I refer to the editorial “Permit for #Return Our CPF protest was revoked” (TR Emeritus, Oct 11).
It states that “TR Emeritus (TRE) has confirmed that the investigation of several activists involved in the recent #ReturnOurCPF protest held on 27th Sept for alleged unlawful assembly was because the permit (to protest at Hong Lim Park) was revoked.
Several other activists in the protest were also questioned on whether they knew the permit was revoked and what their relationship with Ms Han and Roy Ngerng were.
Ms Han had applied for a permit to hold the protest and to march around Hong Lim Park as part of the recent #ReturnOur CPF protest, but the police is now claiming that the permit had been revoked, thus the protesters had gathered unlawfully.
However, since the man was unable to show any proper identification papers to prove that he had the authority, it would have been impossible to know if he could do so.
It is likely that it was at this point in time that the permit to hold the #ReturnOurCPF was considered revoked (in the police’s context).
4. Again, assuming that the man has the authority and the revocation was proper, then why was the #ReturnOurCPF event allowed to proceed? Surely there were police and NPArks officials present on the important day, were there not? If a crime was commited or in the process of being committed, the police are bound BY LAW to prevent the crime, not to induce the commission and then take acton later, not forgetting that unlawful assembly is a seizable offence.
Last but far from the very least, which no doubt any non-legal trained readers on TRE would have already thought of, if indeed the permit had been revoked, then WHY the need for NParks and many MPs to wayang and try to wriggle when all thats needed immediately after the “unlawful assembly” event was for either the police or NParks to issue a statement that the permit for #ReturnOurCPF was revoked and therefore an offence had been committed?
What do you think?”
- According to the law on the use of Speakers’ Corner – “The Commissioner reserves the right to cancel any approval or disallow any event or activity at any time without prior notice in the event of any breach of or non-compliance with the terms and conditions herein”
So, the NParks director did not have the authority to revoke the application on the spot, as only the Commissioner has the authority.
Also, revocation must also indicate what was the “breach of or non-compliance with the terms and conditions herein”.
Thus, the NParks director was acting ultra vires.
Consequently, how could there be an illegal assembly when the permit to use Speakers Corner for the protest was still valid?
Leong Sze Hian