An interesting article on Asia Times Online from Singaporean commentator (dare I say dissident?) Alex Au on the state of civil liberties there. Au has his eye firmly on the upcoming World Bank and IMF meetings, and reviews some recent attempts to demonstrate within the contraints of current Singapore law:
In a recent attempt to test the limits of this constitutional guarantee, four people tried to mount a silent demonstration in front of the headquarters of the government-run Central Provident Fund (CPF) in August 2005. They wore T-shirts emblazoned with slogans calling on the CPF to be more transparent with pensioners' funds while standing in complete silence. Soon thereafter, 40 or so police officers in anti-riot gear confiscated their T-shirts and demanded that they disperse because they were a "public nuisance".

Three of the four silent protesters mounted a court challenge against the government for denying them the freedom of assembly. However, Justice V K Rajah dismissed the suit, ruling that the police could reasonably have deemed the words on the T-shirts and placards as "insulting and/or abusive apropos those responsible" for managing the CPF, a public institution, and that their being stationary in front of the building represented harassment. "A persistent course of conduct for a sustained period of time can constitute harassment," the judge ruled.

Another closely watched case testing the bounds of freedom of expression and assembly is now being heard in Singapore's Subordinate Court system. Two Singaporean citizens, Erh Boon Tiong and Ng Chye Huay, are being tried for standing across the road from the Chinese Embassy on July 20 holding a banner with the words, "Stop persecution of Falungong in China." The local media reported police saying that the banner's message was likely "to cause harassment to Chinese Embassy staff, visitors and passers-by".
Yep, a fragile and easily harassed lot those Chinese and Singaporean bureaucrats and pedestrians.