Procession, defined, separate, legislation;, PAP, will, not, repeat, its, mistake

On October 6, five leaders of the Singapore Democrats were acquitted of the charge that they were conducting a procession without a permit. Judge Ng wrote in his judgment that in the absence of the definition of what constituted a “procession” under the law, it was important to consider the “natural and ordinary” meaning of the word.

He then proceeded to cite definitions in the Oxford and Collins English dictionaries, to explain that he could not accept the Prosecution's “simplistic” interpretation that “so long as a group of five or more people walk[ing] from one point to another point in a public place to commemorate an event” constitutes a procession.

To many, this seems like the five SDP leaders managed to get away on a technicality.

In an earlier post, I pointed out that had the Prosecution charged the five SDP leaders for conducting an assembly without a permit, instead of charging them for conducting a procession without a permit, they might have stood a better chance of winning. Since assemblies are not defined by the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act either, Judge Ng would have had to remain consistent and adopt the "natural and ordinary" meaning of the word, i.e. define assemblies loosely as "any group of people gathered together for a common purpose". Such a definition would thus have to include the actions of the five SDP leaders and would have created a different outcome.

Clearly, failing to define key terms leads to ambiguity, which in turn allows courts to interpret terms in ways which may or may not be be contrary to the intention of the piece of legislation. For instance, the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act  is, as the name suggests, meant to deal with acts which disturb the public order or cause a nuisance. However a loose definition such as the one I proposed above of "assembly" as "any group of people gathered together for a common purpose" allows the court to rule against innocent assemblies which do not disturb the public order or cause a nuisance in any way; in essence, allowing the court to abuse its power. Once in a while, it ensures that justice is done, but that is very rare.

Regardless, all this is irrelevant now that the Public Order Act has been been amended in March this year to include clear definitions of what can be considered an "assembly" or a "procession". The following is taken from the amended Public Order Act 2009 which can be found here.

Interpretation
2. —(1)   In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires —

"assembly" means a gathering or 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 paragraph (a), (b) or (c);

"procession" means a march, parade or other procession (whether or not involving the use of vehicles or other conveyances) —

(a) comprising 2 or more persons gathered at a place of assembly to move from that place substantially as a body of persons in succession proceeding by a common route or routes; and

(b) the purpose (or one of the purposes) of which is —

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

(ii) to publicise a cause or campaign; or

(iii) to mark or commemorate any event,

and includes any assembly held in conjunction with such procession, and a march by a person alone for any such purpose referred to in paragraph (b)(i), (ii) or (iii); [Emphasis added]

The only reason why the Prosecution had to use the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act which did not define these two terms was because at the time the alleged crime was committed (in 2007), the Public Order Act was not amended to include these definitions yet. In fact, it was only with this recent amendment that police powers were significantly expanded. If the same case were tried under these new definitions, the Prosecution would almost certainly win since the five SDP leaders' demonstration would be considered a procession as it intends "to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government;".

Quite ridiculously as well, this new piece of legislation really stretches the limits of the ordinary meaning of the terms "assembly" and "procession". As underlined above, a lone demonstrator can be charged for being guilty of an illegal assembly, since an "assembly" is interpreted to "includes a demonstration by a person alone", and a lone marcher can be considered as a "procession". Oh the lengths our beloved government is willing to go to in order to safeguard our country's peace and prosperity. Really warms my heart every night.

More importantly, this new work of genius means that this SDP acquittal will be the last of its kind. By shifting the power to decide which demonstrations pose a threat to the public order from the courts to the Home Affairs Minister, this newly amended Public Order Act strips the judiciary of its power to act as a check on government abuse of power. Previously, under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act, the courts had the power to decide whether or not the police had fairly judged the threat to public order. However, the recent amendment to the Public Order Act now allows the Home Affairs Minister to be the final arbiter.

Appeal to Minister
11. —(1)   If a person is aggrieved by the Commissioner"s decision under this Part —

(a) to refuse to grant a permit;

(b) to cancel a permit; or

(c) to impose any particular condition on a permit,

the person may, within 7 days after being notified of the decision (or such longer period as the Minister allows in exceptional circumstances, whether before or after the end of the 7 days), appeal to the Minister whose decision shall be final.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't this present a huge conflict of interest?

All these makes it look very much like the PAP will not allow SDP leaders to get away a second time. What a pity. They haven't even won the appeal yet.