Change will not come if we wait for some other person or some other time. We are the ones we've been waiting for. We are the change that we seek. - Barack Obama
Showing posts with label singapore activists. Show all posts
Showing posts with label singapore activists. Show all posts
THERE were no placards, banners or chanting; and fortunately there were only four 'protestors' as five would have constituted an illegal assembly in the eyes of the law.
The march on Wednesday morning from Little India to the British High Commission in Tanglin Road was to appeal to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown to try to stop the conflict in Sri Lanka.
Leading the group was Mr V. Thamizhmaraiyan. The 54-year-old bus driver said that recent media reports had highlighted that up to 250,000 non-combatants, many of them Tamils, are caught in the crossfire between Sri Lankan government troops and the Tamil Tigers, who have been fighting for an independent Tamil state since 1983.
'It was the British colonial government that arranged for Tamils to move to Sri Lanka so it's responsible,' he added.
Mr Tamizhmaraiyan and his friends started their 4km-walk from the Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Hall in Race Course Lane. Each said that it was a logical choice as Gandhi had championed non-violence.
They decided to 'express their concerns' on Wednesday as it was Sri Lanka's Independence Day but said that the motive was humanitarian and not political.
The group also comprised property agent K. Rathakrishnan, 36, and Mr P. Govindasamy, 44, also a bus-driver, and Indian farmer N.Gurumurthy, 54, who is on a visit here.
They were denied entry into the British High Commission but their appeal letter was handed to security staff to be passed to British High Commissioner Paul Madden.
Mr Tamizhmaraiyan said that he had the support of many Tamils here but they did not join in as they were afraid of being arrested.
'I assured them that we could not be carrying placards and banners and would not be doing anything illegal but they were still fearful,' he said.
The first is an AFP report followed by a report from TODAY. After the news articles is a report on Singapore from Human Rights Watch's World Report 2009.
SINGAPORE (AFP) - - Singapore's deputy prime minister said the island state, which is hosting a summit of Asia Pacific leaders this year, may further tighten laws against public protests, according to reports.
Wong Kan Seng, who is also Home Affairs minister, said the government is reviewing public order laws and may pass legislation to deal more effectively with illegal protests and other acts of civil disobedience, the Straits Times said.
The legislation is expected to be passed in time for the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) forum in November which could attract both local and overseas protesters, he said.
US president-elect Barack Obama, due to take office next week, is among the 21 leaders scheduled to attend the summit.
Public order laws are already tight in Singapore, where protests require a police permit if held outside a designated free-speech zone and gatherings of five or more people are illegal.
Nevertheless Wong said fresh legislation is needed to deal more effectively with political activities, while relaxing regulations on people gathering for social and recreational purposes.
He said police could be granted power to take action before protesters could gather at specific areas such as parliament, and cited protests by the political opposition, and by Myanmar nationals against their country's ruling junta.
"They make a show of breaking the law," Wong said of the protesters.
WHEN members of the Singapore Democratic Party attempted to disrupt the IMF-World Bank meetings here in 2006, it turned into a three-day standoff with the police.
When Falungong activists protested along Orchard Road in 2005, they were warned that they did not have a permit. Yet this did not stop them from protesting the very next day.
Armed with only the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (MOA) and Public Entertainment and Meetings Act (Pema) police could only deal with such acts of civil disobedience via prosecution after the incidents.
Now, the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) wants to give its security forces the powers to deal with such situations “pre-emptively on the ground and not let it occur and then deal with the consequences and perpetrators later”.
Responding to queries, MHA told Weekend Today that it is studying how other countries have responded post-911 and is considering enacting new public order laws here.
Certain Australian states, for example, have given their police “move-on” powers, “in a way which minimises disruption by asking people to leave a particular location”. If they leave, there is no arrest. If they refuse to comply, the police arrest them for defying the law.
“This creates an intermediary step between ‘doing nothing’, which is not acceptable in today’s context, and ‘outright arrests’, which is not necessary in all situations,” said MHA in a written reply.
“Our current public order laws have evolved over time in piece-meal fashion ... (and) were conceived in an era when security threats were of an entirely different scale and impact,” said MHA, noting that such a situation was “not tenable” in today’s world which is threatened by “suicide bombers and anarchistic fanatics”.
Significantly, Singapore is hosting the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (Apec) meeting this year and with “mega events increasingly an important means of profiling Singapore”, the risk level is higher.
“They are ‘trophy’ targets for terrorists or disruptive elements who seek global attention in promoting their causes or agenda,” said MHA.
Legislative changes could rationalise the two laws, which were meant to govern recreational and social activities.
“We should not continue to have politics treated as entertainment or as a miscellaneous offence ... We should distinguish between political and non-political activities.
“By enacting a new law to deal with public order incidents arising from cause-related activism, we can liberalise the Miscellaneous Offences Act and Public Entertainment and Meetings Act to allow greater self-regulation in activities that matter to the average citizen and are less likely to create public disorder.
“Cause-related or ideologically related activities, including those pertaining to race and religion that certain groups wish to promote, can then be addressed squarely for the heightened risks they pose,” explained the Ministry.
The review comes at a time when the Government is freeing up political space.
Since September, citizens can stage outdoor demonstrations at Speakers’ Corner.
While reiterating that Singaporeans’ desire to express their views publicly about a range of different causes was “positive”, MHA added: “Greater freedom must come with greater accountability.
“Abuse of the freedom to the detriment of the community and nation must have its consequences.”
Singapore remains an authoritarian state with strict curbs on freedom of expression, assembly, and association; denial of due process rights; draconian defamation laws; and tight controls on independent political activity. Since 1959 the ruling People's Action Party (PAP) has won all elections.
Internal security and criminal laws permit prolonged detention of suspects without trial. Caning is obligatory for certain categories of crimes, as is the death penalty for others. Although reforms have improved employment conditions for some of the country's 180,000 migrant domestic workers, the government still fails to guarantee them basic rights.
Freedom of Expression and Assembly
Singapore's constitution guarantees freedom of assembly and expression, though parliament can and does limit both on security, public order, and morality grounds. Opposition politicians and their supporters are at constant risk of prison and substantial fines for simply expressing their views.
