and spell out please, what is the danger to the public?

Assoc. Prof. Ho Peng Kee: Mr Jeyaretnam did not hear the answer. I have given a detailed answer. It is confirmed now that he does not hear my answer. It was publicised as one event and the run culminating in a demonstration. So it was assessed as such. Should we allow demonstrations in Singapore? 2.00 pm

Mr Speaker: Order. End of Question time.

[Pursuant to Standing Order No. 21(3), Question Nos. 16-23, 25 and 27 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 23rd February 2001. Question Nos. 24 and 26 have been postponed to the sitting of Parliament on 7th March 2001.]