Back in Singapore after a full-on couple of weeks, passport surrendered back to the police...
(1)
Jolovan Wham appealed his convictions for participating in candelight vigils outside Changi Prison for death row prisoners. In one of the charges that he'd been convicted of, the state said that he had been "marking" a prisoner's execution. But the prisoner hadn't been executed at that point in time, and Jolovan argued that mourning someone's impending death was not the same as "marking" an execution.
This might seem a rather silly and pedantic argument, but this is where the Public Order Act leads us. It's extremely broadly worded, and in recent years the authorities have stretched its meaning to absurdity. As Jolovan pointed out, a candlelight vigil for a death row prisoner is more akin to leaving flowers at the site of an accident in an expression of grief. And, if the authorities deemed it so, the Public Order Act could potentially stretch to cover such expressions. This is important not just for Jolovan, but for all Singaporeans. Such expansive legislation, giving the state maximum discretion, isn't in the interest of the citizens and our right to freedom of assembly—it merely makes it more convenient for the state to pick and choose who and what they want to go after, and to suppress legitimiate freedom of expression.
Still, the court ruled against Jolovan, dismissing his appeal and ordering him to pay the fine of $10,500 that he was sentenced to.
(2)
What can be done about the haze, and how much political will is there to do it? Since my last newsletter wrap, Singapore has issued 10 notices to Singapore-based companies in the oil palm and forestry industry demanding information relating to how they're linked to other businesses in Singapore and Indonesia, their land concessions, fire prevention practices, and more. Under the Transboundary Haze Pollution Act, an entity convicted of causing or contributing to the haze can be fined up to $100,000 for each day the haze persists, up to $2 million. The government is also intending to amend the law (alongside other potential legal changes) to deal with companies linked to the haze.
A specialist panel has also been convened to investigate firms that might be contributing to the haze. This is part of the government's promise to use the levers of power available to it to hold those causing the haze accountable. They're making a show of it, too, organising a short (less than half an hour!) meeting with senior executives of 10 companies. "Actual footage of K Shanmugam, Gan Kim Yong & Grace Fu meeting senior leaders of 10 companies linked to haze," says a video on Mothership.sg's Instagram page.
Singaporeans have been wanting something to be done about the haze for years. It's not a natural disaster or phenomenon; it's the result of poor and irresponsible business practices that have happened again and again and again. It's understandable that the government wants to assuage citizens by showing that it's doing something, and all this talk about accountability sounds good, but we're going to need to see results—otherwise, all this is little more than performance.
(3)
Residents of Maju and Gillman have written an open letter to the government. "We respectfully request that revised plans for both sites are not finalised or announced as settled decisions until affected residents have had a meaningful opportunity to review the options and provide feedback," they say, adding:
We understand that recent consultations with nature groups, green groups and students included discussions of revised planning scenarios. We welcome their involvement and value their contributions. However, to our knowledge, residents involved in developing alternative proposals and participating in earlier dialogues have not yet been given a comparable opportunity to consider these revised options.
The government seems to have gone ahead anyway, announcing revised housing plans with a reduction of about 1,200 homes so as to keep more greenery. Reducing deforestation and retaining greenery is one thing, but what the whole debate around Maju Forest isn't just about that—it's also about process and consultation, transparency and genuine engagement, meaningful conversations about trade-offs and what we value as a people. If this isn't addressed, we're going to end up with another Maju Forest situation sooner rather than later.
Thank you for reading this issue! If you'd like to support We, The Citizens, please consider becoming a Milo Peng Funder by getting a paid subscription. You can also gift someone else a subscription, or leave a tip (in SGD).
If you're not ready for a paid subscription, you can still support the newsletter by sharing it online and helping me get the word out!
Music for the weekend! A sweet, happy bop!