On October 13, 2008, Singapore's High Court ruled that opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) Secretary General Dr. Chee Soon Juan and his sister, Chee Siok Chin, must pay Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and his son, Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, US$416,000 in damages for an article in the SDP's newsletter. The article had compared how the government is run to a scandal at a well-known charity. The ruling may bankrupt the SDP and permanently shut it down. Dr. Chee and Ms. Chee are already bankrupt because of previous defamation rulings against them.
In September 2008 the Lees also won a defamation suit against the Far Eastern Economic Review and its editor Hugo Restall for commentary on the same case. Damages had yet to be assessed at this writing. The government is also seeking contempt proceedings against the publisher and two editors of the Asian Wall Street Journal for editorial comments related to the case.
In May Dr. Chee and a colleague were fined for speaking in public without a permit during the 2006 election campaign. They were charged with trying to sell copies of the SDP newsletter on a Singapore street.
Movies, music, and video games are routinely censored in Singapore. The Media Development Authority controls website licensing. In May 2008 the authority interrupted a private screening, sponsored by the SDP, of the video One Nation Under Lee.
The Newspaper and Printing Presses Act requires that locally published newspapers renew their licenses each year, and empowers authorities to limit the circulation of foreign publications deemed to "be engaging in the domestic politics of Singapore."
How far Singapore's leadership will loosen curbs on assembly and expression, as Prime Minister Loong suggested in August 2008, remains to be seen. The only step taken in 2008 was the government's decision in September to rescind the need for police permission for gatherings and rallies of more than four people at a popular park site officially labeled the Speaker's Corner. Race and religion still may not be publicly discussed, police may still intervene on public order grounds, and a permit is still required elsewhere in the city.
In March, on World Consumer Rights Day, police stopped a protest against rising prices outside Parliament House. The organizers, among them Dr. Chee, had been refused a permit; 18 protesters have since been charged with illegal assembly and procession. A day after the attempted rally, the non-political Consumer Association of Singapore was able to hold a public event without incident.
Due Process
Singapore's Internal Security Act (ISA), Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLA), Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), and Undesirable Publications Act permit arrest and detention of suspects without a warrant or judicial review. Both the ISA and the CLA also authorize preventive detention. The MDA permits the Central Narcotics Bureau chief to send suspected drug users for rehabilitation without recourse to trial.
The ISA is used against suspected Islamist militants, many of whom have been detained for long periods without trial. There is no right to challenge detention on substantive grounds. As of April 2008 some 30 suspected Muslim militants were being held, almost all members of Jemaah Islamiah. Another 25-30 former detainees live under restriction orders.
Caning
Singapore's penal code mandates caning combined with imprisonment for some 30 offenses, including drug and immigration felonies. It is discretionary for other offenses. Courts reportedly sentenced 6,404 men and boys to caning in 2007, some 95 percent of whose sentences were carried out.
Death Penalty
Although death penalty statistics are secret in Singapore, available information indicates that it has one of the world's highest per capita execution rates. In December 2007 Singapore joined with 53 other states in voting against a nonbinding UN General Assembly resolution calling for "a moratorium on executions with a view to abolishing the death penalty." Earlier, Singapore's home affairs minister, referring to the law's deterrent effects, commented that "there is no room to go soft."
Migrant Domestic Workers
Singapore's labor laws exclude some 180,000 migrant domestic workers from key protections guaranteed to other workers, such as a weekly day off, limits on working hours, annual leave, paid holidays, and caps on salary deductions. In May 2008 acting Minister for Manpower Gan Kim Yong said it was unnecessary to mandate a weekly rest day. He instead supported the current standard contract provision that provides for at least one day off a month or compensatory pay. However, many employers forbid domestic workers to take a rest day; their isolation and employers' power to have them deported at will make it difficult if not impossible for them to bargain effectively for their due.
The government has prosecuted some employers who physically abuse domestic workers and imposed penalties on labor recruitment agencies for unethical practices. However it has failed to regulate exploitative recruitment charges that can consume a third or more of workers' two-year wage total.
Privacy
In October 2007 Singapore's parliament rejected a proposal to repeal law 377A, which bans private and consensual sexual relations between men. Although prosecutions are rare, those found in violation can be jailed for up to two years on charges of "gross indecency."
In April 2008 the Media Development Authority fined a local television station for featuring a gay couple and their baby under regulations that prohibit promotion of gay lifestyles. It also fined a cable network for airing a commercial that showed two women kissing.
Human Rights Defenders
State laws and political repression effectively prevent the establishment of human rights organizations and deter individuals from speaking out publicly against government policies.
Unless they are registered as political parties, associations may not engage in any activities the government deems political. Trade unions are under the same restrictions and are banned from contributing to political parties or using their funds for political purposes. Most unions are affiliated with the umbrella National Trade Union Congress, which does not allow members supportive of opposition parties to hold office.
Key International Actors
Singapore is a key member of the Southeast Asia Regional Centre for Counter-Terrorism, along with the US, Malaysia, and others, and is an active participant in regional and sub-regional security issues. It is also an important financial and banking center for Southeast Asia.
In February 2008 Singapore Foreign Minister George Yong-Boon Yeo, then chair of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), expressed ASEAN's concern about the conditions under which Burma's constitutional referendum took place. Since July 2008, after Singapore's term as chair of ASEAN ended, the government has shown more support for Burma's government, even refusing to renew residency permits for Burmese citizens who appear to have taken part in peaceful activities critical of Burmese government policies.
This blogpost (or my twitter) will be updated if i get any news.
