[h=1]M RAVI SENDS LEGAL LETTER TO NPARKS OVER HAN HUI HUI'S BAN FROM ORGANISING PROTESTS[/h]
<!-- /.block -->
<style>.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style>
Post date:
23 Oct 2014 - 1:32pm
<ins id="aswift_0_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_0" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_0" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
Han Hui Hui’s lawyer, M Ravi, has said that NParks is wrong to claim that they have a police “case’ against her and that there is “no rational basis for the ban on applying for a permit”.
On Tuesday, NParks released a statement, saying that they have revoked the approval for Ms Han to hold the #ReturnOurCPF protest this coming Saturday, 25 October 2014.
NParks said that it “will also cancel any existing approvals or not approve any further applications made by individuals under investigation for the 27 Sept event, until their cases are concluded.”
However, Mr Ravi countered that NParks’ cancellation is “a breach of our client's rights of freedom of speech and assembly under Article 14 of the Constitution, and is ultra vires Regulation 8(3) of the Parks and Trees Regulations (Cap. 216. R 1).”
He added that just because Ms Han is assisting the Police in investigations does not mean that it is “proof of guilt of any offence” or that it is “evidence of a breach of any law or of the terms and conditions of approval” of the use of the Speakers Corner.
Mr Ravi thus explained that NParks is wrong to claim that Ms Han has a police “case” against her as Ms Han has neither been arrested or charged with any offence, and that this is “an error of law that vitiates your decision”.
In NParks statement, it said that, “Any Singaporean wishing to conduct a public speaking event or activity can apply for a permit to do so, so long as their activities are not unlawful or incite feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups in Singapore.”
However, it is unclear as to how the #ReturnOurCPF protest had been “unlawful” or had “incite(d) feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups in Singapore”.
In fact, under the Singapore Constitution, it is guaranteed that “every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression” and “all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably”.
<ins id="aswift_1_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
Ms Han and nine other attendees to the #ReturnOurCPF protest, including blogger Roy Ngerng who is currently being sued by the Singapore prime minister for defamation, were asked to be “interviewed” by the Police for “unlawful assembly”.
However, the current police action is contrary to what the Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said in 2008 when he said that, “we should allow our outdoor public demonstrations, also at the Speakers’ Corner.” He also said that, “we will manage with a light touch. So I think there is no need for the police to get involved.”
The current police action indicate otherwise and a backtracking by the Singapore government on their promise of a “light touch”.
The current police action is also contrary to what the prime minister had said in his swearing-in speech in 2004, that, “Our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional ideas, or simply be different. We should have the confidence to engage in robust debate, so as to understand our problems, conceive fresh solutions, and open up new spaces.”
In their statement, NParks also claimed that, “On Saturday, (when) the Return Our CPF rally as well as a YMCA charity event took place simultaneously, YMCA was allocated one lawn to hold their charity event (and) The adjacent lawn was allocated for Ms Han Hui Hui who had applied to speak.”
However, according to Ms Han, NParks had only informed her of the allocation less than an hour before her event, while YMCA was already setting up tentages for its event at least 3 days in advance.
In his letter, Mr Ravi also said, “Depending how long the Police investigations take, the restriction may last indefinitely. It is an indeterminate, wholly disproportionate and oppressive ban.”
If the police investigations continue until the next general election, this would mean that Ms Han would not be able to hold anymore #ReturnOurCPF protests to advocate for the transparency and accountability on the use of Singaporeans’ CPF prior to that.
As Roy had put when TRS spoke to him, he felt that the government was using NParks to stop them from being able to speak out any further on the important CPF issue which has become a political hot potato for the PAP.
The question however that not only is the police "case" unwarranted, it also does not seem that the Parks and Trees Regulations gives allowance for NParks to ban events.
In ending, Mr Ravi said that, “Since the ban on any future applications for permission to speak or organise any demonstration, performance or exhibition amounts to the imposition of a ban for an indeterminate period of time, which is in principle a profound threat to her Constitutional rights, our client has instructed us to formally request that this ban be lifted immediately and in any event not later than 1600 hours on 24 October 2014, failing which our client reserves the right to apply to the Court for relief without further notice to you.”
See M Ravi's full letter here:
<!-- /.block -->
<style>.node-article .field-name-link-line-above-tags{float: right;}.node-article .field-name-ad-box-in-article {float: left;margin: 15px 15px 10px 0;}.node-article .field-tags{clear: both;}</style>
Post date:
23 Oct 2014 - 1:32pm
<ins id="aswift_0_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_0_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_0" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_0" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
Han Hui Hui’s lawyer, M Ravi, has said that NParks is wrong to claim that they have a police “case’ against her and that there is “no rational basis for the ban on applying for a permit”.
