Chee Soon Juan responds to Chief Justice, Attorney-General & Law Minister

Chee responds to CJ, AG and Law Minister
Singapore Democrats, 6 Jan 2009

Mr Chan Sek Keong
Chief Justice

Mr Walter Woon
Attorney-General

Mr K Shanmugam
Minister for Law

Dear sirs,

Your speeches during the opening of the legal year were unmistakable references to my colleagues and I. Yet, like Mr Lee Kuan Yew, you did not deign to mention us by name. This is rather impolite, if not altogether puerile.

Be that as it may, allow me to address the points that you raised.

Mr Chan says that "the mission of the courts requires that its authority be respected by all" and that this respect is "fundamental and critical to the rule of law." Amen.

What you fail to state, however, is that the rule of law is not just a system where the government passes legislation and everyone unquestioningly obeys. The concept of the rule of law necessitates the limitation of state power and the respect of human rights.

Our Constitution spells out what these limitations are. It also defines the rights of the citizen.

Are citizens treated equally under the law?

Of importance are two fundamental articles. Let me start with Article 12 which says that "all persons are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of the law."

Is everyone in Singapore treated equally under the law? The question is highlighted by two recent protests: One was conducted by the Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) and the other by Tak Boleh Tahan activists. Both were conducted outside Parliament House, both involved displaying placards, both were commemorating the same occasion (Consumer Rights Day) and both involved persons wearing t-shirts bearing a slogan. The difference is that CASE is run by PAP MPs whereas the TBT protest was made up of human rights defenders.

While CASE was allowed to conduct its activity, my TBT associates and I were arrested and now face prosecution.

It could be that CASE, being affiliated with the Government, does not require a permit because under the Rule 2(1) (f) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act "any assembly or procession held by or under the direction or control of the Government" is exempt from a permit.

But herein lies the rub. Is such a Rule valid under Article 12 of the Constitution which expressly says that all persons are equal before the law?

Or it could be that CASE may have had a permit to conduct its protest, in which instance arises the question: Why was a permit granted to CASE but not to TBT?

Can the Government ban protests outright?

The discrmination between CASE and TBT is especially salient when the Minister for Home Affairs Wong Kan Seng said in Parliament that he has "stopped short of allowing outdoor and street demonstrations."

With reference to Article 14 – which states that "every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression" and that "all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms" – does the Minister have the power to ban outdoor demonstrations in the first place and even if he does, why did he not apply the law equally to CASE?

Remember Article 4 unambiguously states that: "This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void."

These questions need to be examined by the Judiciary which has a sacred duty to ensure that, one, laws introduced by the Government do not violate the Constitution and, two, that they are not used to discriminate against certain groups of citizens.

Laws cannot be passed or applied will-nilly to buttress the power of the ruling party while suppressing the political opposition and civil society. When the ruling party imposes and enacts such unjust laws, the judiciary must intervene to protect the rights of the citizenry.

This is, in essence, what constitutes the rule of law. Absent such a judicial function, the rule of law is just a buzz phrase used to prop up a facade.

What other chief justices say

Your counterparts in democratic jurisdictions where the rule of law is genuinely practiced all acknowledge this aspect of the judiciary's role vis-a-vis the rule of law.

The former Chief Justice of India, Mr P N Bhagwatie, noted that "The judiciary is one such institution on which rests the noble edifice of democracy and the rule of law. It is to the judiciary that is entrusted the task of keeping every organ of the State within the limits of power conferred upon it by the Constitution...It is the solemn function of the judiciary to ensure that no constitutional or legal functionary or authority acts beyond the limits of its power nor that there be any abuse or misuse of power."

Former UK Lord Chief Justice Bingham said: "The rule of law must, surely, require legal protection of such human rights as, within that society, are seen as fundamental. It is that ministers and public officers at all levels must exercise the powers conferred on them reasonably, in good faith, for the purpose for which the powers were conferred and without exceeding the limits of such powers."

UK Lord Chancellor Irvine in the House of Lords determined that "Any system of law under which the individual was convicted and made subject to a criminal penalty for breach of an unlawful byelaw would be inconsistent with the rule of law...If subordinate legislation is ultra vires on any basis, it is unlawful and of no effect in law."