Plainclothes police officers keep watch and block a demonstration placard by standing in front of activists (wearing red t-shirts) during a two-man protest in Singapore January 12, 2009. The activists were protesting against what they say is unfair treatment of Singapore-based Myanmar nationals who took part in a mass demonstration in front of the Myanmar embassy here last year during the country's vote on a constitutional referendum. REUTERS/Vivek Prakash (SINGAPORE)
Police officers escort an arrested activist during a two-man-protest in Singapore January 12, 2009. Two activists were protesting against what they say is unfair treatment of Singapore-based Myanmar nationals who took part in a mass demonstration in front of the Myanmar embassy here last year during the country's vote on a constitutional referendum. REUTERS/Vivek Prakash (SINGAPORE)
Two activists, Seelan Palay and Chong Kai Xiong, were arrested at around 1pm for staging a protest outside the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) Building over the non-renewals of Burmese work permits.
The activists, who were decked in red T-shirts, were holding placards.
The activists were arrested on grounds of trespassing.
More updates will be posted when available.
More Burmese facing expulsion from Singapore
Seelan Palay
Yet another two Burmese nationals working in Singapore have fallen victim to the Government for their support of the pro-democracy movement in their home country.
In the latest development, Singapore’s Manpower Ministry is refusing to renew the work permits of Mr Moe Kyaw Thu, 35 and Mr Win Kyaw, 38, who had both worked here for 11 years each. Moe is a construction supervisor and Win, a technical supervisor.
This drastic turn of events resulted from the two men’s involvement in highlighting human rights abuses by the Burmese military junta following its crackdown of the pro-democracy movement in Rangoon led by monks in September last year.
Moe in particular appealed to MOM reiterating that he has no police record of any kind and he has fully respected the laws of Singapore while working here.
Both men have participated in the activities of the Overseas Burmese Patriots (OBP), an advocacy group formed in Singapore after the military crackdown. The group was involved in organizing and conducting a series of public campaigns in Singapore against the Burmese regime.
One of the activities was when over 40 Burmese, assembled in groups of four, held a peaceful protest along Orchard Road on 20 Nov 07 during the ASEAN Summit in nearby Shangri-la Hotel.
Following the event, the group was accused by the Singapore Government of deliberately breaking local laws. Its members were given a police warning for their participation in the protest. But none of the Burmese activists were ever charged with any unlawful act while pursuing their political objectives.
The hands of the PAP Government first became apparent in September this year when three members of the OBP were expelled when their work permits or residence in Singapore came up for renewal.
Deputy Prime Minister and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng defended the Government’s action then, stating that the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority “considers this small group to be undesirable persons and rightly decided they should leave.”
In the ongoing saga, despite their employers wanting to retain them, Moe and Win have been ordered to leave Singapore by the end of January 2009.
“If they send me back, my family will suffer greatly. I’d have to spend the rest of my life in prison.” said Moe.
The latest expulsions go against the sympathy and support that Burmese pro-democracy activists receive throughout the world. The inhumane act of the Singapore Government is an indirect endorsement of the murderous Burmese junta.
seelanpalay@gmail.com
Post update at 0110hrs, 13 Jan 09:
I went to see Seelan & Kai Xiong at the police cantonment complex yesterday evening. By the time i got there about 6.30pm they were already released on bail. Both have to report back on 26 Jan. I met up with them and a couple of other friends later at Serangoon for dinner. Sgpolitics has photos of them after their release.
Not surprisingly, the Ministries of Manpower & Home Affairs issued a joint statement putting their usual spin on things.
There will be a candlelight vigil from 8pm, Wednesday 17 December 2008 outside Queenstown Remand Prison for the three jailed citizens – activists Isrizal Mohamed Isa and Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi Sariman, and the Assistant Secretary-General of the SDP, John Tan. They were convicted for contempt of court for wearing t-shirts bearing only an image in and around the New Supreme Court Building whilst another hearing was going on in May 2008. This was interpreted to have scandalised the Singapore Judiciary.
The charges were brought against the three in the Attorney-General's capacity as the "Guardian of the Public Interest" (as recorded in the submissions made by the AG). Contempt of court is a serious charge with consequences that impinge upon the fundamental liberty of a person, and this power of the Courts should be exercised with great wisdom. Given that the matter was pursued 4 to 5 months after the fact; and that the sentences passed (7 days in jail for Isrizal and Shafi'ie, 15 days for John as well as each being ordered to be pay costs of $5000 plus disbursements to the Attorney-General) are one of the heaviest sentences, did it really serve the public interest to have theses cases brought to court? If it is indeed such a grave public interest issue, was there anything else that could have been done to resolve the matter more efficiently and effectively? Perhaps they could have been warned on the day of the incident itself, or stopped, or had the t-shirts confiscated. Instead state resources have been ploughed into putting these brave souls, who did not apologise based on reasons of conscience and convictions, behind bars.
The vigil will be a show of solidarity and support, as well as to welcome Isrizal and Shafi'ie, who will be released the next morning (Thursday, 18 December) at 9.30am. Regrettably, John would still be serving his sentence, which would have commenced on 16 December 2008.
KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 25, 2008 (IPS) - Singapore’s embattled human rights lawyer and leading anti-death penalty campaigner, Ravi Madasamy, intends to defend his reputation "all the way" to the highest courts after being released on bail for allegedly causing a disturbance at a mosque.
On Aug 11, a Singapore judge ordered Ravi to be examined by the Institute of Mental Health after police arrested him on charges of harassment and causing a public disturbance during a prayer session.
Ravi, 40, who was discharged from the hospital earlier this month, remains on bail facing a possible three-year prison sentence, if found guilty.
Ravi has strenuously denied the charges and dismissed prosecution suggestions about his mental health. He represented himself in court as no lawyer in Singapore was prepared to take up his case.
Only a small group of committed local rights activists have rallied to his defence. The country’s Law Society, which took him to court for allegedly disrespecting a judge, leading to a one-year practicing suspension in 2007, has distanced itself from the case.
"I am saddened but I will continue my mission," Ravi told IPS. "The environment is increasingly tough and dangerous."
Charles Hector, a prominent Malaysian human rights lawyer, described Ravi as "a victim of state repression".
"The Malaysian Bar is closely monitoring his plight," Hector told IPS. "He is a defender of human rights and we are very concerned. We are taking up his victimisation internationally.
"The Singapore authorities should immediately end the persecution and respect Ravi’s right to free expression and advocacy to end mandatory death penalty."
