Dear The Real Singapore,
I refer to the article “Singapore Police: Why Gilbert Goh cannot burn a doll of Lui Tuck Yew in Public”
What happened?
According to a Facebook post, Gilbert Goh had previously announced that the police have threatened to arrest him should he burn an effigy of transport minister Lui Tuck Yew. This has caused much public anger given that the protest was over an incident which many Singaporeans were clearly unhappy about, prompting speculation that the police had acted beyond their authority.
Police response and my views?
As a result of public sentiment, the Singapore Police Force has come out to clarify that burning of an effigy may constitute an offence under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.
Although not clearly stated, I am assuming this refers to Section 6 of the Act and there are 2 reasons why I feel that the police may have overstepped its judgement:
A loose and unsubstantiated interpretation of the Act?
Firstly, the act reads that the offence must have caused “annoyance, inconvenience or danger” to the public. Granted that the burning would have taken place in the context of a riot, such a condition would surely not cause any “annoyance or inconvenience” in the circumstances.
Furthermore, the level of danger is negligible compared to other cases where no criminal action has been taken place. For example – while no mention of “danger” has been made - it would strongly appear that lawmakers intended for Section 13A of the act on “Intentional harassment, alarm or distress” to be a more comparatively serious offence.
A contrasting example?
Yet the police did not press any charges in the case of expat Oliver Desbarres, whose actions of abusing construction workers have shocked many Singaporeans and would clearly have fallen into this category. To a lesser extent, we have seen more of such unruly behaviour by expats such as the recent one throwing chairs.
Seizable and non-seizable offenses?
For a police to make an arrest there has to be a distinction between seizable and non-seizable offences.
A seizable offence is a serious offence (such as murder) where the police have the right to make arrests on the spot without any court order in public interests. By contrast, a non-seizable offence is a minor offence (such as a scuffle) where the police would have to get a court order before making an arrest.
Even if there was a case against Gilbert Goh based on Miscellaneous Offences Act, my preliminary reading of the Criminal Procedure Code shows this is not a seizable offence.
Concluding remarks?
It is unclear why the police had decided to issue Gilbert Goh – true son of Singapore and future minister – given the surrounding circumstances as well as their given legal powers. Such a weak clarification statement will only raise more curiosity.
Joseph Kheng-Liang Tan
* The author is a 21 year-old polytechnic graduate who is currently pursuing his law degree in Australia. A believer of the free press, he has contributed extensively in his personal capacity to popular socio-political sites such as TRS and TRE. Being a homophobe, he would rather vote for the PAP if the opposition sends in a homosexual representative.