TodayOnline: Softly spoken at the Corner (Sept 2 2008)

Softly spoken at the Corner

Tuesday • September 2, 2008


Tan Hui Leng

huileng@mediacorp.com.sg


THUS was a milestone in free expression marked: A lone businessman putting up posters to draw attention to failed overseas investments, and a group staging an express demonstration on the plight of abused maids.

But if such fledgling efforts at public demonstrations were disappointing to some who turned up expecting far more fire, at least, it was not the no-show that had been expected originally.

At about 9am yesterday — the first day that rules were relaxed at Speakers’ Corner at Hong Lim Park — 52-year-old businessman Teng Liang Huat registered to put up an exhibition that afternoon.

And at the last minute, non-profit group Hearers of Cries, which had earlier registered its evening event as a speech, decided to change this into a demonstration instead, complete with banners.

Much fanfare had led up to the liberalisation of rules: A police permit was no longer needed to speak at the park, visual aids were allowed as were sound amplifiers. Scenarios such as the burning of political effigies or a gay pride parade had seemed real possibilities, with authorities not objecting when these were suggested to them.

So it was that many, like retiree Roger Poh, 61, dropped by in keen anticipation yesterday evening, to see what would take place.

Mr Poh, who came all the way from Jalan Kayu, felt short-changed by the 22-minute ‘demonstration’ from Hearer of Cries – it began with founder Mike Goh appealing for whistle-blowers on maid abuses, after which a volunteer dressed up as an abused maid (complete with paint-on bruises and neck brace) appealed for help.

The speeches lasted less than three minutes in all.

“I’m very disappointed, I expected more,” Mr Poh told TODAY. “I was hoping for demonstrations at the last minute on more controversial topics such as ERP, ministerial salaries and cost of living. This (maid abuse) issue is innocuous. It’s an anti-climax.”

Alan Tan bemoaned the turnout of about 30 to 40 persons. “I though all of Singapore knew, why are they not here?” asked the 50-year-old teacher. “It’s Teacher’s Day today – we should see more students and teachers. Are they scared or are they just not interested?”

And where was the opposition, or other local activists, some wondered.

As Mr Poh said: “It’s the first day and all the media is here; it’s the perfect opportunity to be heard.”



SUBHD: ‘Hopefully someone can help me’

Some expressed pessimism over whether interest in Hong Lim Park could be sustained.

One or two in the crowd were heard mumbling that it would likely “die a natural death” – the same way that Speaker’s Corner had opened on Sept 1, 2000 with a bang that quickly sizzled out, some said largely due to its out-of-the-way location.

Architect Foo Siew Mun, for one, believes that the Internet is now the focal point as a new-age discussion forum and real live demonstrations have become less effective in pushing causes.

But for individuals like Mr Teng – who literally put his name in the record books when he registered to put up posters yesterday – it was a way to vent his frustrations.

Between 1pm and 5pm, he put up hundreds of notices in Chinese typeface, expounding on Singapore businessmen’s misadventures overseas and the bureaucratic red-tape faced. He had apparently run into legal issues when investing in a property overseas.

“I’m using this as a platform to voice my concerns about issues and hopefully, somebody can help me out,” said Mr Teng, who had learnt about the looser rules at Speakers’ Corner only the day before.

He was approached by members of the media, curious tourists and other passers-by, like law student Kerushnan who had dropped by with friends to see if there was “any action”.

Mr Kerushnan, 38, was upbeat about the opportunity for the man in the street to voice his opinions and concerns. Unfortunately, the second event of the day ended too early for the student who had classes in the evening – Hearer of Cries had registered for their demonstration to end at 9pm, but started packing up before 7.25pm.

The seven-member group, which set up a website in 2002, encourages the public to report maid abuse and offers vouchers as rewards. Founder Mr Goh appeared a tad overwhelmed by the keen media attention and declined to elaborate much on the organisation, refering reporters instead to its website.

“Everyone of us here can play apart to prevent maid abuse,” he said, and yesterday’s demonstration was a small start – the group intends to use Speakers’ Corner as a regular platform to spread its message.

After all, as architect Mr Foo put it succintly: “It’s a start.”

And a soft one at that.

ST: Sleepy, oops Speakers' Corner (Aug 29)

Aug 29, 2008
Sleepy, oops, Speakers' Corner
It's now up to citizens to respond to the chance given by Government
By Chua Mui Hoong
SO SPEAKERS' Corner is set to become Demo Corner.

