Broad definitions make for bad laws
Thursday, March 18, 2010 at 10:45AM Principal Senior State Counsel, Mr Bala Reddy, asked the High Court to broadly define a "procession" to "include even peaceful or small-scale processions" in the AGC's appeal against the decision to acquit five SDP members of procession charges.
Mr Bala yesterday argued that the law did not allow any procession of five or more people in any public place to demonstrate support for, or opposition to, the views or activities of any person; to publicise a cause or campaign; or to mark or commemorate any event.
While the law does not define what a procession is, the term "procession" should be given a broad meaning to include even peaceful or small-scale processions, he said.
Mr Bala also argued that the five also had "unity of purpose" and were dressed similarly.
To illustrate how nonsensically broad this interpretation of the law would be, let us imagine an entourage of men and women, numbering in the dozens, all dressed similarly, walking around your neighbourhood. They are mostly quiet, but they go door-to-door, knocking on them and then speaking with the occupants, shaking hands etc.
Or a family of eight, spanning three generations, all dressed in red tees and white pants, walking purposefully towards the Padang, and proudly advertising on their tees their pride in taking part in the National Day Parade as a family.
Both of these scenarios had a few things in common: they had unity of purpose, are small-scale and peaceful, utilised public space, and either publicise a cause or to commemorate an event. The participants were also similarly dressed.
Your MP's door-to-door visits and neighbourhood walks, and a family marching to the NDP grounds, can be tagged as a procession if Mr Bala convinces the court that interpretation of the law is the correct one.
Am I stretching it too far? Maybe. Only by taking it to the extremes can the inanity of this interpretation be clearly brought to light. But this expansive take on the law also signifies how unwilling the PAP government is to let go of their opponents even after they have been set free by a court of law, instead choosing to appeal and hoping to set the precedent that would allow them to selectively enforce a broad and vague law to their political advantage.
Bala Reddy, PAP, Singapore Democratic Party, procession in Law, Singapore 
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (5)
LOL, come lunch time my colleagues and I will be MARCHING to the canteen or coffeeahop. Unity of purpose yah?
This should not have gone to court in the first place. I am really amazed at how much time and money can be wasted on something like that.
@sgcynic: For that, if we ever meet, I'll buy you lunch :)
@M: I agree; I imagine this would be thrown out of court in most other countries.
It is to be broad so that the judge and persecution can interpret it one way or another according to the manner they, or some other party, see fit. So something can be legal and illegal at the same time, and you can be a lawbreaker just because the judge don't like your face, or was told not to like your face. Of course it also opens the way for the judge to be paid to interpret it in favour of some party or other. But then this is the Singapore way. Who can say that anything about it is wrong, or unlawful, or even daft?
@Local No Talent: Saying it is wrong or daft is an individual prerogative. Such a broad interpretation (and judgments are that, interpretations of the law as determined by a judge in a court of law) creates a culture of selective enforcement and therefore promulgates fear through uncertainty and doubt.
Since I am not a lawyer, I won't comment on the legality of the reading. But the outcomes as I outlined in the post shows my stand clearly: when a law is interpreted this broadly, nearly everyone will be criminals. If that isn't ridiculous enough for you, then I can only respectfully disagree.
On the other hand, if you're being sarcastic, someone needs to ship me a new sarcasm detector. Mine's borked.