Global Freedom of Expression

Public Prosecutor v. Roy Ngerng

Closed Mixed Outcome

Key Details

  • Mode of Expression
    Public Speech
  • Date of Decision
    October 7, 2015
  • Outcome
    Monetary Damages / Fines
  • Case Number
  • Region & Country
    Singapore, Asia and Asia Pacific
  • Judicial Body
    First Instance Court
  • Type of Law
    Criminal Law
  • Themes
    Freedom of Association and Assembly / Protests
  • Tags
    Public nuisance

Content Attribution Policy

Global Freedom of Expression is an academic initiative and therefore, we encourage you to share and republish excerpts of our content so long as they are not used for commercial purposes and you respect the following policy:

  • Attribute Columbia Global Freedom of Expression as the source.
  • Link to the original URL of the specific case analysis, publication, update, blog or landing page of the down loadable content you are referencing.

Attribution, copyright, and license information for media used by Global Freedom of Expression is available on our Credits page.

Case Analysis

Case Summary and Outcome

In September 2014, Singaporean blogger and activist Roy Ngerng organized a public demonstration, called “Return Our CPF,” at Hong Lim Park, demanding the government to make changes to the compulsory savings plan. Prior to the protest, the group obtained a permission from the Commissioner of Parks and Trees to give a “speech” in the park. Under Singapore’s Parks and Trees Act, however, it is prohibited to organize demonstration in any national park without the approval of the Commissioner. Ngerng and his co-organizers allegedly refused to use an adjoining lawn of the park at the request of government officials, as the demonstrators were gathering in the vicinity of an unrelated charity event.

In October 2015, a court of Singapore found Ngerng and five other protest participants guilty of “public nuisance” and “organising a demonstration without approval.” Ngerng was sentenced to a fine of S$1,900.00 (approximately $1320.00).The court held that the permit obtained by Ngerng was granted for a specific purpose and that the demonstration was not covered by the permit.

Columbia Global Freedom of Expression could not identify the official legal and government records on the case and that the information contained in this report was derived from secondary sources. It must be noted that media outlets may not provide complete information about this case. Additional information regarding this legal matter will be updated as an official source becomes available.


On September 27, 2014, Singaporean blogger Roy Ngerng and his five colleagues organized a government demonstration, called “Return Our CPF,” at Hong Lim Park to protest against the rise of CPF Minimum Sum by 4.7%. At the same time and place, an unrelated charity event also was taking place. As Ngerng’s protest drew more audience, the National Park officers demanded the group to use an adjoining lawn of the park in order to avoid disrupting the ongoing charity event. The group, however, refused to relocate and instead “they demonstrated by shouting loudly, chanting slogans, waving flags, holding placards, blowing whistles loudly and beating drums.” According to Witnesses, the group became more aggressive when the Minister of State for Trade and Industry Teo Sur Luck arrived at the charity event as the guest of honor.

Prior to the demonstration, Ngerng and his co-organizers made a successful application to the Commissioner of Parks and Trees for approval to give a “speech” at Speakers’ Corner, located within Hong Lim Park. However, under the Parks and Trees Act, “no person may, except with the approval of the Commissioner and in accordance with the terms and conditions of such approval: (a) carry out any play-reading, recital, lecture, talk, address, debate or discussion; (b) organise or participate (other than solely as a member of audience), in any performance or exhibition; or (c) organise any demonstration, at the area known as Speakers’ Corner in Hong Lim Park . . .”

Initially, it was reported that Ngerng did not admit that his action was wrong. He said: “We have not done anything illegal. We have done everything legal within our constitutional rights. I think if anything, we do this [protest] out of respect for Singaporeans.”





Decision Overview

District Judge Liew Thaim Leng delivered the judgment.

During the trial, Ngerng’s lawyer defended his client by stating that Ngerng genuinely believed that “he was speaking on matters of public interest, and is ‘deeply remorseful’ that he did not do this in accordance with the law.” The lawyer added that Ngerng’s offense was ignorance, as he did not know that a separate approval was needed for a demonstration.

Ngerng later pleaded guilty to charges of “public nuisance” and “organizing a demonstration without approval.” The judge sentenced him to a fine of S$1,900 (approximately $1320.00).  According to Channel NewsAsia, in order to have Ngerng pay the fine, the judge “singled [him] out as the ‘leader of the group,’ and said that the demonstration had ’caused disruption to other events in the vicinity.’” The judge also ruled that the permit obtained by Ngerng was for a specific purpose and that the demonstration was not covered by the permit.


Decision Direction

Quick Info

Decision Direction indicates whether the decision expands or contracts expression based on an analysis of the case.

Mixed Outcome

Global Perspective

Quick Info

Global Perspective demonstrates how the court’s decision was influenced by standards from one or many regions.

Table of Authorities

National standards, law or jurisprudence

  • Sing., The Parks and Trees Act of Singapore
  • Sing., Penal Code of Singapore, sec. 268

Case Significance

Quick Info

Case significance refers to how influential the case is and how its significance changes over time.

This case did not set a binding or persuasive precedent either within or outside its jurisdiction. The significance of this case is undetermined at this point in time.

Official Case Documents

Reports, Analysis, and News Articles:

Have comments?

Let us know if you notice errors or if the case analysis needs revision.

Send Feedback