Ravi has led a virtually one-man international campaign to save death row prisoners facing execution by hanging, mostly for drug trafficking in Singapore. He has also fought, in the courts and outside, to defend dissidents, persecuted opposition politicians, lawmakers and human rights activists. As a result he has been vilified and severely criticised by Singapore’s government-controlled mainstream media and often accused of being a publicity seeker.
"I face numerous other problems arising out of my activism," Ravi told IPS.
"With all the happenings I came under tremendous pressure. Because of the mounting problems my pace has slackened but my resolve is the same. I will press on to enlighten Singaporeans on the horrors of the death penalty. People should know that mandatory death penalty [impelling judges to sentence people to death in capital convictions] is a step backwards into a barbaric era. We must campaign and people should want to end it."
Ravi, who is also an author and manager of the anti-death penalty website Hung at Dawn first gained prominence in mid-2005 for trying to save death row inmate Shanmugam Murugesu, who was sentenced to death for possession of 1 kg of marijuana.
Murugesu, 38, a former military veteran and Singaporean civil servant, was arrested in August 2003 for carrying six packets of marijuana in his bags when returning home from Malaysia.
Under Singapore law, the death penalty is mandatory for possession of 500 gm of marijuana and 2 gm of heroin.
Before Murugesu’s execution on May 13, Ravi and a few supporters organised a three-hour vigil at a hall in the Furama Hotel. "It was the first time citizens had organised to speak against the arbitrary, biased and discriminatory death penalty law," Ravi said. "It was an eye opener for us all."
In 2004, Singapore, with a population of 4.3 million, had the highest per capita rate of state executions in the world, according to Amnesty International. From then on, Ravi represented other death row inmates in court. He also travelled the world speaking out against state repression and the mandatory death penalty in Singapore.
A colleague, requesting strict confidentiality, said police placed Ravi under strict surveillance. "They followed him, took photographs and filed reports," he told IPS. "The relentless scrutiny caused Ravi tremendous personal and professional stress."
Although on bail, Ravi has resumed practicing law until his trial date is set.
Last year, Singapore carried out two executions and sentenced two people to death, according to Amnesty. This is the synopsis of Hung at Dawn, a book by M Ravi, published in 2005,
On what first seemed like just another day, a young Malaysian commuter-worker was arrested in Singapore in September 2001, a nation which has the highest per capita execution in the world (according to 2004 report by Amnesty International). The charge: drug-dealing. He had just handed an undercover narcotics agent a small bag packed with 27.65g of heroin and received $8,000 in return. But was he really a drug-dealer? The young man swore his innocence, insisting that he was only doing a favor for an old family friend, who had asked him to pass along some religious incense to an associate and collect some money from him.
From there, the young man went on a rapid plunge downward through the dark hole of a system he had little understanding of. He found himself facing a mandatory death penalty for dealing drugs and was dragged quickly through the few stages the Singapore justice system allows between arrest and execution: trial, the single appeal, and the clemency plea to the president – all to no avail.
The story might have ended right there for this young man, as it has for so many others found guilty of capital crimes in Singapore. It would have if not for a veteran human rights activist and a young lawyer who took up the cause and brought the young Malaysian's fight into legal areas never before dared in this tightly regulated city-state.
Hung At Dawn is the true story of the desperate fight to save this young man from a possible miscarriage of justice, veering around and leaping over all the roadblocks the legal system here sets up. It also tells the story of a second, even more well-known case the young lawyer fought in defence of a convicted drug-dealer two years later. This tale, also true in every detail, involves a charismatic figure who had risen from grinding poverty to become a kind of national hero in Singapore (having won a medal in the Jet-Ski World Championship), only to fall when personal problems led him to start using and dealing in soft drugs. Caught at a border crossing, this former hero was sentenced to die for possession of just over 1 kilo of cannabis!
The latter part of Hung At Dawn looks at the unprecedented campaign which Guardian described as a “high profile campaign” in their report entitled “Singapore finally finds a voice in death row protest”. To save this man's life, a campaign that stretched beyond the courts into the streets to engage the general Singapore public and brought together a wide coalition of people galvanized by this particular case and the wider struggle to bring Singapore's drug laws more into line with international humane standards.
I just received this piece of news from a friend who attended the sentencing today of the "kangaroo court" activists.
John Tan has been sentenced to 15 days imprisonment. Shafi'ie and Isrizal have been sentenced to 7 days each. Furthermore, they each have to pay S$5,000 costs to the Attorney-General. Their jail term begins mid-December.
SINGAPORE, Nov 27 (Reuters) - Three Singaporeans were jailed on Thursday after being charged with contempt of court for showing up at Singapore's Supreme Court wearing T-shirts depicting kangaroos in judges robes.
Isrizal Bin Mohamed Isa and Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi Bin Sariman were sentenced to seven days' jail, while Tan Liang Joo John received 15 days imprisonment. They were each ordered to pay S$5,000 in costs.
Tan is the Assistant Secretary-General of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party, led by Chee Soon Juan.
The three had worn the T-shirts at a court hearing in May to determine the damages that Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin were to pay after being found guilty of defaming Singapore Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and former leader Lee Kuan Yew.
Singapore's attorney-general said in bringing the case to court the trio had "scandalised the Singapore judiciary".
Singapore bans gatherings and protests in all public areas without a permit except Speakers' Corner, the country's equivalent of the historic free-speech haven in London's Hyde Park.
Updated 10am, 28 Nov: According to this report by TODAY,
Yesterday, the trio sought to start their jail terms at a later date. Justice Prakash gave time for Mr Isrizal to settle his personal affairs and for Mr Shafi’ie to complete his basic military training. They were ordered to surrender themselves on Dec 12.
Mr Tan sought to start his jail term four weeks later as he was “thinking of the possibility of an appeal”. Mr Tan, who represented himself, said he would need to seek legal advice to weigh his options. Justice Prakash ordered Mr Tan to surrender himself on Dec 18.
ONE of six people charged with attempting to hold a public processsion without a permit has pleaded guilty.
