Sylvia Lim fought against 4 amendments to Laws on Peaceful Assembly in 2007:
"This refers to clauses 29 and 30 of the Bill. By clause 29 of the Bill, we are removing the heading Offences Against Public Tranquility and replacing it with Offences relating to Unlawful Assembly. By Clause 30, we will be deleting mischief or trespass or other offence and replacing it with to commit any offence.
S 141 has been amended to bring it in line with a recent Court of Appeal case: PP v Tan Meng Khin  2 SLR 505. Now, an assembly will be unlawful if people intend to commit an offence punishable with imprisonment of 6 mths or more, even if it is peaceful and does not disturb public tranquility. Under our law, a person who organizes a procession or assembly after the police rejection of a permit can be punished with max 6 months jail under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. Hence 5 or more people who gather to do so will become members of an unlawful assembly.
As our society continues to evolve, the time is surely ripe for us to allow peaceful outdoor protests as a form of expression. By all means, we can have rules about how, where and when such processions may be held, but wider law reform is needed. S 141 should be restricted to offences which threaten the public peace, and other laws such as the Miscellaneous Offences Act which require permits for peaceful assemblies should be modified."
So did they listen to the lady? No, instead they made Singapore a laughing stock. This is how Ms Lim spelled it out in her speech of April 2009:
"The change in definition of “assembly” and “procession” is more disturbing. As the Explanatory Statement to the Bill says, these words are no longer restricted to gatherings of 5 persons or more. This means even ONE person alone can constitute illegal assembly, thus giving the State complete control over an individual citizen’s freedoms.
First, to say that 1 person constitutes an assembly is certainly an abuse of the word. Secondly, is the government making the change because there had been incidents involving less than 5 persons which had disrupted public life? Unless there is compelling evidence to prove to us that expanding the definition of assembly and procession is needed, this expansion does not deserve our support."
Shakespeare would certainly turn in his grave for the misuse of the English vocabulary, but you can bet the ashes in the urn are not the slightest perturbed.