Canada's Chief Justice, Madam Beverly McLachlin, wrote that "Judges must resist...making 'law' out of what cannot be just, and hence, in a profound sense, cannot be legal. To do otherwise is to allow injustice to hide itself under the cloak of false legality."

Sadly, I am reminded of your opinion as Attorney-General, as you then were, in the aftermath of the elections in 1997. PAP ministers, including the prime minister, had entered polling stations without authorisation. You explained, with excruciating logic, that under the Parliamentary Elections Act "unauthorised entry into or presence within a polling station" is not an offence.

Worse, you concluded that "those unauthorised persons who only wait or loiter inside a polling station on polling day do not commit any offence under the Act."

And yet the Act clearly states the presiding officer shall "exclude all other persons except the candidates, the polling agent or agents of each candidate, the Returning Officer and persons authorised in writing by the Returning Officer, the police officers on duty and other persons officially employed at the polling station." The ministers who entered the polling stations did not fall into any of these categories.

Fulfilling international obligations

The United Nations' Universal Declaration of Human Rights proclaims that “Everyone has the right to freedom of peaceful assembly and association” and that “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression”.

Save for the most autocratic of regimes, these rights are recognized by every government in the world and have given rise to legally binding obligations. The UDHR is now part of customary international law, binding on all states and guaranteed to all persons.

Furthermore Singapore voted in favor of General Assembly Resolution 28/251 in 2006. This resolution was made to establish the UN Human Rights Council which stipulates “that all human rights are universal, indivisible, interrelated, interdependent and mutually reinforcing”.

In 2003, Singapore also signed the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Three Branches of Government which pledged to protect the "fundamental human rights, including equal rights and opportunities for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or political belief". (empahsis mine)

Why do I mention these international agreements? Chief Justice Bingham said that the "rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law, the law which whether deriving from treaty or international custom and practice governs the conduct of nations."

Extra-legal or extra-constitutional?

My arguments above also apply to the comments made by AG Walter Woon. Mr Woon says that my colleagues and I have conducted a "campaign to force a change in our laws by extra-legal means."

Obviously, you are confused. Our campaign is to compel the ruling clique to return to the rule of law. If there is anything "extra" about what is going on in Singapore it is that the PAP has been ruling the country through extra-constitutional means.

Since the Constitution is the supreme law of this country, your description of changing laws by extra-legal means is better applied to the PAP instead of the SDP.

You also said: "The essence of the rule of law is that the law applies to all." For the reasons I enumerated above, I cannot agree with you more. The trick is for you to conscientiously practice what you so eloquently preach.

Fooling the people

Mr K Shanmugam noted that my associates and I did not like certain laws and the way we showed it was "to go out there and protest." Your statement, ironically, contradicts what CJ Chan and AG Woon try so hard to portray.

In case you haven't realised, protests to affect the introduction, passage, and enactment of legislation is a right enjoyed by citizens in Japan, Taiwan, Hong Kong, South Korea, Australia, US, Europe, etc; in other words, in societies where the rule of law exists. The right to citizens to conduct peaceful protests is exactly what the rule of law permits and what democracy encourages.

But protest is not only used to affect the state's decision-making process. It also allows the people to participate in the political process and helps bind them to society. Given the exodus of Singaporeans, is this such a bad thing?

Your argument that "the way to change the law was to get elected politically and argue in Parliament why the law should be changed" is, to put it delicately, disingenuous. Wasn't it Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, who, in a rare moment of candour, avowed that he intends to buy his support and fix the opposition? Mr Lee Kuan Yew even goes to the extent to say that the army will be called in in the event of a "freak" election where the opposition wins power.

Other of your party bosses have unabashedly insisted that Singapore will remain a one-party system. Does all this sound like a situation where one can get democratically elected, let alone do it in enough numbers to change laws? In the words of Abraham Lincoln: you can fool some people some of the time...

Rule of law cannot be merely proclaimed

What the three of you have described is not the rule of law. Rather, it is a system where laws – unjust laws, laws that run contrary to our Constitution, and laws that contravene the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – are used to suppress the rule of law in Singapore.