Jeffrey George, 44, was part of a group that allegedly tried to hold a procession at the Speaker's Corner in 2006 when the International Monetary Fund and World Bank were holding meetings here.
Four of the six - Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan, 46; his sister Chee Siok Chin, 42; Teoh Tian Jin, 23; and Yap Keng Ho, 47 - have pleaded not guilty to the charge.
The other individual, Gandhi Ambalam, 65, did not enter a plea.
George faces a fine of up to $1,000 and his guilty plea is being dealt with at a separate hearing this afternoon.
Earlier, at the hearing held in the morning in the Subordinate Court, the Chees, Yap and Gandhi complained about an amendment made to the charge against them.
They were unhappy that the prosecution amended the charge from 'holding the public procession' to 'attempting to hold the public procession'.
The group, who are representing themselves, pointed out that this was done just a week before the trial started.
They argued that this caused difficulties in preparing for their defence and asked the court to give them more time.
The first day of the trial of six SDP members and activists was adjourned. The defendants wanted more time to prepare the case because the prosecution had amended the charge at the last minute.
"What is amazing is the fact that only two days ago, the Prosecution decided to amend the charge when the matter happened more than two years ago," noted Mr Gandhi.
The Judge gave the defendants the rest of the day to seek legal advice on the amended charges.
The adjournment was also needed for Mr Jeffrey George to plead guilty in another courtroom. Mr George had applied to the court for him to be tried separately because of his overseas work commitment, which remained incomplete.
"If my case can be postponed till after this job is done, I will come back and face trial," he told District Judge Toh Yoon Cheong.
Judge Toh rejected his request and insisted that Mr George stand trial immediately. That left Mr George no option but to plead guilty because he needed to return to work the same afternoon.
Mr Jeffrey's case was then transferred to another court before District Judge Liew Thian Leng who fined him a total of S$1,300 for two charges, the present one and another for distributing flyers in September 2006.
In a statement, Mr Jeffrey said: "I am pleading guilty as there are no alternative avenues open to me. First I tried to postpone the trial or have a separate trial for me but both requests were rejected by DJ Toh. I put up the two requests because of my work commitments outside Singapore. I'm half-way through on a contract job in Peninsula Malaysia.
"My pleading guilty comes after I have exhausted all avenues. My guilty plea should in no way be interpreted as changing my views on challenging some of the unjust laws deliberately kept in place by the ruling party to prohibit peaceful assemblies and association.
"I will continue to defy unjust laws that trample upon my constitutional rights under Article 14. I take this opportunity to express my complete solidarity with my brave colleagues who are standing up for civil liberties and the rule of law."
Earlier the defendants applied to be tried separately from Mr Yap Keng Ho who was not part of the protest group. Mr Yap also wanted a separate trial because he said he was there as an observer, not a participant. The judge overruled this and said that the defendants would all be tried in a joint trial.
Even before the trial against the 18 Tak Boleh Tahan protesters is concluded, another hearing will begin on Wednesday, 26 Nov 08. This one involves six defendants who were part of a protest during the World Bank-IMF Meeting in September 2006.
Mr Gandhi Ambalam, Dr Chee Soon Juan, Ms Chee Siok Chin, Mr Jeffrey George, Mr Charles Tan, and Mr Teoh Tian Jing were initially charged for participating in a procession without a permit from Speakers' Corner to Parliament House.
However the charge was suddenly amended at the last minute (yesterday) to "did attempt to participate" in a procession.
The police had blocked the protesters at Hong Lim Park which resulted in a three-day stand off. The Government had also banned all groups from conducting protests during the Meeting which sparked off widespread criticism of the Singapore Government for not respecting freedom of speech and assembly.
The World Bank also chastised the Government for reneging on its promise to allow 28 accredited NGO representatives to attend the Meeting. Then WB president Paul Wolfowitz angrily raised the issue with Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong saying "Enormous damage has been done...A lot of that damage has been to Singapore and it's self-inflicted."
Mr Lee backed-down and decided to allow 22 of the representatives in. But the activists boycotted the Meeting and refused to attend.
The charge
You are charged that you on 16 September 2006 at about 12 noon, at Speakers' Corner, Hong Lim Park, North Canal Road, Singapore, which is a public place...did attempt to participate in procession from Speakers Corner to Parliament House intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government, when you ought reasonably to have known that the intended procession would have been held without a permit under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) (Assemblies and Processions) Rules (Cap 184), and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under rule 5 of the said rules read with section 511 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).
Rule 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) (Assemblies and Processions) Rules - Any person who participates in any assembly or procession in any public road, public place or place of public resort shall, if he knows or ought reasonably to have known that the assembly or procession is held without a permit, or in contravention of any term or condition of a permit, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.
Section 511 of the Penal Code - Whoever attempts to commit an offence punishable by this Code or by any other written law with imprisonment or fine or with a combination of such punishments, or attempts to cause such an offence to be committed, and in such attempt does any act towards the commission of the offence, shall, where no express provision is made by this Code or by such other written law, as the case may be, for the punishment of such attempt, be punished with such punishment as is provided for the offence: Provided that any term of imprisonment imposed shall not exceed one-half of the longest term provided for the offence.
The news that John Tan, Shafi'ie and Isrizal (left to right in the picture) have been found in contempt of court is hardly surprising. Doesn't mean i'm not very disappointed and angered. (Sentencing is on 27 Nov, 9.30am, Court 6B)
The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) actions are akin to a big schoolyard bully. Ask such bullies to take on someone their own size and they'll either keep quiet or back away. That's probably the reason why they don't go after the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute for their July 08 report or Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada for their Oct 07 report.
The following section is from yawning bread's article Conversation stoppers. Read the full article here.
With the advent of Walter Woon as Attorney-General, another conversation-stopper has been revived -– the contempt of court charge. Or was it in response to the sharp criticisms levelled by International Bar Associations' Human Rights Institute (IBAHRI) in its report published July this year?
The 72-page report had examined various instances over the years of questionable court decisions in political cases. It also put under the spotlight the fact that Supreme Court appointments often have no tenure, or are subject to renewal, which thus "casts doubt on the independence of all decisions made by judges."
