Report by Think Centre, Singapore

Local social worker and human rights activist Jolovan Wham was summoned to the Police station on the afternoon of 24 May 2020 to assist in the investigation into his alleged infringement of the Public Order Act.

He was found to be holding up a cardboard placard with a drawing of a smiley – two dots and a curve underneath outside the Toa Payoh Central Community Club about 2 months ago. He took the photo of himself doing it and uploaded it to his social media account. He explained that he did this to express solidarity with a climate action activist who had posed and posted photos of himself with cardboard placard earlier and was subsequently “taken into police custody for questioning and had his phone and laptop seized in the process”. Jolovan left immediately after taking the photo of himself.

The Public Order Act (Chapter 257A)  defines “assembly” to mean a gathering of meeting (whether or not comprising any lecture, talk, address, debate or discussion) of persons the purpose (or one of the purposes) of which is --

(a) to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person group of persons or any government;

(b) to publicise a cause or campaign; or

(c) to mark or commemorate any event,

and includes a demonstration by a person alone for any such purpose referred to” in the above contexts.

This effectively curtails any practical form of expression of an individual, even when it is done alone and without participation from anyone. Jolovan’s “assembly” was probably over in a few seconds, what public impact could that have? Even if he puts it on his social media, how is it different from the millions of people who take selfies in public places to express an opinion or advance a point of view?

The laws define what constitutes publicity for a cause or campaign too broadly and puts excessive restrictions on citizens. The caveat at the end that defines “assembly” to include “a demonstration by a person” goes against any natural understanding of what an assembly is – a person just cannot assemble by her/himself.

Such a restriction goes against the right to freely associate and prevents like-minded people from expressing solidarity and empathy for each other. If (a) was applied as it stands, does it mean that any person who express outrage at the Third Reich is also punishable by the same law? Citizens cannot then communicate support for the atrocities of despot or condemn the outrage of humanity committed by any government?
International law, like the Article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), has provisions for when intervention by the state is justified on grounds of national security, public safety or public order; the protection of public health or morals; or the protection of the rights and freedoms of others. As can be seen in the case of Jolovan, none of the scenarios or conditions for intervention applies.

Think Centre urge the government to

1) Stop harassing activists who pose no threat to public safety
2) Bring current legislation to be on par with international standards by signing the ICCPR.