The Public Order Act (POA) mandates that indoor events where not all speakers are Singaporeans require police permits. The said event was organised through social networking site Facebook and through email. The police’s investigation centers on whether the event which was organised in such a way was a private or public one.
The 12 October investigation saw Mr See being questioned for 90 minutes, and was asked 48 questions, “mainly nitpicking if [the] event was private or public.”
It has been almost 4 months since the forum took place and more than 3 months since the initial police investigation on 12 October. Now, the police have apparently launched a new investigation - that Mr See may have contravened the EFMA, itself a bewildering claim.
Why, after so many months of investigations, have the police not charged Mr See for any alleged offence? What has happened to its initial investigations over the possible breach of the POA? And why has it now come up with an apparently new investigation into an alleged breach of the EFMA? What exactly is the issue in this latest investigation?
Mr See, who is taking all this in his stride, has previously also been the subject of investigation by the police, most notably for his film on Dr Chee Soon Juan, secretary general of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). Mr See was investigated for some 15 months in 2005 for creating the 26-minute film, titled “Singapore Rebel” which, incidentally, is also the name of Mr See’s blog. In that investigation, Mr See was asked to surrender all remaining copies of the film and the equipment used to make it. The film was banned by the authorities.
It was only in September 2009, 4 years later, that the ban was lifted. To date, the film on youtube has garnered more than 321,000 views.
In November 2010, 3 members of the SfD were similarly investigated for the “sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter.” The 3 – Mr Seelan Palay, Ms Rachel Zeng and Mr Jarrod Luo – were questioned by the police over the sale of 12 copies of the book “Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock” at a film screening at the Substation on 14 November 2010. The book is by British investigative journalist, Mr Alan Shadrake, who himself was jailed for 6 weeks and fined S$20,000 in November for contempt of court for the content of the book. The SfD trio were released from “defamation” investigations after 5 months.
The status of Mr Shadrake’s book is still unknown – whether it is banned in Singapore or not.
In December, the police rejected an application for a permit by the SfD to hold an anti-racism rally on International Human Rights Day, 10 December, at Hong Lim Park. No reason was given by the police for the rejection.
What underlie these cases are the questionable ways which the police conduct their investigations and the seemingly lengthy period of time they take, so much so that one wonders if these investigations are not fashioned to intimidate rather than to ascertain the possible or potential breach of certain laws.
It must be made absolutely clear that the police’s role is not to intimidate Singaporeans. Nowhere in our constitution does it permit the police to do so and the police must not act or be allowed to act, or seen to act, in any way which would or could be deemed so.
As for the latest investigation into Mr See, the police should be transparent and explain why it is taking such a long time to come to any conclusion or decision on the matter.
If it finds that Mr See has indeed contravened any laws, then it should charge him and let the courts decide.
If it doesn’t find any cause for further investigation and consequently that no charges are to be levelled against Mr See, then the police should stop any further intimidation – perceived or otherwise – on Mr See.
Singaporeans respect the law and indeed that should and must be so. Mr See himself has cooperated with the police in every instance where he was investigated.
The police too are not above the law and must act with restraint and act reasonably.
Anything less than this and Singaporeans’ faith in the impartiality, integrity and competence of the police force will be lost.
* Human Rights Watch released its latest report on Singapore in January. Read the report here.
Join publichouse.sg's Facebook page here.