You are probably aware that the International Bar Association, an organisation whose conference the Government and Law Society welcomed and keenly participated in, said in its report that "A strong and robust rule of law requires respect for and protection of democracy, human rights – including freedom of expression and freedom of assembly" but that the "Singapore Government is currently failing to meet established international standards in these areas."

The truth is that the rule of law must be practised, not merely proclaimed. Saying that we have the rule of law in Singapore does not make it so. If and when the rule of law is entrenched in this country, I assure you that respect will flow not just from the mouths but also from the hearts of the people.

Yours faithfully,

Chee Soon Juan
Secretary-General
Singapore Democratic Party

---

Law won't tolerate attacks
Courts' authority must be respected by all, says CJ; Shanmugam and A-G echo his words
By K. C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent, Straits Times, 4 Jan 2009

The Chief Justice, Law Minister and Attorney-General made clear yesterday that they would not brook any attack on the courts here.

Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong, speaking at the opening of the legal year in the Supreme Court, noted that the mission of the courts requires that its authority be respected by all.

'This is so fundamental and critical to the rule of law, and the just and proper governance of a state, that the law itself will not tolerate any attempt by any person to undermine public confidence in the courts by making false and scandalous allegations,' he said.

'The courts need to be protected in that regard by the law.'

His remarks were echoed in the comments of Attorney-General Walter Woon and Law Minister K. Shanmugam, and come in the wake of several high-profile cases that were convicted for contempt of court last year.

Among those prosecuted were former Singaporean lawyer Gopalan Nair, three activists who showed up in the court with offensive T-shirts, and the Asian Wall Street Journal.

Present at yesterday's ceremony were Deputy Prime Minister S. Jayakumar, former chief justice Yong Pung How, High Court judges and about 200 senior lawyers.

In his address, Professor Woon spoke at length about the need to protect the integrity of the judicial system.

He said that there appears to be a campaign by certain people both here and abroad to attack the integrity and independence of the Singapore courts.

The Attorney-General's office has had to charge several people to show that it is not permissible to 'undermine the courts and judiciary for political or ideological reasons'.

He recalled the spate of incidents last year that began with the first day that he took office in April.

A group of activists linked to an opposition party had come to the Attorney-General's Chambers and sought the return of items seized by police investigating certain offences.

They threatened to stay all night and call in more supporters to stage a protest if their demands were not met. They left after more than an hour following repeated requests.

'I can only conclude they were testing our resolve and probing to see how far we could be intimidated by their tactics,' he said.

This was followed shortly by another incident in the Supreme Court where three activists wore T-shirts to accuse the court of being a kangaroo court.

All three were subsequently charged and convicted.

On the heels of this came an e-mail to various people in Singapore stating that a judge of the Supreme Court had 'prostituted herself' in certain proceedings.

The culprit, politician and former Singaporean Gopalan Nair, also posted the same remarks on his blog. He was jailed for three months for contempt.

Mr Nair has since been repatriated to the United States where he has reposted all that he said.

This was then followed by a series of commentaries in 'an international newspaper' casting aspersions on the integrity and independence of the Singapore judiciary, Professor Woon said.

In November, the Asian Wall Street Journal was fined $25,000 after being found guilty of contempt of court for publishing three articles in June and July that alleged bias and lack of independence on the part of the judiciary.

Prof Woon stressed that these prosecutions are not instituted lightly.

He said that while freedom of speech and expression is guaranteed in the Constitution, the line is crossed 'where a person deliberately attempts to undermine the authority of the courts by casting aspersions on the integrity of the judges in order to further a political or ideological agenda'.

He said the assault on the courts appears to be 'part of a broader campaign to force a change in our laws by extra-legal means'.

This involves the deliberate breaking of laws in an effort to pressure the Government to amend them, rather than go through the 'unexciting route of campaigning for change through proper constitutional means'.

Stressing that those who oppose the Government cannot be expected to be excused from obeying the law, he said: 'The essence of the rule of law is that the law applies to all.'

Speaking on the sidelines of the event, Mr Shanmugam, who is also the Second Minister for Home Affairs, said that the Chief Justice's remarks on the rule of law were timely.

He noted that in the last few years, there have been people who did not like certain laws and the way they showed it was 'to go out there and protest'.