The Wall Street Journal Asia, in covering this story, got into trouble for it.
Dow Jones, the newspaper's publisher, is currently facing contempt of court charges, together with editors Daniel Hertzberg and Christine Glancey. The Attorney-General's office claims that an editorial published in the newspaper, titled "Judging Singapore's Judiciary" alleged that the judiciary is "not independent" and "is biased and lacks integrity", as did another, titled "Democracy in Singapore". The latter was about on an exchange in court between Singapore’s Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Chee in a separate defamation case filed by Lee against the opposition leader.
Cited too was a letter to the editor by the opposition Singapore Democratic Party leader Chee Soon Juan, published in the daily on 9 July, touching also on the IBAHRI report.
Dow Jones issued a statement 4 November 2008, asserting their innocence and right to fair comment. "Today in court we defended our right to report and comment on matters of international interest, including matters concerning Singapore," it said.
"We also argued that in this instance, what we published simply does not constitute contempt of court."
Denying complaints that the court action was an infringement of free expression, Woon said the case was "not about the freedom of speech per se" but "about the rule of law and the vital role that the courts and judiciary play in its maintenance."
We'll come back to this later.
Not only are big media companies being charged with contempt of court, but so are intrepid activists John Tan, Isrizal Mohamed Isa and Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi Sariman. They are facing similar charges in a case separate from that of the Wall Street Journal, for wearing white T-shirts emblazoned with a grey kangaroo in judge's robes and holding a gavel. The prosecution alleges that in wearing such a T-shirt, they intended to convey the sense that Singapore courts are "kangaroo courts".
At the time, they were in the Supreme Court building to witness a hearing to assess damages against opposition leaders Chee Soon Juan, Chee Siok Chin and the Singapore Democratic Party, after the trio had been found by a court to have defamed Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
According to Today newspaper, at one point, John Tan uttered the words "This is a kangaroo court" as Lee Kuan Yew walked past him in the building.
What good do such prosecutions do? Woon argued that it was to protect the rule of law. But is it necessary to shield courts and judges from criticism to achieve this?
Is it totally inconceivable that judges can be biased, that executive interference can occur? Just look at some countries, say, China, India, Malaysia or Turkey. If it can happen there, it can happen here.
And when someone believes it is happening, should it not be said? How do you cure an ill if you're not even allowed to draw attention to it? Do we put our judges in the same class as God, the Prophet and the Koran, infallible, beyond question or demurral?
If we are so concerned about safeguarding the integrity of our justice system, then make sure our courts act with the utmost impartiality and never even give the appearance of susceptibility to undue influence.
Penalising people for saying that our courts do not meet expected standards does not improve justice. It's just a conversation stopper. A silencer. Some might say that resorting to it is an admission that one cannot win the debate on evidence alone, in other words, it just gives people more reason to believe what one is trying to deny.
Drop the charges before we make an even bigger joke of the system.
Thanks to my friend Rachel for informing me of this event via facebook. You can sign-up/log-in to view the event here or visit the worldwithoutwar.sg website.
The Vigil for peace in Sri Lanka will be held at Hong Lim Park aka Speakers' Corner on Nov 15 (Sat) and is scheduled to begin at 5pm and end at 7pm. From the event's facebook page,
The civil war in Sri Lanka is one of the world's deadliest ongoing armed conflicts, causing significant harm to the population, environment and severe damage to the economy of the country. Now 25 years running, it has claimed at least 215,000 lives and displaced more than 1.5 million people.
The possibility of a lasting peace was raised when a cease-fire agreement was signed with international mediation in 2002. However on January 2, 2008 the government formally announced withdrawal from the ceasefire agreement and the conflict has escalated to critical levels in the recent months. Donor countries such as the United States, Canada, and Norway have shown deep regrets on this decision by the Sri Lankan government.
On September 9, 2008, the Government of Sri Lanka ordered all aid agencies to leave the northern areas of conflict and take their equipment with them. UN agencies and international relief organizations including Oxfam, Save The Children and the Danish Refugee Council that have been delivering food and medical aid to nearly 200,000 refugees in the affected region started to pull out.
The international community must take decisive steps to pressure the Government of Sri Lanka to abandon the path of militarism and opt for a negotiated political settlement.
Join us at Speakers' Corner, Singapore on this day to light a candle and show your support for peace in Sri Lanka.
Visit BBC World News' page on Sri Lanka and Amnesty International's reports and statements on the conflict there. And here for my previous blogpost about a one-man demonstration.
This is a 2007 short film by Journeyman Pictures called Circle of Violence about the conflict in Sri Lanka. You can either watch the 27min film here in one go or below in 3-parts,
The trial for contempt of court against Mr John Tan, Mr Shafi'ie and Mr Isrizal will commence tomorrow at 10 am in Hight Court 6B. The three were charged for wearing T-shirts with a picture of a kangaroo. The hearing is expected to last from 4-6 Nov 08.
Attorney-General Walter Woon is asking for imprisonment or "other punishment as the court may impose", and for the cost of the legal action.
In meantime, the trial of the 18 Tak Boleh Tahan (TBT) activists in the Subordinate Courts has been adjourned because the contempt case was scheduled in the midst of the TBT trial (23 Oct 08-7 Nov 08) Mr Tan and Mr Shafi'ie are among the defendants.
The three are charged for wearing the T-shirts within and in the vicinity of the Supreme Court building when a hearing was being held before Judge Belinda Ang for the assessment of damages payable by Dr Chee Soon Juan, Ms Chee Siok Chin and the SDP to Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong.
In addition, Mr Tan is also cited for pointing to the picture of a kangaroo on his T-shirt and saying, "This is a kangaroo court" to Mr Lee Kuan Yew when the Minister Mentor walked past him outside the courtroom.
Mr Tan also pointed out that had it not been the Straits Times that first published the photograph with the "kangaroo three" and the current legal actions from the AG, the wearing of the T-shirts itself would never have impugned the reputation of the Singapore Judiciary.
