On 8 July, a participant of ‘Letters for Palestine’ appeared in court to testify in the ongoing trial of three Singaporean women charged under the Public Order Act (POA) for allegedly organising an unauthorised assembly outside the Istana.
The case centres on an incident that took place on 2 February 2024, when about 70 people gathered to deliver letters supporting the Palestinian cause to the Prime Minister’s Office.
“The right thing to do”： Stay-at-home mum defends letter delivery
Dayana, a stay-at-home mother, took the stand to explain why she joined the event. She told the court she believed delivering a letter herself was her right as a Singaporean citizen.
She described feeling compelled to act while witnessing the conflict in Gaza, saying, “I believed it was the right thing to do while a genocide was unfolding on livestream.”
Dayana said she was nursing her ten-month-old at the time and could not stand by idly.
Siti Amirah, known as Camira Asrori, 29, Mossammad Sobikun Nahar, 26, and Annamalai Kokila Parvathi, 36, are facing charges for allegedly organising a procession without a permit.
The group is said to have walked from Plaza Singapura to the Istana perimeter, a prohibited area under the POA.
District Judge John Ng presided over the six-day trial, which began on 1 July and concluded its hearings on 8 July. Closing submissions are set for 16 September.
Students for Palestine, an advocacy group, has documented the case on social media.
View this post on Instagram
“I was done standing idly by”
On the trial’s final day, Sophia, a visual artist, and Dayana testified that they learned of the event through social media and felt compelled to join.
Sophia explained she had watched months of violence and wanted to act physically.
“I felt like I needed to be physically there to see my letter being delivered,” she said.
Both witnesses referred to a previous letter delivery for Palestine in January, which had occurred without legal issues.
The Prosecution asked Sophia whether delivering letters was the only purpose of the gathering.
Sophia replied, “I can only speak for my own purpose. But the fact that we all signed up – I think we were there for the same purpose and would have the same understanding of why we were there.”
When asked if the event aimed to publicise the Palestinian cause, Dayana insisted her motive was empathy, not publicity.
Sophia: Watermelon umbrellas “reminded her of parents who were fruit sellers”
The Defence and Prosecution questioned the use of watermelon umbrellas at the event.
Sophia said she brought one because it was drizzling and found the design “cute”, reminding her of her parents who were fruit sellers.
She claimed she was unaware of its symbolic link to Palestine.
Dayana, however, said she knew watermelons symbolised Palestinian solidarity.
She called the umbrellas “a beautiful gesture” by organisers, adding she had seen them at previous events without issue.
“We’re not a threat”
The Defence established that both Dayana and Sophia did not know the route to the Istana was prohibited.
Sophia said the group walked a “public route” and she noticed police nearby who did not intervene. “We’re not a threat if the police don’t stop us,” she added.
Earlier, on 3 July, a commanding officer from the Istana Security Unit gave evidence under cross-examination.
He confirmed that the event was peaceful and cooperative, so no intervention was deemed necessary.
Although he had the authority to disperse the crowd or make arrests, he chose not to do so.
Sobi: No permit checked as past Istana letter deliveries had not needed one
Sobikun Nahar, known as Sobi, testified that she co-organised the event to ensure letters were physically delivered after emails and mail went unanswered.
She explained that in-person deliveries were seen as a way to prompt a response, especially after the International Court of Justice ruled that Israel’s actions in Gaza plausibly constituted genocide.
Sobi said she had delivered letters to the Istana in 2021 and 2023, appealing for clemency for prisoners on death row. Those deliveries used the same route without police objection.
When asked why she did not check with the police about the legality of the event, Sobi said previous experiences showed no permits were needed for similar deliveries.
“As far as you were aware, did know whether needed to apply for a permit from the police to organise Letters for Palestine?” the defence lawyer asked, in response, Sobi replied, “No, it never occurred to me as this had never been the case in past instances of letter delivery.”
The Defence noted that a separate event, ‘Show Up for Palestine’, planned for the same day, was cancelled after police deemed it a POA violation.
Sobi said she did not think the cancellation affected the legality of the letter delivery, which she argued was distinct and peaceful.
She also explained she trusted past guidance from police, who had advised the same route in earlier years.
Koki’s role disputed
Sobi testified that Annamalai Kokila Parvathi, known as Koki, did not co-organise the event but gave her advice as a first-time organiser.
Prosecutors argued Koki’s presence and actions on CCTV showed she helped organise the gathering, a claim Sobi denied.
Sobi told the court that police did not stop the procession and that she would have called it off immediately if asked to disperse.
She insisted she intended only to facilitate letter delivery for those who wanted to show solidarity in person.
Use of symbols debated
Sobi said the watermelon umbrellas were chosen partly because the weather was unpredictable and partly because the watermelon is a symbol of solidarity with Palestine.
She did not view it as a political or militant symbol, saying, “It’s a symbol of love and solidarity.”
The Prosecution suggested she used the umbrellas to publicise the cause, which Sobi denied, noting that the symbol had been used at previous events without incident.
Delivery route and permit arguments
Prosecutors questioned why Sobi did not direct participants to deliver letters individually or map a direct route, rather than organising a group walk.
They argued that gathering people at a set time and place amounted to an unauthorised procession.
Sobi said she simply facilitated those who wished to deliver letters together, based on prior practice.
She believed the physical act of hand-delivery underlined the importance of the message.
The day before, Camira told the court that her email to her MP Rahayu Mahzam went unanswered, strengthening her resolve to participate in person.
The Prosecution also argued that any “reasonable” event organiser would have checked the relevant legislation to ensure the event could proceed legally and confirmed that the Istana was not a prohibited area.
It was suggested that Sobi chose not to consult the police because she had “very poor regard for the Public Order Act” and felt compelled to act urgently due to global events.
In response, Sobi said she relied on her past experience with similar letter deliveries and followed the same route that had previously been advised by officers in 2010 and 2011.
She added that, since the event details were made public, the police would have had ample opportunity to intervene if anything had changed after two decades of precedent.
Sobi maintained that the purpose was never to break the law, but to ensure their voices were heard amid a worsening crisis overseas.
The post ‘Letters for Palestine’ participant says delivering letter to PMO was within her rights as Singapore citizen appeared first on The Online Citizen.