The way to change the law was to get elected politically and argue in Parliament why the law should be changed, he said.

'But an aggressive small group of people think they can change those laws by going out there and protesting and the courts have repeatedly emphasised they will apply the law as it is. That is justice according to the law,' he said.

'Unfortunately, even publicly sometimes, this is forgotten. People forget that some of these protests are really aimed at breaking the law and changing the law and is that what we want?'

Singapore's last village to disappear; Short film on Kampong Lorong Buangkok

A 23min documentary from 2007 in 3 parts.




A Reuters report from Dec 21, 2007 followed by a Jan 3, 2009 New York Times report.

Rush for land to sweep away last Singapore village
By Melanie Lee

SINGAPORE (Reuters) - Chillis and limes grow in a lush garden between colorful cement houses with leaking metal roofs in Kampong Buangkok, a village with no roads or computers.

The sight would be nothing out of the ordinary in much of southeast Asia. But Singapore's last village, nestled in a forest clearing, is an oddity in the sophisticated city-state where skyscrapers and high-speed Internet are the norm.

Simple kampongs -- the Malay word for village -- were synonymous with disease and poor sanitation when they went out of style as Singapore introduced government housing in the 1960s.

Mass relocations to tower block Housing Development Board (HDB) flats saw the number of kampongs dwindle. Once home to 40 families, sole survivor Kampong Buangkok now houses only 28, who fiercely guard community bonds among arching banana trees.

"I know all my neighbors, we meet every day, doors open. It's not like the HDB flats, where you can live and not know anyone," said Ramlah binte Kamsah, a secretary in her mid-forties who has lived in the kampong for 40 years.

The village in northeast Singapore, the size of three football fields, has few cars.

"They always ask me if I want to build a road here, but I tell them -- no road. Real kampongs don't have roads," said Sng Mui Hong, owner of the land of Kampong Buangkok, gesturing to the dirt path which runs through the village.

Sng, who is single and in her fifties, inherited the piece of land from her father. While the booming economy and an influx of foreigners has led to a red hot property market, her rates are as low as $6.50 ($4.45) a month -- prices maintained for 30 years.

"If you increase the rent and the prices outside go up, how will the people in here cope?" said Sng, who added that most kampong dwellers are poor and shun Singapore's glitzy malls.

HITTING HERITAGE

Built 60 years old ago on low-lying land, the kampong has weathered many floods.

But the biggest danger it faces is not a natural disaster, but Singapore's voracious appetite for land.

In Singapore, history and heritage are often found at the receiving end of a wrecking ball.

The space-starved island, about one third the size of Greater London, has one of the world's highest population densities. For decades it has reclaimed land from the sea and razed landmarks to make space for development.

"Of course we want to preserve the kampong -- sentimental fools like us. These are the last traces of old Singapore, everything old has been torn down," said Victor, 51, a blogger who writes about life in old Singapore.

However, a government plan aims to turn the kampong into schools and housing.

"Given the need to optimize the use of land in land scarce Singapore, it may not be viable to retain the kampong in its current state," said a spokeswoman from the government redevelopment agency.

Sng has made it clear to private developers that she does not intend to sell her land. But the reality is she would have to sell the land to the government if required, based on the state's laws. Some villagers fear they may only have a year left.

Tan Choon Kuan, 75, comes to the kampong every Sunday with his family to paint. His grandson Nicholas Goh, 17, said the kampong is a "refreshing change from urban Singapore," as they sat next to half-painted canvasses and smoking mosquito coils.

"I can't do much about the government plans to redevelop the land. But by painting these scenes, I preserve it for the future generations," Tan said, dabbing brush strokes on a leafy picture.

(Editing by Neil Chatterjee and Gillian Murdoch)

---

Urban Singapore Prepares to Gobble Up Its Last Village
by Seth Mydans

It is Singapore’s secret Eden, a miniature village called Kampong Buangkok that is hidden in trees among the massed apartment blocks, where a fresh breeze rustles the coconut palms and tropical birds whoop and whistle.

With just 28 houses in an area the size of three football fields, it is Singapore’s last rural hamlet, a forgotten straggler in the rush to modernize this high-rise, high-tech city-state. But apparently not for much longer. Kampong Buangkok is designated by the government for demolition and redevelopment, possibly in the near future. When it is gone, one of the world’s most extreme national makeovers will be complete.

