Hong Lim Affair – Got illegal assembly or not?

 This has been quoted in TRE by a commentator using the nick VTO VTO.
 
PARKS AND TREES ACT (CHAPTER 216)
 
Identification card to be produced
6.—(1) The Commissioner or any authorised officer or park ranger, when exercising any of the powers conferred upon him by this Act shall, if not in uniform, declare his office and, on demand, produce such identification card as may be issued to him for the purposes of this Act or any other written law.
 
(2) It shall not be an offence for any person to refuse to comply with any request, demand or order made by the Commissioner or any authorised officer or park ranger not in uniform, who fails to declare his office and refuses to produce his identification card on demand being made by that person.
 
I think anyone reading the above will be very clear as to what a park officer must do if he is to cancel a permit given by the Park. Many people have viewed the video clip of the encounter between the NPark Director and Han Hui Hui and how or what he produced to identify himself when demanded by Han Hui Hui. Did he comply with the Park’s regulation? If not, can he cancel a permit without doing so?
 
There would only be an illegal assembly if the permit was cancelled. Some view that no permit is even needed as provided by the Public Order Act, POA, sanctioned by Parliament and the Constitution.
 
What do you think?

Kopi Level - Yellow

SAF Volunteer Corps – SAFVC

The SAFVC was inaugurated yesterday to allow volunteers from new citizens, first generation PRs and women to serve in the SAF. The concept is right. The more people serving the SAF the more hands we have to use. It also provides an option for those eager beavers who want to serve but complaining that they are not given a chance. It also puts to test those hypocrites who have been crying out loud to serve and not the opportunity is offered to them to make good what they were claiming to do. Anyone wanting to serve this country in uniform now has a chance to do so. The real McCoy will step forward and the fakes and pretenders will step backward.
 
On paper it is a good thing to have a SAFVC. But given the nature and composition of our population, there are high risks involved. We are not a homogenous nation of people, we are a very young country and did not have the benefits of a long history and a strong glue to hold the people together as one united people. People can change sides like chameleon changing colours at will.
 
The most dangerous enemies of an army come from within. It is almost impossible to protect and defend against someone from the inside, living and sleeping together, singing the same national anthem, taking the same pledge and professed to be willing to defend and die for the same country and people. As for our very own citizens, we see them grow up, we know them and their background. Still we do not know them fully. Now we are taking new citizens into our armed forces as volunteer soldiers. How much do we know them and their family background?
 
The other problem is that we should not end up like the Americans, training and equipping people who eventually turned against them and fighting against them, armed by the Americans. Would we be doing the same, training and arming people, potential terrorists, who would turn against us one fine day?
 
Of course the SAF must have all these thought out and all the precautions and safeguards are in place. Hope it would not be as safe as the safeguards for the LPA when an absolute stranger, a foreigner, could end up holding an LPA for a very senior and lonely citizen at the verge of dementia, very vulnerable and very rich.
We cannot afford any slips in matters of national security and defence. The lives of our soldiers are at stake. Did we make a slip and lost two scholars in Sydney? Let’s hope and pray that this SAFVC thing will be well conceived and all potential loopholes for mischief are plugged. It can be turned against us, the people and nation if not carefully managed.
 
Are the benefits of the SAFVC more than enough to justify the risks involved?

Kopi Level - Yellow

When Hong Kong turns political

The students continue to protest for more democracy. They are back in the streets with their tents. They are demanding for the stepping down of the Chief Executive Leong Chunying. The residents of Hong Kong have historically placed economic freedom and well being as top priority. Political freedom has never been an issue. They never have much political freedom or much say about how Hong Kong was run for 150 years.
Now there are thousands of students on the streets. How many of the Hongkongers are with them? How many Hongkongers today think democracy and political freedom are more important than economic freedom, the freedom to work, economic enterprise and to live a good life of plenty? Has there been a change in the mindset of the residents of Hong Kong?
 
