Requiring permit to organise assembly goes against constitutional right: Jolovan Wham’s lawyer during appeal
Activist Jolovan Wham, 39, was fined S$3,200 in February for organising an assembly without a permit in 2016 and for refusing to sign his police statement on the case.
SINGAPORE — In appealing against civil rights activist Jolovan Wham’s conviction and sentence for organising an assembly without a permit in 2016, as well as refusing to sign his police statement on the case, his lawyer put forth arguments similar to those presented during the district court trial.
Mr Eugene Thuraisingam argued that requiring a permit breached Wham’s constitutional rights, and that the event Wham hosted at a bookstore — where several speakers discussed issues relating to civil disobedience and democracy in social change — was not an assembly as it did not publicise any cause.
Wham, 39, was fined S$3,200 in February after a district judge found him guilty of both charges under the Public Order Act and the Penal Code.
The former executive director with migrant worker advocacy group Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (Home) chose to serve 16 days’ jail instead of paying the fine.
Wham’s appeal was heard in the High Court for more than two hours on Friday (Oct 4), where Justice Chua Lee Ming reserved his judgment “given the important constitutional points raised”.
He will give his decision at a later date, which was undisclosed as of Friday.
In April, Wham was fined a further S$5,000 over an unrelated contempt of court case. He had published a Facebook post alleging that Malaysia's judges were more independent than Singapore's in cases with political implications.
He will also be appealing against his conviction and sentence for that case although his appeal has not been heard yet.
THE ASSEMBLY
The current case involves an event that Wham organised on Nov 26, 2016, called “Civil Disobedience and Social Movement”.
It featured speakers such as Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong, who joined via a Skype video call, artist Seelan Palay and freelance journalist Kirsten Han.
Three days before the event, the police advised Wham to apply for a permit under the Public Order Act, given that Wong was a foreigner and slated to speak at the event.
Wham held the event without a permit anyway, which was streamed live on Facebook. About a month after that, when an investigating officer recorded a statement from Wham, he confirmed it to be true but refused to sign it.
Wham had said it was his “personal practice” not to sign documents he could not get copies of, as he believed anyone who signs a potentially self-incriminating document should have a copy of it.
‘ENTIRELY DEPENDENT ON COMMISSIONER OF POLICE'S DECISION’
On Friday, Mr Thuraisingam contended that Section 16 of the Public Order Act — which criminalises organising an assembly without a permit — was unconstitutional because a citizen’s ability to exercise his right to assembly is entirely dependent on the Commissioner of Police’s decision whether to issue him a permit.
The lawyer said that there was “no practical remedy” for anyone if the Commissioner failed to act reasonably.
People can challenge the decision through judicial review but the courts can only quash the decision and cannot compel the Commissioner to grant the permit, Mr Thuraisingam pointed out.
A person organising an assembly without a permit would thus be guilty of an offence purely because the Commissioner wrongfully refused to grant the permit under Section 7 of the Public Order Act, the lawyer added.
Mr Thuraisingam raised an alternative regime, where organisers are only required to give notice of their intention to hold such assemblies instead of being lawfully required to get a permit.
Similar to his arguments in the State Courts trial, Mr Thuraisingam also argued that Wham’s event did not seek to publicise any specific cause, as the charge stated, but was for discussing the methods by which the same cause could be furthered.
As for Wham’s refusal to sign the statement he gave to the police, Mr Thuraisingam said that the district judge was wrong in finding that Section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code empowers a public servant to “legally require” a person to sign an incriminatory statement, which will result in criminal prosecution for those who refuse to.
Should the conviction stand, Mr Thuraisingam argued for the fine to be halved to no more than S$1,600.
Currently, Wham still faces another five charges in the State Courts. These relate to an assembly he allegedly organised on trains along the North-East Line in June 2017, to commemorate the 30th anniversary of Operation Spectrum.
He is also accused of organising another assembly outside Changi Prison Complex in July 2017.
He will return to court on Oct 15 for a pre-trial conference over these charges.