Kampong is a local word for village and also defines a traditional rural way of life that Singapore has left behind.

“The big overhaul began in the early 1960s,” said Rodolph de Koninck, a professor of geography at the University of Montreal and one of the authors of “Singapore: An Atlas of Perpetual Territorial Transformation,” which graphically charts a half-century of change.

As the decades passed, a clamorous tropical settlement reinvented itself as a spic-and-span outpost of the developed world.

Now 90 percent of Singapore’s population has been moved into government housing, and many people have moved at least once again as the city continues to change.

“Everything is up for redevelopment,” Mr. de Koninck said. “Even downtown, things that were developed in the 1960s and 1970s are already being torn down.”

When Sng Mui Hong’s father bought the land in 1956, Kampong Buangkok was a muddy village like hundreds of others around Singapore. No one could have guessed that it would be the last.

Under the city’s master plan, at an unannounced date Kampong Buangkok will be “comprehensively developed to provide future housing, schools and other neighborhood facilities,” said Serene Tng of the Urban Redevelopment Authority in an e-mail message.

Ms. Sng, 55, is now the landowner, wheeling her bicycle among the metal-roofed, one-story homes of her tenants, who are also her friends and pay only nominal rents for their houses.

The government provides electricity, running water and trash collection, and once a day a postman comes by on his motorcycle.

Ms. Sng grew up here, and many of her neighbors were her childhood companions. Few people in Singapore of her generation can say that.

Fruits and flowers cluster in the village like endangered species in a vanishing ecosystem. There are tiny guavas and giant papayas, yams and tapioca plants, dill and edible bamboo shoots, bougainvillea and hibiscus.

Snakes and lizards scurry through the undergrowth, and tiny fish swim in a tiny stream.

Through the trees in all directions, the people of Kampong Buangkok can glimpse the government housing blocks that represent their future.

Under Singapore law, the government can buy the land at any time, at a designated price, and Ms. Sng has already prepared herself.

“If there’s a change, I won’t have my friends any more,” she said, but added: “We must not cling on to things. If the government wants to take the land, they will take it.”

There is no question that Singapore needs the land.

Its population, which was 1.6 million in 1960, has grown to 4.8 million living in an area less than 300 square miles, one of the world’s highest population densities. Planners project a growth of nearly 40 percent by midcentury, to 6.5 million.

“We will need to optimize land use, whether it is though reclamation, building upwards or using subterranean space,” Minister of National Development Mah Bow Tan said recently, in describing the plans for population growth.

To make more space, neighborhoods are razed, landmarks are sacrificed and cemeteries — an inefficient use of land — are cleared away, the buried remains cremated and placed in vaults.

In its most ambitious development project, Singapore has simply made itself bigger. In 1957 its land area was 224 square miles. Since then vast amounts of landfill, dumped into the sea, have expanded it by more than one-third, to 299 square miles.

Few people in Singapore know that one village still survives, hidden in trees 200 yards from a highway.

“Even if I want to show my children how I was brought up I can’t show them,” said Ho Why Hong, 50, a taxi driver, as he searched for Kampong Buangkok. “Everything is torn down.”

“When we were growing up we didn’t lock our doors,” he said. “That kind of trust we had. Everyone knew each other. Any stranger who came into the kampong, we knew.”

In modern Singapore, few neighbors know each other, said Sarimah Cokol, 50, who grew up in Kampong Buangkok and now lives in one of the apartments that people here call pigeonholes.

“Open door, close door,” she said in the terse speech of no-nonsense Singapore. “After work, go in. Close door.”

Memorial service today, Jan 3, for J B Jeyaretnam

Click here for details of the memorial service. My thanks to Choon Hiong for this video.

A sense of foreboding mixed with hope

I went to bed at about 9pm on new year's eve as i was extremely tired and wasn't feeling well. I slept right through and woke up on the morning of the first day of a new year.

Went down to get some breakfast. Saw two people in my neighbourhood. One's a bag lady. The other, a middle-aged guy who collects used cans to sell. I see them on and off whenever i go down. The former, wearing shorts & a t-shirt, walks around with a big green bag. The latter picks up used cans from the rubbish bins; stamps on each to flatten them and repeats the routine. Both look terribly worn-out.

