Singapore: An Indian-origin woman was among three Singaporean activists, fined USD 2,341 each on Thursday for organising a procession outside the Presidential Palace to show solidarity with Palestine, local media reported.
The High Court overturned the acquittal of the three women, Malay-origin Mossammad Sobikun Nahar, 26, Siti Amirah Mohamed Asrori, 30, and Indian-origin Annamalai Kokila Parvathi, 37, accused of organising the procession on February 2, 2024, The Straits Times reported.
Also Watch:
Justice See Kee Oon allowed the prosecution’s appeal against the acquittal of the three women, who each faced one charge of organising a procession in the perimeter of the Presidential Palace, Istana, a prohibited area, under the Public Order Act (POA).
Their lawyer, Derek Wong, argued for a fine of SGD 3,000, while Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Hay Hung Chun made no submission on sentence.
The three women had contested the charges in a joint trial that began in July 2025.
Security camera footage presented in court showed a group of around 70 people gathering outside Plaza Singapura, a shopping mall near the Palace, before they walked towards the Istana while holding open umbrellas painted with a watermelon graphic.
The fruit represented the colours of the Palestinian flag, according to the Singapore daily report.
In acquitting them in October 2025, district judge John Ng said that although the three women had carried out a procession on the day in question, they had not reasonably known that the route was a prohibited area.
The district judge said the prosecution bore the burden of proving the two basic elements of the offence—the physical act and the mental element.
On April 30, arguing to overturn the acquittal, DPP Hay argued the district judge had made an error of law in applying the correct legal test on the mental element.
DPP Hay said the prosecution had stated very clearly the charges against the three women were not for having actual knowledge, but they “ought reasonably to have known” the route taken was a prohibited area.
The DPP noted the women were aware that the police had issued an advisory stating that events held in relation to the Israel-Hamas conflict would not be permitted.
Another red flag, he said, was that Siti and Sobikun actually knew about a previous event related to the cause that was cancelled.
He said information about public assemblies or processions was available “24/7 in the form of access to statues online”.
Wong, argued that the district judge did not make an error and had applied the correct legal test.
He said having knowledge about the POA was different from knowing what a prohibited area is.
(Except for the headline, this article has not been edited by FPJ's editorial team and is auto-generated from an agency feed.)
