publichouse.sg

In the first case of its kind in Singapore, 21-year-old local blogger, Han Hui Hui, applies to the High Court for a declaration that the Council for Private Education (CPE), a statutory body, is not entitled to bring any defamation action against her. Her counsel, human rights lawyer M Ravi, is arguing that the freedom of speech and expression, enshrined in article 14 of the Singapore Constitution, protects citizens from any defamation proceedings by the government and public bodies.

The right to sue for defamation is reserved only for individuals and private entities.

The CPE had threatened Han with defamation proceedings by way of letter of demand through their lawyers, following two emails they received from the latter which they regarded as defamatory.

Han now seeks protection against this threat via the constitution and the ordinary laws of the land.

More updates to follow.

With 2 weeks to the second protest at Speakers’ Corner against the population White Paper, the organisers of the event have been asked to apply for a police permit.

The “For A Better Singapore” event on 1st May is a follow-up to the one on 16 February which saw some 5,000 people turn up in support.

On 18 April, the National Parks Board, or Nparks, informed Mr Gilbert Goh of transitioning.org, the organisers, that he has to comply with one of the rules of use for Speakers’ Corner for the 1st May event, namely:

“A Police Permit must be obtained if permanent residents of Singapore are speaking or organising a demonstration, performance or exhibition, and/or if foreigners are speaking or participating in or organising activities at Speakers’ Corner, Hong Lim Park.”

Ms Norzehan Ahmad, Section Head at Nparks, had first called Mr Goh on his phone to advise him to apply for a permit, Mr Goh tells publichouse.sg. Later, in an email, she explained that “under the terms and conditions of approval, a Police Permit must be obtained if foreigners are speaking or participating in the activity organised by you at Speakers’ Corner, Hong Lim Park.”

By Andrew Loh

The problem of workplace discrimination was recently highlighted in the media and by the Minister for Manpower (MOM). The latest case involved government agencies placing age limits in hiring security guards in their tenders. Last month, two companies were taken to task for explicitly indicating a preference in hiring foreigners in their advertisements.

To Gilbert Goh, 51, the founder of transitioning.org, these are not new developments.

As far back as 4 years ago, he was already highlighting the discrimination faced by Singaporean workers, particularly the PMETs – professionals, managers, executives and technicians, who make up more than half of Singapore’s workforce. He started a website, and registered a society called Transitioning.org, to provide support to the unemployed. He even took to Speakers’ Corner to try to raise awareness of the problems faced by these workers. He also ran in the 2011 General Election under the banner of the opposition National Solidarity Party, contesting in Tampines GRC together with Goh Meng Seng, Reno Fong Chin Leong, Syafarin Sarif and Raymond Lim Peng Ann.

By Andrew Loh

When a hate speech is delivered in the august chambers of Parliament, you know something is not quite right.

Yet it did happen. In Singapore. In 2007, during the debate on the issue of Section 377A of the Penal Code. Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong referred to that debate recently. [See here.] So did justice Quentin Loh. Lets revisit that debate.

Law professor Thio Li Ann, then a Nominated Member of Parliament (NMP), made an admittedly passionate speech against repealing that section in our law books. Unfortunately, Thio did so by also taking “tasteless digs at homosexual sex”, as academic Dr Cherian George put it.

“Thio also did a disservice to the majority of God-fearing Singaporeans – we who would like to believe that our faiths are ultimately about compassion, not the hateful, hurtful cheap shots that Thio felt compelled to deliver on our behalf,” Dr George said. “How I wished a theology professor or other religious scholar would have stepped into the debate at that point, to show how it might be possible to express a faith-based objection to homosexuality – minus the hate speech.”

What disturbed this writer was not the hate-filled content of Prof Thio’s speech, vulgar and reprehensible as it was.