Just got me thinking. A new year?? Its a new year alright but for many, its just another day of survival. Not only in Singapore but in many places all across the world. Different circumstances, different situations, different reasons, varying degrees but all trying to survive.

But there's always hope, isn't there. I hope so. Here's hoping 2009, one day at a time, will be a good year for everybody out there.

Hong Lim Park Countdown, 31 Dec, 6pm to 12am

What are you doing on New Year's Eve?
Singapore Democrats, 15 Dec 08

Dear all,

Every year on the eve of the New Year, we do a countdown with MediaCorp on Orchard Road and sing Auld Lang Syne with the President or the PAP Ministers. And every year nothing changes. Can the celebration be anymore meaningless?

This year, for the first time in Singapore's history, an opposition party is organising a New Year's Eve gathering. It'll be at the Speakers' Corner. While we want this to be a time of celebration, we also want it to be a moment of reflection of what went on this year and what's in store the next.

Of course, 2008 cannot pass without remembering the passing away of a friend and loyal servant of this nation, the late Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam (JBJ). In the final minutes of the year, it would be appropriate to remember him and everything he has done for Singapore. More importantly, let us stand by his legacy and help make it grow. Speakers will pay tribute to the man and we will organise an "open-mic" for those who wish to remember him.

There will also New Year's Wish Board where folks will be able to write and post their wishes and resolutions for 2009. We'll sing freedom songs as well as songs of tribute to JBJ. We'll do a countdown ourselves to 2009 and usher in the New Year our way. We're also planning to do a candlelight display with the help of everyone present.

Party members and Friends of SDP will be serving a simple dinner of hot dogs and chips.

There'll be plenty to do that evening and we hope that you will bring your family and friends to be with people who truly care about this nation and its future. Let us make this a truly memorable and meaningful evening.

So join us at Hong Lim Park starting at 6 pm on 31 Dec 2008 all the way into the 2009. Tell everyone!

We'll be announcing more details in the coming days. (See here and here)

Gandhi Ambalam
Chairman
Singapore Democratic Party

Book review: Beyond Suspicion? - The Singapore Judiciary

See my earlier post for an excerpt from this book by Francis Seow.

This is a book review by Michael D Barr. Barr is the author of Lee Kuan Yew: The Beliefs Behind the Man which was published in 2000. This year saw the publication of the book Paths Not Taken: Political Pluralism in Post-War Singapore which Barr co-edited with Carl A Trocki. Barr's chapter in the book is called Singapore's Catholic Social Activists: Alleged Marxist Conspirators.

Source: Singapore Window

Pacific Affairs Fall 2008
Vol 81, Number 3
ProQuest Asian Business and Reference pg. 494

Review by Dr Michael D Barr, Flinders University, Australia

BEYOND SUSPICION? The Singapore Judiciary By Francis T. Seow; with a foreword by Gary Woodard. New Haven (Connecticut): Yale University Southeast Asia Studies, 2006. xxii, 405pp. (Tables.) US$26.00 paper. ISBN 0-938692-87-9.

Order from Amazon

FRANCIS Seow's third book is a savage and unmerciful critique of Singapore's judicial system. He provides convincing evidence that the Singapore court system is basically the play-thing of former Prime Minister (currently Minister Mentor) Lee Kuan Yew, through which he toys with and destroys his enemies at his leisure; corrupting the Bench, the legal profession, the police and the profession of journalism on the way through. The case presented by Seow - which is overwhelming drawn from the intimate detail of a single legal battle - demonstrates beyond reasonable doubt that Singapore is at heart a corrupt dictatorship separated from Third World dictatorships primarily by its national income and the cleverness of the techniques by which it manipulates institutional power.