Assuming that the Hongkongers today are with the students and want to push for more political freedom, how far are they going to go? What price are they prepared to pay? As the matters stand, the issue of political freedom is small against the issue of national unity. Tibet, Xinjiang and Taiwan are watching the development very carefully. They cannot succeed as echoed by Leung Chunying. He knew Beijing’s stand. At one extreme, Beijing would come down really hard on the students and there will be bloodshed and loss of lives, and no progress in political freedom. China cannot afford the save path as the Soviet Union.
 
With the Americans pulling the strings from behind, this is becoming a bigger geostrategic struggle with the students becoming pawns of the West and may go down in history as traitors to the nation. For the students to pursue this path unyieldingly, it would be a lose-lose for all.
 
The other assumption is that the conservative Hongkongers whose top priority is to be left alone, at least for the next 50 years to grow rich, would not go along with the students and their patience will snap with time. They would not want the students to decide the future of Hong Kong for them. They would not want their economic freedom to continue to get rich be disrupted. They are as practical a people as the past Hongkongers. They came to Hong Kong to make money, to grow rich, to have a good life, not to fight for democracy. And Hong Kong is giving them that, for at least another 30 years. Why jeopardize this beautiful dream and turn it into a nightmare by the students?
 
Would the pragmatic Hongkongers choose to take matters into their own hands to disperse the students? Should it happen, Hong Kong will return to its vibrant and free wheeling days, minus many hurt feelings and casualties among the students. If the students are only a small force with few supporters from the majority Hongkongers, they would be scattered quite quickly. If their support is significant, it will be a Hong Kong divided and there will be carnage on the streets.
 
The rise of a political Hongkong is a new force and will change the landscape of the island. The chances of a political Hong Kong are unlikely to be tolerated by Beijing and a heavy price will have to be paid for so little a change that the students are demanding. Is it worth it?
 
The Hongkongers will have to decide if they want to go for breaks with the students with very slim chance of success. Or would they choose the status quo and make hay while the sun shines and hoping that when the 50 years are up, there will be a freer new China that is more like Hong Kong or a Hong Kong more like a new China, rich and prosperous, with more democracy and freedom for the people of Hong Kong and China?

Kopi Level - Blue

No permit required for assembly and procession at Hong Lim

Below is copied from an article appearing in TOC discussing about the need for a permit to hold an assembly or a procession at Hong Lim Park. According to the Public Order Act(POA), no permit is required. Please read on.

‘The Public Order Act (POA), which was introduced in 2009, regulates public assemblies and processions and gives new powers to the authorities to preserve public order.
Among other things, it states that a permit is required for the conduct of any public assemblies or processions.

However, the POA also granted exemptions to certain areas and circumstances, namely:

- an assembly or a procession exempted from this section under section 46
- an assembly or a procession within any part of an unrestricted area not falling within a special event area.
Section 46 refers to the areas and people whom the minister, through the gazette, have granted exemptions from the POA.

It is the second provision which directly refers to Hong Lim Park as an exempted area.
Under the Public Order (Unrestricted Area) Order 2013, Hong Lim Park is declared as an “unrestricted area” and is thus exempt from certain provisions in the POA.
This includes the stipulation that Hong Lim Park is exempt from the permit requirement for assemblies and processions, as stated in the POA:

“The area in Hong Lim Park and delineated in the Schedule is designated as an unrestricted area whereby no notice under section 6, and no permit under section 7, of the Act shall be required for the holding of all assemblies or processions or both therein.”
The law, thus, seems to be quite clear that Ms Han did not need to obtain a permit for her march at Hong Lim Park on 27 September.’

From the above quote, it is quite clear to me that no permit is needed to hold an assembly or procession at Hong Lim. Then what is this permit that the NPark and Police are talking about? I would like to be enlightened.

I think the NPark Commission has the power to cancel an assembly or procession at Hong Lim provided he has good reasons to do so, eg if the event is going to turn into something dangerous or a security or safety issues. Or as provided by the regulations on the use of Hong Lim that the assembly should not be about race or religion.

Kopi Level - Blue

ReVisiting Singapore’s 1962 Battle for Merger:

“A Longer Victory would have been Very Bad for my Future”

By MIKOspace

The 1962 Battle for Merger was also The Battle for my Future.