On Tuesday, NParks released a statement, saying that they have revoked the approval for Ms Han to hold the #ReturnOurCPF protest this coming Saturday, 25 October 2014.
NParks said that it “will also cancel any existing approvals or not approve any further applications made by individuals under investigation for the 27 Sept event, until their cases are concluded.”
However, Mr Ravi countered that NParks’ cancellation is “a breach of our client's rights of freedom of speech and assembly under Article 14 of the Constitution, and is ultra vires Regulation 8(3) of the Parks and Trees Regulations (Cap. 216. R 1).”
He added that just because Ms Han is assisting the Police in investigations does not mean that it is “proof of guilt of any offence” or that it is “evidence of a breach of any law or of the terms and conditions of approval” of the use of the Speakers Corner.
Mr Ravi thus explained that NParks is wrong to claim that Ms Han has a police “case” against her as Ms Han has neither been arrested or charged with any offence, and that this is “an error of law that vitiates your decision”.
In NParks statement, it said that, “Any Singaporean wishing to conduct a public speaking event or activity can apply for a permit to do so, so long as their activities are not unlawful or incite feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups in Singapore.”
However, it is unclear as to how the #ReturnOurCPF protest had been “unlawful” or had “incite(d) feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups in Singapore”.
In fact, under the Singapore Constitution, it is guaranteed that “every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression” and “all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably”.
<ins id="aswift_1_expand" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: inline-table; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><ins id="aswift_1_anchor" style="margin: 0px; padding: 0px; border: currentColor; width: 336px; height: 280px; display: block; visibility: visible; position: relative; background-color: transparent; border-image: none;"><iframe name="aswift_1" width="336" height="280" id="aswift_1" frameBorder="0" marginWidth="0" marginHeight="0" scrolling="no" vspace="0" hspace="0" allowfullscreen="true" style="left: 0px; top: 0px; position: absolute;" allowTransparency="true"></iframe></ins></ins>
Ms Han and nine other attendees to the #ReturnOurCPF protest, including blogger Roy Ngerng who is currently being sued by the Singapore prime minister for defamation, were asked to be “interviewed” by the Police for “unlawful assembly”.
However, the current police action is contrary to what the Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong had said in 2008 when he said that, “we should allow our outdoor public demonstrations, also at the Speakers’ Corner.” He also said that, “we will manage with a light touch. So I think there is no need for the police to get involved.”
The current police action indicate otherwise and a backtracking by the Singapore government on their promise of a “light touch”.
The current police action is also contrary to what the prime minister had said in his swearing-in speech in 2004, that, “Our people should feel free to express diverse views, pursue unconventional ideas, or simply be different. We should have the confidence to engage in robust debate, so as to understand our problems, conceive fresh solutions, and open up new spaces.”
In their statement, NParks also claimed that, “On Saturday, (when) the Return Our CPF rally as well as a YMCA charity event took place simultaneously, YMCA was allocated one lawn to hold their charity event (and) The adjacent lawn was allocated for Ms Han Hui Hui who had applied to speak.”
However, according to Ms Han, NParks had only informed her of the allocation less than an hour before her event, while YMCA was already setting up tentages for its event at least 3 days in advance.
In his letter, Mr Ravi also said, “Depending how long the Police investigations take, the restriction may last indefinitely. It is an indeterminate, wholly disproportionate and oppressive ban.”
If the police investigations continue until the next general election, this would mean that Ms Han would not be able to hold anymore #ReturnOurCPF protests to advocate for the transparency and accountability on the use of Singaporeans’ CPF prior to that.
As Roy had put when TRS spoke to him, he felt that the government was using NParks to stop them from being able to speak out any further on the important CPF issue which has become a political hot potato for the PAP.
The question however that not only is the police "case" unwarranted, it also does not seem that the Parks and Trees Regulations gives allowance for NParks to ban events.
In ending, Mr Ravi said that, “Since the ban on any future applications for permission to speak or organise any demonstration, performance or exhibition amounts to the imposition of a ban for an indeterminate period of time, which is in principle a profound threat to her Constitutional rights, our client has instructed us to formally request that this ban be lifted immediately and in any event not later than 1600 hours on 24 October 2014, failing which our client reserves the right to apply to the Court for relief without further notice to you.”
See M Ravi's full letter here:
