
Singapore activist found guilty of hosting ‘illegal assembly’ via Skype - angled
https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/03/singapore-activist-found-guilty-of-hosting-illegal-assembly-via-skype/
======
nindalf
I see people in this thread surprised that this is happening in Singapore, a
“modern” country. Singapore is certainly wealthy, the population is highly
educated, institutions aren’t corrupt, all of which is great. However, the
political system resembles a democracy only superficially. Every election
since 1965 has been won by the same party. It is inconceivable that the
People’s Action Party wouldn’t win an election either now or in the future.

Some find this surprising. Surely a de facto dictatorship like this shouldn’t
be so wealthy and successful. Turns out Lee Kuan Yew is that one Dictator in a
million who managed to do pretty much everything right. Almost every decision
he took turned out to be the right one for Singapore, including rigging it’s
politics so he could stay in power throughout his lifetime. But he’s gone now,
so it remains to be seen if his successors can carry on his legacy.

Source -

1\. A glowing obituary in The Economist, a publication harassed in Singapore
for criticising the PAP - [https://www.economist.com/obituary/2015/03/22/lee-
kuan-yew](https://www.economist.com/obituary/2015/03/22/lee-kuan-yew)

2\. The Dictator’s Handbook

~~~
anvandare
>that one Dictator in a million

Also called an enlightened despot; In the Eastern -Chinese Legalism tradition-
a 明君 "míngjūn". There have been instances of them throughout history. But like
you said, the problem is usually what happens once the ruler is gone. It's
never a (long-term) good idea to have the success of a group dependant on a
single person. A political system that produces mediocre-but-stable success
(over several generations) seems preferable to one that produces a superior-
but-brief success.

~~~
baybal2
>In the Eastern -Chinese Legalism tradition-

Oh my, can I ask you where did you pick that up? It feels to me that an
average Western person nowadays has been taught more of that stuff than a well
studied Chinese.

~~~
threatofrain
You’re assuming this person isn’t Chinese?

~~~
baybal2
I do. I can not imagine an educated Chinese person these days going at that,
moreover somebody from mainland China who is not a party member.

~~~
ABCLAW
Not the poster you're replying to, but an examination of Legalism was
presented in both law schools I attended. Additionally, I know it is also
addressed in East Asian studies faculties (with additional historical context
above the legal philosophy aspect of it, albeit with less emphasis on the
functional qualities).

------
angelsl
Why is everyone focusing on the fact that someone spoke via Skype?

The fact is that

1\. Jolovan Wham did organise a physical gathering of people 2\. The
gathering/assembly meets the definition as in the Public Order Act[1] 3\. The
venue, The Agora, meets the definition of a public place as in the Public
Order Act

[1]: [https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POA2009](https://sso.agc.gov.sg/Act/POA2009)

They could have been watching a recorded video and it would have been the
same.

~~~
brianpgordon
I'm not sure that a recorded video would have been the same. The source for
the techcrunch article says:

> The Singapore Police Force in an earlier statement, said that Wham had
> organised an indoor public assembly _featuring a foreign speaker_ , which
> required a Police permit.

Although given that political films are also banned, maybe a prerecorded video
would have been illegal under a different law.

~~~
angelsl
The problem is the intent of the gathering, not that it had a foreign speaker.
(Not that I agree with the law, but that's what it says.)

------
saagarjha
> In Singapore, it is a criminal offence under the Public Order Act to
> organize or participate in a public assembly without a police permit.

:(

~~~
gioele
I suppose that organizing or participating in a public assembly without a
police permit is illegal more or less everywhere in the world.

The question is whether "the Internet" is a public place or not.

Case in point: Italy.

A) According to article 18 of the consolidated act on public security (TULPS)
it is mandatory to inform the police whenever a gathering is organized in a
"public place" [1].

B) the Corte di cassazione (the Italian supreme court) has repeatedly stated
that public websites are equivalent to public places [2].