At least, if activists and citizens make use of the space.

The Government's move this month to allow outdoor demonstrations at
Speakers' Corner without the need to get a prior permit, has drawn
mixed reactions.

The 'half-full' camp hail the move as the latest in a series of small
steps of political liberalisation taken by the politically risk-averse
People's Action Party Government.

Other recent moves along this line include the 2000 decision to
designate Hong Lim Park as a venue where public speeches can be made
without a permit. Then there was the decision to allow indoor events
to proceed without a permit in 2004.

The 'half-empty' camp say the change is too little, too late, and is
in fact an insult to the spirit of the Constitution which guarantees
free speech.

Some in this camp say the latest move confines activists' zeal and
cramps their style by limiting protests to one venue.

People are of course entitled to their view of the issue. But it would
be a real pity if those in the 'half-empty' camp chose to disdain the
relaxation of rules, and never make use of the extra space - both
physical and political - given by the state.

In the end, whether Speakers' Corner remains a Sleepy Corner as it is
now - or whether it becomes a Sparkling Corner where sparks fly -
depends entirely on activists and citizens.

In the eight years since Hong Lim Park in the Chinatown area was
designated Speakers' Corner, little has changed in the area on the
surface.

The first year of its operation did see some public and media
interest. When it was launched in September 2000, 25 people registered
to speak. In the first year, one man, Mr Tan Kim Chuang, spoke 88 times.

The early years saw some testing of the rules and innovative use of
the space.

A group wanted to organise a run to mark International Human Rights
Day in December 2000 but this was turned down. In the end, local
activist group Think Centre and the Open Singapore Centre held a
protest to mark the day, chanting slogans and displaying banners
calling for an abolition of the Internal Security Act. This was deemed
an 'illegal assembly' and the organisers questioned, but let off with
a warning.

The venue was also used for a book launch and an advertising campaign
for a magazine, among other things.

Again applying the half-full or half-empty test, it is tempting to say
that Speakers' Corner has had little impact. Fiery speeches are few.
Most days, Hong Lim Park remains the haunt of the birds and elderly
folk who congregate there, especially on weekend evenings when the
outdoor stage of the Kreta Ayer Hong Lim Community Club in the park is
used for Chinese opera shows.

In fact, the impact of Speakers' Corner lies precisely in its
unremarkableness.

Eight years on, it has been established clearly that allowing free
speech, unpoliced, in one venue did not cause riots either in Hong Lim
Park or anywhere else in Singapore.

In the give-and-take tussle between the state and citizens, activists
learnt to use the space without disruption while the state -
especially the folk at the neighbourhood police post in the park -
learnt that relaxing free speech rules does not invite chaos if
citizens are responsible.

The most interesting and little-remarked aspect about the change, is
the decision to put the administration of the corner under the purview
of the National Parks Board (NParks), not the Singapore Police Force.

Hong Lim Park after all is one of the chains of parks under NParks and
came under the police only because of law and order concerns over
Speakers' Corner.

Moving it back to NParks' charge hints at the comfort level of the
police with citizens' ability to organise themselves peacefully. It is
a calculated risk for law enforcers - one they are prepared to take
only because of the eight years of calm at Speakers' Corner.

With the decision to allow protests at Speakers' Corner, the state has
thrown down the gauntlet to citizens, especially activists clamouring
for the right to hold demonstrations and protests.

We can debate whether the move was a rearguard or vanguard measure -
whether it is too little, too late, or whether it is in fact an astute
move to satisfy the vocal minority, ahead of the comfort level of the
silent majority of citizens.

What is more critical is how the space is used, and whether citizens
test the ground there.

For a start, will activists make use of the space for protests? Some
including Think Centre's Sinapan Samydorai have said they will.

Second, will citizens turn out in force to support these demonstrations?

Third, how will they conduct themselves? And fourth, how will
enforcement agencies respond to mass demonstration turnouts which may
be peaceful but provocative?

Unless these are tested on the ground, via actual demonstrations, the
rules will never be spelt out.

I am confident demonstrations will be organised and that Singaporeans
will support these, at least in the initial months. The momentum can
be sustained if activists seize the imagination of the public.

As for the state, the rhetoric so far from NParks suggests the
Government is more concerned about the state of the shrubbery than
with law and order concerns.

This remains to be seen.

