Three activists from Singapore’s Letters for Palestine campaign — Mossammad Sobikun Nahar (Sobi), Siti Amirah Mohamed Asrori (Camira) and Annamalai Kokila Parvathi (Koki) — were acquitted on October 21 of violating the nefarious 2009 Public Order Act (POA).
Sobi, Camira and Koki were charged in June last year two months after they organised a peaceful walk for Palestine by 70 people to deliver letters to Prime Minister Lawrence Wong. Participants carried umbrellas as they walked, decorated as watermelons in solidarity with the Palestinians.
The three activists faced up to six months’ imprisonment, a fine of up to S$10,000, or both, if found guilty.
The trial commenced in September. The prosecution sought to prove that the three activists had organised a procession without a permit, in violation of the POA.
As reported by the Online Citizen website on October 21, District Court Judge John Ng said in his judgement: “It was clear from the evidence that the three were trying their level best not to run afoul of the law.
However, “[d]espite their efforts, contrary to their best thinking, the walk amounted to a procession.”
Judge Ng concluded, saying “An acquittal of the three persons is in order”. The decision prompted gasps and applause from the packed courtroom.
In reaction to the verdict the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) said on October 22 that while the decision was based on procedural grounds it represented “a small victory for social activism in Singapore”.
The SDP said the rights to freedom of speech, association and peaceful assembly are “important tools that all Singaporeans need as we struggle against increasing inequality, overcrowding and exploitation”.
The Attorney General’s Chambers said the prosecution would appeal the court’s decision.
Critics say the government is using the POA to criminalise peaceful protests not approved by the state, and dismantle longstanding legal protections.
In an October 24 editorial in The Online Citizen Terry Xu recounted how, in 2009, Workers’ Party (WP) MP Sylvia Lim challenged the need for such an expansive law during a parliamentary debate, saying: “Do we need to rush into passing such a law which could have wide-ranging implications for civil liberties, on the pretext of needing to manage international events?”
In justifying the POA,K Shanmugam, a minister from the ruling People’s Action Party (PAP) said: “We are not trying to eliminate public expression. We are trying to regulate it in a way that maintains order and ensures safety … The framework allows for responsible expression, while ensuring that public spaces are not misused.”
Despite the acquittal of the three Letters for Palestine activists, it is clear that the POA is designed to suppress dissent.
As Terry Xu wrote, “The Public Order Act is not just a piece of legislation. It is a political sophistry — one that treats unregulated expression as a threat, rather than as a necessary part of democratic society. It presumes illegitimacy, and places the burden on citizens to seek permission not to disrupt, but to express.”
Activists have vowed to continue their campaign of solidarity with Palestine. The group completed its third hunger strike from October 24–26, demanding that the government stop funding Israel’s genocide, stand on the right side of history and stop the persecution of pro-Palestine solidarity activists.
[To find out more visit and @sgacadboycott on Instagram.]