Exercise for the reader: draw the consequences of combining A and B.

[1] «I promotori di una riunione in luogo pubblico o aperto al pubblico devono
darne avviso, almeno tre giorni prima, al Questore. E’ considerata pubblica
anche una riunione, che, sebbene indetta in forma privata, tuttavia per il
luogo in cui sarà tenuta, o per il numero delle persone che dovranno
intervenirvi, o per lo scopo o l'oggetto di essa, ha carattere di riunione non
privata.» [http://www.normattiva.it/uri-
res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.de...](http://www.normattiva.it/uri-
res/N2Ls?urn:nir:stato:regio.decreto:1931-06-18;773!vig=)

[2] [https://www.lastampa.it/2014/11/17/italia/molestie-cosa-
rien...](https://www.lastampa.it/2014/11/17/italia/molestie-cosa-rientra-nel-
concetto-di-luogo-aperto-al-pubblico-zbnxRf0N26LRUQkPRcz8hL/pagina.html)

~~~
mschuster91

        I suppose that organizing or participating in a public assembly without a police permit is illegal more or less everywhere in the world.
    

In Germany, per the Versammlungsgesetz'e of the federal states as well as the
federal Versammlungsgesetz that applies to all states without one, you do not
need a permit for an assembly, you only have to notify the police or
Ordnungsamt (part of city government) 48h in advance of public announcement.
This is actually meant as a direct departure from the Third Reich policy where
permits were required.

If the police deems your assembly a danger to the public or unable to be held
as notified (e.g. when you want to hold an assembly on an Autobahn or other
major street, or in security zones during foreign state visits) they can
either forbid the assembly in its entirety (which is _very_ rare) or modify
the time/location (e.g. not _on_ the Autobahn but on a parking lot, or
directly outside the security zone). In this case the assembly initiator can
go to the courts and initiate emergency hearings, which sometimes (e.g. with
the G20 Hamburg protests) can go up to the Bundesverfassungsgericht (our
Supreme Court equivalent).

------
hkt
[https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/](https://www.wired.com/1993/04/gibson-2/)

Old but good essay by William Gibson on his trip to Singapore in the 90s.
"Disneyland with the Death Penalty". An interesting read and relevant to this.

------
thunderbong
Key points from the article -

TL;DR - Speaker was on Skype. 121 people gathered together to listen to him.
Police had told the organizer to get a permit, which he didn't. Location was
inside a public mall.

>>> On November 26, 2016, Wham organized an indoor forum called “Civil
Disobedience and Social Movements” at a small event space inside a shopping
mall in Singapore. The event featured prominent Hong Kong student activist
Joshua Wong who addressed the audience remotely via a Skype video call.

The event’s Facebook Page indicates that 355 people were interested and 121
went. The Skype discussion, which lasted around two hours, was also live
streamed on Facebook by The Online Citizen SG, a social media platform focused
on political activism, and garnered 5,700 views.

Despite being advised by the police prior to the event to obtain a permit,
Wham proceeded without said consent, according to a statement by the Singapore
Police Force. Wham faced similar charges of organizing public assemblies
without police permits and refusing to sign statements under the Penal Code.

~~~
hkt
I assume that in summary you're not taking a view..

------
ekianjo
Im not sure I understand the story. He was judged for illegal assembly
regardless of the Skype call, as far as I understand. Anyone else can comment?

~~~
ahje
"“The law says that any event which is open to the public, and is ’cause
related’, requires a permit when a foreigner speaks."

There was a foreign speaker participating over Skype. As idiotic as the law
seems to be, I do believe the case is rather clear. The foreigner did indeed
speak at the conference, which was public. The fact that Skype was used as a
medium to facilitate that doesn't really change anything.

~~~
tomjen3
He did not. Some electrons were converted into photons of different
frequencies mostly in the human visual spectrum, and some electrons were
converted into other frequences in the spectrum that can be converted into a
meaning by a human.