Will police stand idly by if large crowds turn out to demonstrate
against rising costs or the Electronic Road Pricing hikes? What if a
fledgling Gay Pride March comes up against a rival protest organised
by Christians who are against homosexual activity?

Only with experimentation can activist groups and the state come to an
understanding of just where the limits of peaceable protest are in
Singapore.

Whether peaceful protests will take place in Orchard Road one day,
depends entirely on how citizens and enforcement officers square off
in Speakers' Corner in the years ahead.

TodayOnline: A more open field (Aug 26 2008)

A more open field

S’poreans can now stage demos using loud hailers, placards, and hold overnight candlelight vigils

Tuesday • August 26, 2008


derrick A paulo
deputy news editor
derrick@mediacorp.com.sg

BURN an effigy of a Singapore political leader? Organise a gay pride event outdoors? From next week, protests like these will have a place in Singapore.

These were some of the scenarios put to the Police, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) and the National Parks Board (NParks) yesterday when they announced the details on liberalising the use of Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park to allow public protests. None of the agencies objected.

“We want to be as open as possible,” said MHA senior director (policy and operations) Tai Wei Shyong at the press conference yesterday.

He did concede that because of the many possible scenarios that could arise, the liberalisation of Speakers’ Corner will be a “work in evolution”.

Come Sept 1, Singaporeans can organise and participate in any demonstration at Speakers’ Corner — except those that involve race and religion — without having to obtain a police permit.

Permanent residents (PRs) can also participate in these demonstrations, in recognition of the stake they have in Singapore. But they have to apply for a permit if they wish to give a speech or organise a protest themselves.

Foreigners will have to apply for a permit to conduct or participate in any activity — to make the distinction that the political rights of citizens are different from those of non-citizens. Which raises this possible scenario: What happens if a foreigner joins the protest without the organiser’s knowledge?

“The rules will be interpreted reasonably ... If there’s no way to stop him, we’ll look at that,” said Mr Tai. The rules will be administered by the NParks. Its chief operating officer, Dr Leong Chee Chiew, said he was not anticipating “worst-case scenarios”.

Since Speakers’ Corner was set up on Sept 1, 2000, there has not been any breach of the rules, according to Singapore Police Force director (operations) Wong Hong Kuan. During this time, there was a total of 2,144 registrations involving 508 speakers.

With the liberalisation, the 7am-to-7pm restriction will be abolished, thereby allowing all-night vigils. Any form of banners, placards, posters and other visual aids can be used for speeches or demonstrations, as long as they do not contain violent or obscene messages or any that pertain to race or religion.

And on top of making a scene, NParks will allow the use of loud hailers and other amplification equipment between 9am and 10.30pm in Hong Lim Park, which can hold 3,000 to 4,000 people.

A point to note: A group of protesters may have to share the park with other protesters. NParks’ new online registration allows you to head down to Hong Lim Park immediately after you register — there is no booking system.

“We work very much on the basis of trust. We are not going to do screening and make sure you speak on what you said you will speak on. But if you give information, you must know you’re accountable for it,” said Dr Leong.

The mandatory registration information includes your personal details, the date and nature of the event and the topic.

Would the police have any knowledge of the registrations with NParks? They would not rule it out yesterday.

“What if someone puts on the website that he’s going to do bad things?” Mr Wong offered as a scenario.

But he wanted to “dispel the perception that there’s a preponderance of police presence” at Speakers’ Corner, which is located next to Kreta Ayer Police Station.

He said that police presence would be kept “minimal”. But the police will intervene to enforce law and order or if there are complaints from the public.

“There are no limits (to the protests) subject to public safety ... for example, the crowd is so big that it obstructs the public,” said Mr Wong.

An agitated crowd is fine – demonstrations are designed as such, noted Mr Wong – but he suggested that organisers choose “some calming words” or call the protests off if they cannot control the crowd.

Lawyer and activist Chia Ti Lik believes this step to open up is “an attempt to return control over something (the government) won’t be able to control”.

“Their stand against demonstrations won’t hold up in real democracies,” he said.

So, will there be any takers for public protests come September?

Gay rights activist Alex Au does not plan to “dignify tokenism”, but the Animal Concerns Research and Education Society is in discussions to organise a demonstration, its executive director Louis Ng told Channel NewsAsia.

NParks is ready to take on this new role.