Also starting tomorrow is the trial of Dow Jones, which publishes Wall Street Journal Asia (WSJA), Mr Daniel Hertzberg, Editor of WSJA, and Ms Christine Glancey, Managing Editor of WSJA.
The AG's Chambers are accusing the newspaper of alleging that the Singapore Judiciary is not independent, and that it is biased and lacks integrity by publishing three articles involving Dr Chee Soon Juan.
Jacob's update on 5 Nov, 0100hrs: The kangaroo t-shirts trial has been adjourned till Nov 24.Read about the adjournment, and a letter with regards to John Tan's suspension, here.
James Cook University (JCU) has suspended Mr John Tan from his position as a lecturer. This is because Mr Tan, who is also the assistant secretary-general of the Singapore Democrats, is being charged with contempt of court by Attorney-General Walter Woon.
Mr Tan was informed of the decision on 21 Oct 08 when he was called in to the Dean's office and abruptly handed the letter informing him that he was suspended with immediate effect.
Mr Tan subsequently went to see Dr Dale Anderson, CEO of JCU. In that meeting, Dr Anderson showed Mr Tan an email that was sent to the university by a "Collin Lim".
The CEO admitted that he did not know who this Collin Lim was or if he was, in fact, a student at the university. The email noted Mr Tan's political activities and said that the psychology lecturer was associated with Dr Chee Soon Juan.
Dr Anderson also drew Mr Tan's attention to the fact that Collin had copied the email to the Minister for Education, Dr Ng Eng Hen.
When Mr Tan appealed to the academic principles of JCU, Dr Anderson replied that "half of the school is owned by Singapore" and implied that there was nothing he could do because he was under the employment of Singapore.
In response, 28 of Mr Tan's students and former students wrote letters of support of Mr Tan to the university to which Dr Anderson replied: "I cannot enter into a discussion on this matter until it is clear of court action."
The suspension is completely out of order for the following reasons:
* Mr Tan has not yet been convicted of the charge. The trial begins only tomorrow, 4 Nov 08. He was suspended on 21 Oct. * The action appears to have been triggered by an email complaint that cited Mr Tan's association with Dr Chee Soon Juan and which was copied to Dr Ng Eng Hen. * The suspension stayed despite an appeal by Mr Tan citing testimony from 28 of his students that he had gone about his work in a professional manner.
It is clear from the above that the University acted out of fear of the Singapore Government and suspended Mr John Tan for reasons other than academic considerations.
JCU's action is disgraceful on several counts. First, it has completely and utterly failed to uphold and protect academic principles and the rights of its employees.
Second, it jumped the gun by suspending Mr Tan before his conviction. The letter of suspension cites the AG taking contempt proceedings and not conviction.
Third, even if Mr Tan is convicted, does the university not have the obligation to protect the free speech of its employees?
Fourth, why was Mr Tan's attention drawn to the reference to Dr Ng Eng Hen? Is this not an indication that the suspension was politically motivated?
Would JCU have behaved in a similar way towards its academics back home in Australia? If not, how can the university claim to provide quality education to Singaporean students if it is so fearful of the Singapore Government? Is JCU in Singapore just to make money regardless of the type of education it provides or does it value academic freedom?
The university is based in Queensland but has campuses in Brisbane and Singapore.
And lastly a video. See here and here for my earlier posts on the trial of the tak boleh tahan activists.
He may not be locked in combat in Iraq but he is arguably the most courageous soldier in Singapore today.
Recruit Muhammad Shafi'ie, the youngest among the Tak Boleh Tahan (TBT) activists, faces two trials in as many weeks: one for protesting against escalating cost of living in front of the Parliament House on 15 March this year and the other for contempt of court.
The 19-year old Singapore Polytechnic engineering graduate is currently a National Serviceman in the army at the Pulau Tekong Camp undergoing his Basic Military Training (BMT).
Mr Shafi'ie is now into his seventh of his 13-week BMT. He commutes between camp and the Subordinate Courts to join his fellow activists in the on-going trial.
"Everyday, I leave Pulau Tekong at seven in the morning by ferry to reach the jetty at Changi from where I head straight to the court to face the trial," he said.
Regarding the TBT protest, Mr Shafi'ie said: "In the year 2007, the GST was increased to 7% from the previous 5%. Following that, the public transport fees, tertiary education fees, the ERP, to name a few, were also increased. At around the same period of time, the highly paid ministers had another round of pay rise.
"It does not make sense that the government is taxing the population more and claiming that it is actually helping the citizens, by giving back a fraction of what is taken from us in the form of 'offset packages'. Where is our money actually going to?
"What I did on 15 March with 17 of my friends was to tell the government - Tak Boleh Tahan!"
What about his parents? They are, of course, worried about his involvement in political activism. In fact, his father was rather disappointed when Mr Shafi'ie pleaded not guilty to the current charges brought against him. Father probably wanted to get the matter over with so that his son could get out of actiivist work.
Asked why he was not pleading guilty and what he thought of the trial, the NSman said: "I don't think what we did on 15 March can be called a crime. We hurt no one and neither did we create any disorder. What we did was to express our concerns as citizens on issues that affect us deeply.
"In fact the Constitution states that citizens have the right to free speech, assembly and expression. These are basic rights, not privileges. So I don't understand why we are being charged for exercising our rights as citizens."
Through his steadfastness, Mr Shafi'ie is slowly changing his parents' minds. His mother attends the TBT trial in the subordinate court every day.
To the mild-mannered NSman, Mr Jufrie Mahmood (left, with Shafi'ie), seasoned opposition figure and fellow Tak Boleh Tahaner, has this to say:
"I hope that in the future, this land will be a more conducive and compassionate place for all. But before that can happen, we must correct the wrongdoings that are happening now. It is a responsibility, to ourselves and to the people around us.
"It is truly heartening to have a young man like you coming to the fore. I am sure there are many more like you out there waiting to be enlisted. You have started the ball rolling. Keep it going and keep up your spirits!
