HHH, ROY AND 4 OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR "PUBLIC NUISANCE". FAP = North Korea

[Sammyboy RSS Feed]

An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:

HAN HUI HUI, ROY NGERNG AND FOUR OTHERS TO BE CHARGED IN COURT FOR PUBLIC NUISANCE

.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;} Post date:
23 Oct 2014 - 11:06pm








The Police has charged six Singaporeans, including Han Hui Hui and Roy Ngerng, with “public nuisance” in connection with the #ReturnOurCPF protest on 27 September 2014.

The Police has ordered the six Singaporeans to appear at the state court this coming Monday, 27 October 2014, at 10am to “answer to the charge”. A warrant of arrest will be issued if they do not appear in court.

Earlier today, the Police has issued a warning to four other Singaporeans who were also interviewed in relation to the protest but were let off with a warning.
(See: Police close the case and issue 'Stern Warning' to CPF Protesters)

The Police started investigating the ten Singaporeans two weeks ago, including Ms Han, who is the organiser of the protest and Roy, who is currently being sued by the Singapore prime minister for defamation and had spoken at the protest.

The Police had initially investigated the attendees for “unlawful assembly”. However, it changed the charge against the six Singaporeans, including Ms Han and Roy, to “public nuisance”. They are ordered to appear in court on Monday to be formally charged:



The Police is charging the six Singaporeans for “disrupt(ing) the YMCA event and caused annoyance to the public) and having committed the following acts:

1. marching around the general vicinity of the YMCA event
2. shouting loudly
3. chanting slogans
4. waving flags
5. holding placards
6. blowing whistles loudly
7. beating drums

According to Section 268 of Chapter 224, “A person is guilty of a public nuisance, who does any act, or is guilty of an illegal omission, which causes any common injury, danger or annoyance to the public, or to the people in general who dwell or occupy property in the vicinity, or which must necessarily cause injury, obstruction, danger or annoyance to persons who may have occasion to use any public right.”

However, one might question the relevance of the charge of “public nuisance” considering that the Speakers’ Corner is intended for the specific purpose of protests and demonstrations.

The very nature of protests and demonstrations would require marching, the chanting of slogans, holding placards, etc or precisely what the attendees to the #ReturnOurCPF protest are being charged for.

In fact, NParks regulations on the use of the Hong Lim Park for protests and demonstrations recognises the use of “flags” and “placards” as well.

As such, to charge Ms Han, Roy and the other four attendees seem to be ironic, considering the purpose of the space.

Would the Police wanting to charge the six of them for exercising their rights to the natural use of the space be a transgression of the police’s powers?






At this point, it is still uncertain as to who had made the report against the attendees and what the report made was about. Also, how was the decision made to charge the protestors for “unlawful assembly” and then “public nuisance”?

The two charges carry with them different meanings. “Unlawful assembly” refers to “An assembly of 5 or more persons … to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force”.

Could the Police have realised the ridiculousness of charging the attendees for “unlawful assembly” for having “legally” assembled at the Hong Lim Park and thus switched to the charge of “public nuisance”?

Even so, both charges would do not sync with the natural use of the space of Hong Lim Park – for protests and demonstrations.

At this point, it might perhaps be necessary to hear from YMCA on their explanation. If YMCA had made a police report against Ms Han, Roy and the other attendees, on what basis was the report made?

Did YMCA encroach on the Hong Lim Park space or did the #ReturnOurCPF attendees encroach on the YMCA event? Also, why did NParks allow two events which were clearly going to have some tension happen at the same time?

(See also: NParks: We let two events happen together at HLP as we've never had problems before)
It was exposed that the YMCA Board and Patron have affiliations to the current ruling party, the People’s Action Party (PAP), and this has set tongues wagging as to whether the prosecution of Ms Han, Roy and the four other Singaporeans is an attempt at silencing critique towards the PAP government – akin to the use of NEA to unfairly prosecute the Worker’s Party.

The question, however, is – is there no other recourse but the use of law? Indeed, could the government have addressed the concerns of Singaporeans over the Central Provident Fund (CPF) retirement funds, in view of how the protests are in relation to this matter? Or could YMCA have met with Ms Han and Roy to amicably discuss the issue?

The use of the law to prosecute Ms Han, Roy and the four other Singaporeans thus seem overly-heavy handed and unrefined.

This prosecution will be understood by most observers as an intentional move by the government to silence Ms Han, Roy and the protestors.

As yet, the government has yet to respond to the call for more transparency and accountability over the CPF, as the protestors have demanded.

The government’s action of ignoring the protestors’ calls to protect Singaporeans but instead use the law to prosecute them would be seen as not only unfair, but an attempt to evade having to respond to the questioning of the CPF.

The charge of “public nuisance” carries with it a penalty of up to $1,000 for each person.


Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com.