“Our primary motivation is to keep Speakers’ Corner for use in as well-maintained conditions as possible ... If there’s a need to make good on anything, we can follow up,” said Dr Leong.

“So, don’t damage our shrubs.”

Which means effigies can be burnt – but with care. - Additional reporting by Esther Ng

ST: Who needs Speakers' Corner? (Aug 29)

Aug 29, 2008
THE POST-65ERS
Who needs Speakers' Corner?
By Hong Xinyi
YOU may have heard: The Government has loosened the regulations for
Speakers' Corner.

The administration of this famous little patch of land in Hong Lim
Park will soon be the responsibility of NParks rather than the police,
and demonstrations will be allowed there.

Even the burning of effigies at Speakers' Corner will not be
'pre-judged', according to an NParks official.

A Straits Times report stated that 'reactions to the news ranged from
a lackadaisical 'It's no big deal' to doubt that Singaporeans were
ready for demonstrations, even in a controlled environment'.

As a symbol of increased liberalisation, one could make a case for the
revamped Speakers' Corner as a significant milestone.

But perhaps the less than enthusiastic reaction to this relaxing of
rules is partly due to the fact that Singaporeans have felt little
need to air their opinions at Hong Lim Park. Instead, they have simply
come up with more effective ways of communication.

Indeed, there is reason to believe that the old chestnut of
Singaporeans being too apathetic and afraid to speak up for their
rights is becoming an outdated idea.

A few months ago, after meeting a group of anti-en bloc neighbours, I
decided to shop a theory around: the two most significant ground-up
civil rights developments of 2007 were the factions that coalesced
around their support of and opposition to Section 377A, and the
private property owners fuming about being forced out of their homes
by en bloc sales.

The Internet was an effective tool for those passionate about both
issues, with viral videos, online petitions and crusading blogs
featuring prominently in galvanising supporters.

The results, at first blush, seem to have been starkly different.

The debate that bubbled up around 377A seems to have faded into the
background, and this section of the Penal Code, which criminalises gay
sex, remains unchanged.

On the other hand, the Government introduced stricter regulations for
the en bloc process in September last year, due at least partly to the
unhappiness of home owners who felt they were being coerced into
participating in collective sales. Articles on contentious en bloc
sales also continue to appear in local newspapers.

What accounts for the different outcomes for these two 'movements',
both carried out with passion and a great deal of Internet savvy?

Cynics may suggest that it takes an issue as deeply pragmatic and
quantifiable as home ownership to get Singaporeans to speak up with
fervour and demand policy changes - and get them. And while collective
sales have led to nasty disputes among neighbours, I would argue that
it's nowhere near as divisive as 377A is.

I spoke to Dr Minority, the author of enblocsingapore.blogspot.com (he
prefers to remain anonymous on record as he is concerned about the
impact his anti-enbloc views will have on his professional
advancement), a while back.

This blogger said he did not believe that the home owners against
collective sales qualified as activists, nor did he consider the issue
'a cause', even though for many home owners, the thing at stake is the
emotional rather than financial value of their homes.

'This is a largely middle-class problem, and this particular class may
make a lot of noise, but ultimately they hope the Government will fix
things. As for holding rallies, that's not likely,' he said.

'But bear in mind, three years ago, the extent of any kind of
resistance amounted to anonymous letters being distributed. Now people
have become more organised. There has been a slight progression.
People are prepared to voice their own opinions. That's quite important.'

Meanwhile, blogger Alex Au, a prominent local gay rights activist,
pointed out to me that just because the mainstream media hasn't done
much post-377A coverage doesn't mean that the issues brought up by
this debate have been swept under the carpet.

He has seen more schools inviting speakers like him to discuss these
issues, for instance. And the nature of the gay rights movement here,
which is, according to him, quite informally organised and responsive
to topical issues, is also effective in its own way. 'It's like a
multi-headed hydra because there are so many different people doing
different things. The chaos is part of the effectiveness.'

What these two examples illustrate is that participating in public
discourse in Singapore is no longer - if it ever was - a matter of
getting a permit to speak at a particular corner.

The very notion of what is considered a civil liberty is being
expanded. In the age of the Internet, discourse is very often virtual
and fragmented, but it is most definitely already present.

So, sure, relaxing the rules at Speakers' Corner is a great sign of
good faith by the Government. But, perhaps, the time for symbolic
gestures has already passed.

hxinyi@sph.com.sg