Sitting in court awaiting the judge’s verdict earlier this month, three Singaporean women accused of organising an illegal pro-Palestine protest were prepared to be outraged.
Living in a country where cases that reach court have a conviction rate as high as 97 per cent, and with an infamously low tolerance towards public protests and activism, Siti Amirah Mohamed Asrori, Kokila Annamalai, and Mossammad Sobikun Nahar awaited a guilty verdict and faced up to six months in jail and a S$10,000 (about £5,800) fine.
They were charged under Singapore’s strict Public Order Act with organising an “illegal procession”, yet on 21 October were sensationally acquitted by judge John Ng. Speaking to The Independent, the women describe the verdict as a surreal victory, and one that could be quietly transformative for the country’s civic landscape.
In February 2024, the activists had led around 70 people in a peaceful walk along public roads to deliver letters to the president’s office demanding that Singapore cut ties with Israel over the war in Gaza, in which health officials say more than 69,000 Palestinians have been killed. The war in Palestine has become a sensitive issue in the country, which has both a sizeable ethnic Malay-Muslim population and close ties with Israel.
“I was the most confident that we would get convicted. So I had prepared a statement to read out in court after getting convicted, you know, about how, like, the system is f***** up or whatever,” Annamalai, 37, tells The Independent.
The prosecution argued that the march was illegal because, though they walked along seemingly public pavements, their route passed through a prohibited area along the external perimeter of the Istana, Singapore’s presidential palace.
Yet in his judgement, Ng noted that there were no signs identifying the road as a prohibited area and the prosecution failed to prove that the women knew what they were doing was illegal, a crucial technical point that swayed the balance of his verdict. The tension in the courtroom broke, giving way to a surge of relief and quiet joy.
“It was just a very strange reality to be in, that we are in court arguing about technicalities and legal arguments, when the essence of what we did was to be in solidarity with the Palestinians,” Annamalai says.
The women say they were compelled to organise the protest by Singapore’s continued friendship with Israel, despite it committing what a UN probe has described as genocide in Gaza. As Singaporeans, the women said they found this “nauseating and enraging”.
For 26-year-old Nahar, the youngest of the three, the impulse was moral as much as political. “There is this innate sense of responsibility to the world and to the people around,” she says, especially to the people in Gaza who have suffered tremendously. “What’s necessary to be done needs to get done.”
She tells The Independent that her actions weren’t planned for publicity; she didn’t expect them to become a big thing in the news. Nahar says she was motivated by the belief that more needs to be done in Singapore, where many people are unsure how to engage politically or demand accountability from the state.
Beyond the courtroom, the acquittal has stirred conversations about resistance and courage in a society known for strict limits on dissent. Annamalai says that what truly struck a chord with the watching public was not just the verdict itself, but the stance the three women maintained throughout the trial.
They say that while they never directly discussed Singapore’s relationship with Israel during the court hearings, their choice to wear the colours of the Palestinian flag and keffiyeh shawls in court implicitly referenced it, turning their attire into an act of protest.
“The only statement you can make is in what you’re wearing to court,” Nahar says. “Mainstream media will take photos and use that in the article. So that’s the only message you can send. We would wear keffiyehs and Palestinian flag colours. It’s the only voice we have … to show our defiance.”
“I think the thing that’s moved a lot of people in this case is the defiance we’ve shown,” Annamalai says. “That’s a very important energy to bring into our movement. In Singapore’s civil society… there’s this habit of appealing to those in power rather than defying them.”
The activists say their case has helped normalise dissent in Singapore. “We’re trying to build a culture where the masses can mobilise,” Annamalai says.
For Nahar, Annamalai and Asrori, the trial became more than a legal battle. It was about standing firm in their beliefs and showing that peaceful resistance still has meaning in Singapore.
Their acquittal, though narrow, is being viewed by younger Singaporeans as a symbolic crack in an otherwise rigid system.
On social media, supporters have hailed the three women as proof that dissent need not always end in punishment, that even small acts of defiance can spark change.
Looking back, they hope the acquittal will inspire others to resist fear and embrace collective courage. “The biggest shift that’s happened over the last one and a half years of our case is the masses in Singapore actually cheering for defiance,” Annamalai says. “That’s new. It’s a validation of defiance as a strategy. Because it’s way past time that we keep appealing to those in power.
“This win means a lot. It’s about continuing to fight, even if the system is stacked against you,” Annamalai says.
