Return My CPF - Ravi's demand letter to NPark

Below is an extract of M Ravi's demand letter to the NPark to withdraw its cancellation of the permit for this Saturday's protest rally at Hong Lim. The full article is posted in TRE.

'In response and acting on behalf of Hui Hui, lawyer M Ravi wrote to the Commissioner of Parks and Recreation of NParks, Dr Leong Chee Chiew, today (23 Oct) to voice his objection to the cancellation.

Mr Ravi told the Commissioner that the reason given by NParks for the cancellation – to assist the Police with investigations into an incident which occurred during #ReturnOurCPF event on 27 Sep – constitutes a breach of Hui Hui’s rights of freedom of speech and assembly.

Such rights, explained Mr Ravi, is guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution, and is ultra vires Regulation 8(3) of the Parks and Trees Regulations (Cap. 216. R 1). That is, Article 14 of the Constitution is beyond the legal power of Regulation 8(3) of the Parks and Trees Regulations.

Mr Ravi further explained that the act of assisting the Police “does not constitute nor can it be construed as an implication, assertion or proof of guilt of any offence, nor does it constitute evidence of a breach of any law or of the terms and conditions of approval for the Return Our CPF Event”.

“There is therefore no rational basis for the revocation and it is wholly unreasonable as being based on irrelevant considerations,” Mr Ravi said.

“Furthermore, our client emphatically rejects your characterisation of the fact that she has been interviewed by the police and has been assisting them in their enquiries as constituting a ‘case‘ against her, and it is submitted that this is in itself an error of law that vitiates your decision,” Mr Ravi said to the Commissioner.

The restriction for Hui Hui to speak is likewise a breach of her rights of freedom of speech and assembly under Article 14 of the Constitution, Mr Ravi said.

“Depending how long the Police investigations take, the restriction may last indefinitely. It is an indeterminate, wholly disproportionate and oppressive ban (on Hui Hui to speak),” he argued.

“The purpose of Speaker’s Corner is to provide an arena in which free speech is allowed to be exercised and it appears wholly out of keeping with this purpose for the residual authority given to a Commissioner of Parks and Recreation under Regulations to effectuate the Parks and Trees Act to deny and place a ban on free speech in the very place where it supposed to be allowed.”

Mr Ravi emphasized again that the ban, essentially for an indeterminate period of time, is in principle, a profound threat to Hui Hui’s Constitutional rights.

As such Hui Hui, through Mr Ravi, is formally requesting that the ban by NParks be lifted immediately.

Mr Ravi told the Commissioner in the letter that if the ban was not lifted by 1600 hours tomorrow (24 Oct), his client, Hui Hui, reserves the right to apply to the Court for relief without further notice to NParks....'

Kopi Level - Yellow