You can help by making a $1 fund contribution to POSB savings 279-12328-0
or simply sharing our message with your family and friends.
Thank you.

I’ve been banned for 27 months, from public speaking at Singapore’s only legal venue available – Hong Lim Park speakers’ corner.

On 21st Dec 2016, nparks sent me an email and denied my rights to speak.
On 22nd Dec 2016, nparks sent me another email and denied my rights to speak again.

After which, nparks also denied my co-accused 56-year-old Singaporean Janet Low Wai Choo and 61-year-old Singaporean Ivan Koh Yew Beng from exercising their rights to freedom of public assembly for the past 27 months, and counting.

It all started in 2011, when I followed Singapore’s general election and realised how policies affect every single one of us.
As a teenager, I started wondering…
What was the purpose of studying for PSLE to get into the express course?
What was the purpose of studying for O level to get into junior college?
What was the purpose of studying for A level to get into university?
To become a digit and contribute to the GDP for the PAP government?

My CPF account was created in 2007 when I first started working and back in 2011, the CPF minimum sum was $131,000.
Have you ever wondered how many Singaporeans managed to reach the CPF minimum sum?

On 8 July 2014, Singapore’s Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin said in parliament:
“50% of active CPF members met the Minimum Sum in 2013 (I understand that the latest statistic is 55%), including 15% who used their properties to support up to half of the CPF Minimum Sum”

50% of active CPF members met the Minimum Sum but pledged their property.
(if you were to include inactive CPF members, which is about 80% of the number of active CPF members)
About 30% of CPF members met the Minimum Sum after pledging their property.
(if you were to exclude those CPF members who pledged their property to reach the minimum sum)
About 15% of CPF members met the Minimum Sum without pledging their property.

After the 7th Jun 2014 event on our pension fund, the CPF Minimum Sum at SGD$148,000 was renamed to CPF Retirement Sum, and increased to the current SGD$161,000.
Will more Singaporeans be able to reach the new CPF retirement sum when it keeps increasing, just like our cost of living?
Yet the median gross monthly income from work (including employer CPF contributions) of full-time employed residents only increased slightly more than a hundred (from $3,770 in 2014 to $3,949 in 2015)?
Take note, the above is for full-time employed residents, not Singaporeans and also does not include part-time workers (those who work 35 hours or less weekly).
There is no transparency as to what is the income Singaporeans are getting and arguably, if they are being exploited - resulting in low salaries.
If Singaporeans are not exploited to have a lower salary, why is there a need to include the permanent residents and skew the statistics so that it appears higher?

By 2012, I started having legal threats against me.
In 2013, I was being served the letter of demand by a Singapore government statutory board under ministry of education at the age of 21.
That was when I had my first speech at Hong Lim Park:



Since then, from November 2013 onwards, there were monthly events at Hong Lim Park.

From education


To service and conservancy charges


To labour rights


To our retirement


To public healthcare


To public housing


After the 12th Jul 2014 event on our public healthcare, the CPF Medisave Contribution Ceiling at SGD$43,500 was renamed to CPF Basic Healthcare Sum, and increased to the current $49,800.

After the 23rd Aug 2014 event on our public housing, additional rules apply to the use of CPF savings for flats with remaining lease of less than 60 years, no CPF can be used if the remaining lease of a flat is less than 30 years and a flat owner is eligible to use his CPF savings for the flat only if his age plus the remaining lease of the flat is at least 80 years.

After the 27th Sep 2014 event on our jobs employment, we now have a 3.2% increase in bus fare, $30 increase in carpark fees, 10% increase in electricity tariffs, increase in lifts and trains breakdown.

On 9th Oct 2014, two plain clothes police came to my home at around 11pm.



On 10th Oct 2014, I reached the police station at 2pm but waited till 2:30pm for the interrogation to start, it ended at almost 10pm.
You may read what happened during the 8 hours at the police station here:
http://huihui247.blogspot.sg/2014/10/8-hours.html


Hui Hui is out! She's in good spirits. Her notebook is confiscated. Waiting on M. Ravi.Updated 1.38am: Han Hui Hui...
Posted by Martyn See on Friday, 10 October 2014

On 27th Oct 2014, I was charged in court with 5 fellow Singaporeans.
On 9th May 2015, the first Singaporean pleaded guilty, she was fined $300.
On 7th Oct 2015, the second Singaporean pleaded guilty, he was fined $1900.

On 13th Oct 2015, I faced a 4-day trial with the remaining 3 fellow Singaporeans.
The Singapore government used four deputy public prosecutors against us:
1. Senior Director/Senior State Counsel/DPP Francis NG Yong Kiat
2. Deputy Senior State Counsel/DPP John LU Zhuoren
3. State Counsel/DPP Amanda CHONG Wei-Zhen
4. State Counsel/DPP Jane LIM Ern Hui

On 14th Oct 2015, Senior Director/Senior State Counsel/DPP Francis NG Yong Kiat shouted “KEEP YOUR MOUTH SHUT” in court.
Singapore district judge Chay Yuen Fatt kept silent.
Singapore district judge Chay Yuen Fatt did nothing.

