Singapore’s government limits political and civil rights—especially freedom of expression, peaceful assembly, and association—using overly broad legal provisions on security, public order, morality, and racial and religious harmony. Since the 2011 parliamentary election, however, in which the opposition made gains, Singaporean citizens have been increasingly asserting their rights through social media and rallies in designated areas.

Freedom of Expression, Peaceful Assembly, and Association

On September 10, Singapore’s Media Development Authority (MDA) banned the film “To Singapore, With Love ” on grounds that it undermined national security. The film features interviews with activists who fled Singapore rather than face political persecution and possible detention under the country’s abusive Internal Security Act (ISA). Film director Tan Pin Pin filed an appeal, stating that people should be able to air “differing views about our past, even views that the government disapproves.” On November 12, the Film Appeals Committee rejected her appeal by a 9-3 vote.

The MDA also continues to compel online news websites discussing domestic political issues to register under the Broadcasting Act. Registration requires posting a monetary bond, paying fees, undergoing annual registration, and, on notification, immediately removing anything the MDA deems to be against “public interest, public order or national harmony” or to offend “good taste or decency.” Registered websites are also prohibited from receiving any foreign funding. In late March, the MDA ordered the news website Mothership.sg to register and, in late September, made the same demand of The Online Citizen (TOC).

The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act requires local newspapers to renew their registration every year and empowers the government to limit circulation of foreign newspapers.

The government maintains restrictions on freedom of assembly through provisions of the 2009 Public Order Act, which require a police permit for any cause-related assembly in a public place or to which members of the general public are invited. Grounds for denial are broad. On November 5, 2013, police arrested 10 people for planning a march without a permit in Singapore as part of a global “Million Mask March.” A court convicted Jacob Lau Jian Ron of organizing the event and fined him S$1000 (US$800).

Protests and rallies conducted at the Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park do not need a police permit so long as the topic does not touch on religious or racial issues and the organizer and speakers are Singaporean citizens. Foreigners who are not permanent residents are not permitted to participate without a police permit. Despite these restrictions, there has been an increase in the size of crowds and the number of applications submitted to use the Speakers’ Corner.

On September 25, 2014, the police notified activists Han Hui Hui and Roy Ngerng Yi Ling that permission had been withdrawn for their planned September 27 event at Speakers’ Corner featuring speeches and a demonstration related to management of Singapore’s Central Provident Fund (CPF), the state pension fund.

Hui and Ngerng refused to comply, and the demonstration went ahead. Police investigated at least 15 persons connected with the protest before charging Ngerng and Hui with unlawful assembly for demonstrating without a permit, and with causing a public nuisance. Four others (Janet Low Wai Choo, Chua Siew Leng, Goh Aik Huat, and Ivan Koh Yew Beng) were charged only with causing a public nuisance. The cases against the six were ongoing at time of writing.

Associations of more than 10 individuals are required to register with the government, and the Registrar of Societies has broad authority to deny registration if the registrar determines that the group could be “prejudicial to public peace, welfare or good order.” The registrar approved a new political party, Singaporeans First, in May 2014.

Government officials continue to use criminal and civil defamation as a means to silence critics. In May 2014, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong filed a lawsuit in his personal capacity against activist and blogger Roy Ngerng Yi Ling who, Lee alleged, defamed him when he compared Lee’s actions in managing the CPF to a criminal case involving misappropriation of funds. Ngerng agreed to apologize, removed the posts, and made an offer of compensation—but Lee refused and sought summary judgment in the case. In June, soon after being sued by Lee, the private hospital employing Ngerng fired him, an action that the Ministry of Health publicly applauded. As widely expected, on November 7, the Singapore High Court ruled in favor of Lee and determined that damages would be assessed at a later date.