A young boy heard on the radio a man’s voice urging Singaporeans to join Malaya “or else, we will not survive” or words to that effect. His “language of survival” in a calm, authoritative voice exuding the confidence of leadership was sufficient to elicit trust and faith, and I also somehow felt the need of that defining moment. In 1962, more than 70% Singaporeans voted for Merger. And I became a “Malaysian” in the newly formed country, Malaysia, on 30 August 1963.

I can recall no particular affective feelings toward Malaysia, really. On 9 August 1965, Singapore was booted out of Malaysia at the stroke of midnight like a pariah and bastard child. 

The failure of Merger was a heavy blow to Prime Minister Lee, who believed that it was crucial for Singapore’s survival.  I saw on black&white TV how then Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew cried as he announced Singapore’s eviction by Malaysia. He was in deep anguish, clearly disappointed and with extreme emotional pain permeating every part of his body. It was a language of despair, of utter disappointment, of hopelessness, of helplessness that seemed to signal the beginning of our inevitable journey into oblivion.  

It was better this way, Really. The early joy of Merger Victory had been followed by two years of love-hate, bittersweet honeymoon disputing the conflicting visions of a meritocratic, multicultural “Malaysian Malaysia” vs a Malay-dominant, racist, ethnic supremacist “Malay Malaysia”. With no ethnic group then exceeding 50% in the population, a Malaysian Malaysia would have made the most sensible choice, but not to the powerful Malay political elites and their interest groups.  A saline mixture of fresh and sea water would still taste salty, even if we had remained in Malaysia.

The Promised Land of Malaysia two years earlier had turned into a Desert of Acrimony. The Mirage of Mutual Prosperity clouded the Reality of sandy Political Interests.  We could not be forced into drinking the sand of political racism to quench our thirst for justice and equality.  And We refused to mistake it for the precious water needed to nurture our dream of Nationhood.

A longer Merger victory would see Singapore today becoming like resource-rich but poor Sabah and Sarawak. Both had entered Merger with Malaysia in 1963 on more or less similar terms as Singapore. Both had to surrender tremendous earnings to the Central Government in Kuala Lumpur without receiving any reciprocating and proportionate benefits of supposedly mutual prosperity. For both Sabah and Sarawak, their Merger victories were pyrrhic.

Malaysia today is understood in term of a class structure of social inequality created by her mostly Malay power elites. Political Racism in Malaysia nurtures a large number of politically connected Bumiputra (Native and Muslim) rent seekers promoting a business system riddled with kickbacks and corruption. Malaysia as a Promised Land exists only as an illusion. Our Victorious Merger with Malaysia would have been as pyrrhic as Sabah’s and Sarawak’s.

SINGAPORE IS NOT EASY. It took Hard Work, Long Patience, Deep Endurance, Plenty of Diligence, Many Lessons from Mistakes and Lots of Good Fortune to get to where we are Today.  FIFTY YEARS ON, I am glad that we Won briefly But LOST the Merger Battle. A Longer Victory would have been Very Bad for mine and Our Future.

From the Ashes of a Failed Vision, We had emerged More Prosperous, Stronger, More Rugged, More Resilient, More Robust and More Independent.  Our RIGHT to Survive with Independent Sovereignty CANNOT and MUST NEVER be compromised or sacrificed. Our Authenticity as a Nation providing Exceptional Value to the World MUST Always be visibly Demonstrated without Any Equivocation.

Our Greatest Moment as “One People, One Nation” was in picking up the Pieces of our young Nation when so Many had written us Off.  We had Believed in One Another when we Failed in our Merger Victory, and we Prevailed.  It is always easier to keep our faith and believing when we are succeeding. And TODAY as we reach our Jubilee 50 years old, and grappled with New Issues of Survival, let it not be forgotten that We Once Had a Difficult Birth, a Risky Delivery, a Vulnerable Existence and a Daunting Struggle to Continually Assert Our Right to Live among the Nations as a Sovereign Nation Deserving of Their Respect, Friendship and Admiration.  Let’s continue to Believe in Each Other and Ourselves as We March into the next 50 Years and beyond.

Kopi Level - Blue

Read Full Story:

Singapore's 1962 Battle For Merger ReVisited