Singapore’s AGC DPP can shout and intimidate Singaporeans, and behave in such an unbecoming manner in court when we do not have any legal representation.
If this can happen in broad daylight in court, what do you think happens during police interrogations behind “closed door”?
Singapore police used 8 hours to interrogate me and 6 hours for my co-accused, without any lunch or dinner.
Can you imagine what 14-year-old Benjamin Lim went through in his 3-hour “interview” at the police station?



On 15th Oct 2015, nparks manager Sim Bee Lan testified in court:
“The applicant will apply through online single quarter form and they will just fill in the information and they will just click submit then they will receive the approval.”
“Speakers’ corner is a share space.”
“it’s a open park and people is free to move around.”
“anybody can move or walk around the park.”



On 16th Oct 2015, nparks director Chia Seng Jiang testified in court:
“The website does not er say erm east lawn west lawn lawn one lawn two er the website merely outline where is the speakers’ corner boundary.”
“The public order act and the exemption so you don’t need a police permit.”
“It’s erm within the boundary you don’t need a police permit.”
“YMCA did not say that they cannot carry out their event.”



Half way through the trial, Singapore district judge Chay Yuen Fatt made the public leave the court room.
We were given the option to settle the case by simply retracting our statements.
That was what the third Singaporean did.

On 24th Feb 2016, I went back to court to face the second tranche of the trial.
It was a 7-day trial and till today, we have neither lawyer nor legal assistance.
People were afraid to have their license suspended should they step forward and defend the innocent from injustice.
Previously, we raised $10,800 and the money was all given to our lawyer before his license was suspended:





To continue with the court trial, we forked out money out of our own pocket.
We paid for the transcript, the court application, the printing of court documents etc.
This is also when I realised that the court transcript wasn’t accurate at all.
It was filled with dashes, such as when I criticised the “malicious policies”, they edited the transcript to “Malaysia’s policy”.
Is it because of such a system, almost every single person in the news pleaded guilty and gave up?

How do you fight against nepotism when the seat of prime minister is passed from father to son and only for Chinese males?
How do you fight against cronyism when the directorships are given to nephews, nieces, husbands, wives, etc?

On 27th June 2016, I was disqualified from standing for parliamentary election in Singapore.
Singapore’s District Judge Mr CHAY YUEN FATT made the judgement against me is as follows:
1. SGD$2,500 fine because “She rallied her Facebook readers”.
2. SGD$600 fine because I “made vitriolic speeches to denounce the government and various government policies”.



It was proven in court that I did not wave flag, I did not beat drum, I did not blow whistle and the list goes on.
I was not charged for marching at Hong Lim Park speakers’ corner or the confrontation, and neither was I ever sued.
I was charged because of what my fellow Singaporeans did at Hong Lim Park.

Was it wrong to say that PAP MPs paid $8 for a heart bypass but Singaporeans have to pay thousands of dollars?


Was it wrong to say that thefirst prime minister protested for democracy but ended up being a dictator and now has a government that violates fundamental human rights?


Was it wrong to say that the PAP government made use of internal security act for political persecution such as operation coldstore and operation spectrum?


Was it wrong to say that the PAP government should invest in education for Singaporeans so that Singapore will not suffer from "brain drain"?


Was it wrong to say that the PAP CPF’s system of forcing children to pay money back into parents CPF accounts should be flexible, such as payments back in cash should be allowed?


Was it wrong to criticise the PAP government when so many foreigners did not fulfil their scholarship obligations?


Was it wrong to demand for transparency and accountability from the PAP government?


Was it wrong to condemn the 7% GST which didn’t help the poor?


Was it wrong to criticise the CPF system for not being flexible and causing momentary issues to be one of the cause of suicide and euthanasia?


Was it wrong to say that the PAP government has indeed shifted the goal post by delaying the age for the return of our cpf?


Was it wrong to say that PAP MPs who told Singaporeans to migrate should be the ones to step down and migrate instead?


Was it wrong to practice the rights to freedom of assembly that’s enshrined in Singapore’s constitution at Hong Lim Park?


Was it wrong to ask for our hard earned CPF money back from the PAP government?


Was it wrong to fight for fundamental human rights to freedom of speech and public assembly?


Was it wrong to say the PAP government is running Singapore like a company rather than a country?


Was it wrong to say the PAP government is collecting millions of dollars but Singaporeans don’t even have a minimum wage or independent labour unions to protect their employment rights?


Was it wrong to say that income inequality is getting worse in Singapore given that gini coefficient is in the dangerous zone?


Was it wrong to say that the PAP government is immoral to threaten that they will be corrupt if we do not give them millions of dollars as salary?


Was it wrong to say that the PAP government has changed the CPF policy such that it now is detrimental to Singapore’s society?


Was it wrong to talk about lower income Singaporeans?


Was it wrong to say that public transport should serve the people instead of breakdown and earn millions of profits to serve the rich?


Was it wrong to criticise the PAP government for their inability to get foreign scholarship holders to fulfil their scholarship obligations?


Was it wrong to criticise PAP MPs who said “You own a degree, but so what? That you can't eat it.” to mock Singaporeans?


Was it wrong to say PAP MPs are hypocrites when they discourage Singaporeans from pursuing a degree?


Was it wrong to criticise thehousing policy when more than 60% of the price of HDB is set for land cost?


Was it wrong to condemn the PAP healthcare system which caused patients to be left at the corridors in hospitals?