"It's a long, long haul indeed. But remember, a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step. The first few steps have been taken. If older members like myself don't make it to the end, we feel assured that youngsters like you will be there to continue on the journey. With true grit, we shall achieve, maybe sooner rather than later.
"As for myself, I will continue playing a supporting role and giving my two cents worth.
"We must persevere and have faith in what we are doing. To bring about change under the present political environment, we just cannot afford to follow the ineffective old formula year in and year out.
"Though we are much maligned now by the establishment and the local media, the day will come when we will be exonerated. The truth will inevitably emerge."
Mr Shafi'ie will face another trial together with Mr John Tan and Mr Isrizal next week in the High Court over contempt of court charges from 4-6 Nov 08. The three were charged with wearing T-shirts bearing a picture of a kangaroo in a judge's gown.
I went down to Hong Lim Park today morning to see the fast by Mr Thamilmarain. He was fasting to call attention to the innocent & helpless children, women & men who are dying in Tamil Eelam Sri Lanka, for peace in Sri Lanka and for peace talks to take place.
These are some photos i took while i was there. Click on the photos to view larger versions. See also Seelan's blogpost.
Mr Thamilmarain speaking to TOC. Click here for TOC's video.
Police drop-in.The man standing next to them is Mr Thamil's friend, Mr Raja, who was there to support him.
These next 5 photos show the police checking Mr Thamil's registration with NParks and his particulars. At one stage, out of curiosity I clarified with the police why they had to do this when they could get the details themselves from NParks and whether this was normal procedure. I told the police i was asking because there have been other events at Speakers Corner where the police didn't come up to the speaker(s) and/or demonstrator(s) and do such things. One of the police chaps replied it was just normal for them to check.
In this next photo, the police approach three foreign workers who were also there to see and support the fast. I took the photos showing the police questioning these foreign workers. But i'm not publishing them here, save for this photo, because even though the workers were just there to see & support the fast and talk to Mr Thamil, I do not want my photos of them to be the cause of any trouble for these foreign workers and their livelihood. Getting back to this photo, the police asked the three workers for their particulars, especially their work permits, and their reasons for being there. The three workers left after that.
After the police were done, they left and met NParks officials who arrived in a green NParks van.
These NParks officials hung around observing the fast from a distance.
I received an sms earlier about an event tomorrow at Speakers' Corner,
A silent fast on Mon 27 Oct 2008 from 9am - 7pm at Speakers Corner for those innocent & helpless children, women & men who are dying in Tamil Eelam Sri Lanka. Please support this cause for peace and justice by going down and visiting the protestor Mr Thamilmaraian tomorrow.
By sheer coincidence i uploaded a post, about a 2007 documentary called A World of Conflict, on my other blog a couple of minutes before i received the message. The conflict in Sri Lanka was one of the conflicts covered,
As conflicts go, there are many sides to the story. Visit the International Crisis Group's page on Sri Lanka for more detailed information about the conflict there.
I wanted to go down and show my support but was unable to do so. Among other things, I've been having excruciating pain emanating from my backbone. Possibly an inflammation. Damn pain's a killer!! I'll probably be away from my PC for the next two days or so after this blogpost.
Here's a report from the Singapore Democrats' website of the first day's proceedings. The trial's scheduled to last till 7 Nov 2008.
The courtroom was packed with the accused persons as well as members of the public who had turned up to watch the trial of 18 persons charged for taking part in a protest on 15 Mar 08.
The morning started off with Mr Ng E-jay pleading guilty to the charge of taking part in an assembly outside Parliament House. The second charge of participating in a procession was taken into consideration. Mr Ng was subsequently fined $600.
The defendants then insisted that they be given copies of the video footage that the prosecution had said that it was going to introduce as part of the evidence.
Mr Chia Ti Lik informed the court that he had written to the AG's Chambers (AGC) that the defendants be allowed to view the police DVD. This was back in 8 Sep 08.
Dr Chee Soon Juan added that on 7 Oct 08, he had reminded the prosecution at a pre-trial conference (PTC) about the video. The PTC judge had asked the AGC to expedite matters and release the video to the defendants.
Just three days before the trial, the prosecution called a few of the defendants that they could view the tapes at the Police Cantonment Complex. Why the dragging of feet? And why were not all the defendants informed?
When pressed today in court Deputy Public Prosecutor Mr Isaac Tan told the court that the prosecution had not made up its mind whether it would use the video as evidence!
The hearing was then stood down for the AGC to make up its mind about the video and to process Mr Ng E-jay's fine.
Lunch break at Hong Lim park
When the hearing resumed at 3:30 pm, the court clerk spent the next 1 hour and 45 minutes reading out the charges to each of the defendants.
When it came to Mr Jufrie Mahmood, the officer asked him what language Mr Jufrie wanted the charge to be read in.
"English," the veteran oppositionist replied.
After the charges were read out, the clerk asked him: "Do you understand the charge?"
"I understand what was read out to me," Mr Jufrie replied, "what I don't understand is why are we being charged. You see groups of tourists and other people everyday in front of Parliament. Why are they all not charged?"
All the defendants then asked that Mr Yap Keng Ho be tried separately as he was not part of the Tak Boleh Tahan campaign. Mr Yap made the same application and wanted to be tried separately.
The judge dismissed the application and insisted that the trial include Mr Yap.
Towards the end of the day, Mr Jeffrey George asked for his trial to be adjourned so that he could return to his contract work. Mr George is a oil-rig engineer.
The judge rejected his application.
"Can I then be excused from the hearing? I give my undertaking that I will abide by all the decisions made by the court."
The judge, too, rejected this application.
In the end, Mr George pleaded guilty as this was the only way for him to get back to his work. He was fined $1,200.
The hearing continues tomorrow at 9:30 am in Subordinate Court 5 before Distrct Judge Chia Wee Kiat.
Click here to read the report Prosperity versus individual rights? Human rights, democracy and the rule of law in Singapore by the International Bar Association Human Rights Institute. Click here for their statement.
Click here to read the report Rule of Law in Singapore: Independence of the Judiciary and the Legal Profession in Singapore by Lawyers' Rights Watch Canada.
Posts