If I rant against Disney land with the dealt penalty, and the video is later
played there, I have not given a speech there.

~~~
ahje
> Some electrons were converted into photons of different frequencies mostly
> in the human visual spectrum, and some electrons were converted into other
> frequences in the spectrum that can be converted into a meaning by a human.

If someone live-streams a keynote and a Q/A session as a part of an event,
then the person speaking is obviously participating.

Please note, that I have no problems with remote participation of events. It
just happens that our favourite south-east asian police state requires a
permit for such events. Our opinions on whether that law is a good one or not
has nothing to do with the medium chosen for the event.

------
gerbilly
They should make a move about Singapore and call it "Crazy Strict Asians".

------
gerbilly
I would never go to Singapore.

They'd probably end up whipping me a hundred times for something I did without
even being aware of it. [1]

IMHO that whole country should serve as a counterexample to all the rest.

Humans really _are_ good at making life miserable for each other aren't they?

[1] Maybe farting in public, or wearing my shoes on the wrong feet or
whatever.

~~~
paleogizmo
In all fairness I'd be hesitant to live in Singapore on account of its high
cost of living and poor work-life balance. However, there is a method to the
madness as far as the legal system goes, which makes it tame to visit compare
with other large cities in SE Asia or even western europe.

~~~
ponyfleisch
> In all fairness I'd be hesitant to live in Singapore on account of its high
> cost of living and poor work-life balance.

As an expat, that would likely not affect you much. Lots of MNCs have fairly
nice working hours, decent pay and 20-25 days/year paid leave (on top of the
numerous public holidays)

Cost of living depends on whether you need a big apartment in a posh location
and a car. Sending kids to international school is also pricey.

------
angled
My main interest in this article was not about Singapore, but at what point
does an online gathering cross the boundary to the physical world where limits
are placed on the size of the gathering, or if and when it crosses countries'
borders.

What's not to say the HKer was the host and the Singaporeans were individually
the guests? Obviously that isn't what the court decided in this instance but
perhaps that is what could happen next time.

Was it the physical location of the Singaporeans that made the difference?
What if they had attend a Skype concall at home, would the court be looking at
who sent the meeting invitation?

~~~
chillacy
From what I’ve read about Sg’s government, they won’t care. If they want to do
something they won’t let a legal technicality stop them.

------
flag_bcz_mad
Why does everyone assume democracy is good? It clearly wasn’t necessary for
Singapore. A well run “dictatorship” is much better than your average
democracy. I would concede that a democracy filled with the right people is
the best but in reality it is very rare to come upon a population that is
actually ready to govern itself. People generally have extremely reductionist
and incorrect opinions about such things in my experience.

~~~
mikeash
Democracy is awful in all sorts of ways. Its one major advantage is non-
violent succession, something other systems really struggle with.

Dictatorships can be great for a whole, but eventually you get a mad dictator
or two people who both think they should be the dictator and it all falls
apart.

~~~
jenscow
So, perhaps people should be able to vote for their dictator? :)

~~~
michaelscott
This is how the Romans thought of dictators, yes. The dictator was elected by
nomination and then given supreme authority over state affairs, although
usually only in a specific area of governance and with severe term limits.

The last guy who said "screw term limits" was ol' Julius Caesar, but he was
iced not long after on the Ides of March and the office of dictator was
abolished.

The title of dictator has taken on a negative connotation in the recent past
for obvious reasons, but the idea of a competent or even brilliant man being
given total control in order to accomplish a specific task for the good of a
country is certainly something to consider regarding governance.

------
hkt
This the country my country's idiot politicians want to model us after, post-
Brexit. I despair.

~~~
OscarCunningham
It's possible to imitate their trade policy without copying their lack of
civil rights.

~~~
paleogizmo
Singapore does have many positives (ease of forming a business, low crime, low
corruption, a cost-effective single-payer healthcare system, good urban
planning, taxing car ownership as an externality). I don't see how these go
hand-in-hand with authoritarian government.