It is a damning indictment that could have been much more powerful if Seow had resisted the temptation to indulge in childish name calling and heavy-handed didacticism. These acts of self-indulgence dominate the first part of the book and are never far away in the rest. Their main impact, as far as I can see, is to give defenders of the Singapore system and of Lee Kuan Yew the excuse they need to dismiss the book as "just another anti-Singapore rant". Seow's arrogant style was probably perfected while he was part of the system he is now critiquing (having been Lee's choice for the position of Solicitor-General in the 1980s), but if the reader can put these defects aside it will become clear that this is a deeply disturbing story of manipulative and duplicitous behaviour on the part of Lee Kuan Yew as he set out to use a quiescent judicial and legal fraternity to destroy an innocent man, along with his wife and his lawyer.

The man in question is Tang Liang Hong who had the temerity to question the procedure by which Lee Kuan Yew and other notables (including his son and the current prime minister, Lee Hsien Loong), were cleared of any suggestion of impropriety when they accepted million dollar discounts from a property developer. Much of the book is concerned with the political and public relations machinations by which Tang was caught up in Lee's web of retaliation, but in this review it must be sufficient to relay just a few of the most salient facts to give the reader a sense of the book.

For instance, what are we to make of a legal system that gives a defendant a couple of hours (literally) to find a solicitor, a translator (since she could speak no English), and prepare and present a defence in court to a procedure about which she had literally no understanding? Or where a judge sits in judgement on a case where he himself is implicated as a recipient of one of the real estate discounts that started the whole procedure, and who had previously worked for the family law firm of the primary litigant (Lee Kuan Yew)? Or where a judge (not the same judge) can receive many sets of documents, each hundreds of pages thick and so badly copied and paginated as to substantially illegible and unreadable, and yet two and a half hours later bring down a legal judgement based on his considered legal interpretation of the implications of their contents? Or where a summons to chambers is issued by an appellant's lawyers rather than by the court, but the court upholds it? Or where evidence that proves beyond all reasonable doubt the innocence of the defendant is not only refused admission in court, but all record of its existence is expunged from the record?

Seow has drawn primarily on court documents for his evidence, having been supplied with a complete set (included documents later expunged from the record) by Tang Liang Hong, who is now a de facto exile from Singapore. Fully the last third of the volume is occupied by transcriptions of some of the most damning court documents, including a fair sample of documents where Lee Kuan Yew and his allies condemn themselves by their own words. (Seow delights in using Lee's own words to demonstrate his capriciousness and duplicity. At one point he was even able to cite Lee as his primary source to sustain his charge that Lee was the arch-manipulator of the proceedings. Seow tends to overplay his hand when using this technique, but Lee's arrogance and peremptory choice of words do rather lend themselves to ridicule.)

This is a powerful book, but it could have been much more.

Dr Barr :
Lecturer in International Relations,
School of Political and International Studies,
Flinders University
School Director of Studies (B.A)
School Ethics Research Adviser Deputy Chair,
Faculty of Social Sciences Undergraduate Standing Committee.

Report, photos & videos of Roo Boys' release from Queenstown Remand Prison

More photos here

The latest Hooray
Singapore Democrats, 19 Dec 2008

A candlelight vigil was held on the night of 17 Dec 08, the last night of Mr Isrizal's and Mr Shafi'ie's prison sentence.

More than 30 friends, family, activists and supporters came to the vigil which stretched through the night as they awaited the release of the two men. Mr John Tan started serving his sentence on 16 Dec and will be released on 30 Dec 08.

Candles were lit and lined the kerb facing the main gates of the Queenstown Remand Prison. By midnight, there were just five who were able to stay through the night. But they were not alone as messages of support and pledges of solidarity had been penned on a large placard. SMSes of the same spirit were received throughout the night.

A vigil is a kind of purposeful sleeplessness – the Latin root, vigilia, denotes "watch, watchfulness, wakefulness". Traditionally used in an ecclesiastical sense to describe a devotional exercise performed on the eve of a festival or holy day, in this instance it was a night to devote attention to our three prisoners of conscience.

Famously dubbed as the "kangaroo t-shirt trio", the contempt of court charges were brought against them by the Attorney-General who insisted that he took action in his capacity as the "Guardian of the Public Interest".

As a public interest issue, the question remains if this was the best course of action to take against three citizens for wearing t-shirts which bore an image with no words.

The night was cool and the air still. Sound carried from the guardhouse behind the gates. At one point, late into the night, the guard could be heard reporting on the vigil: "One was 'doing arts-&-craft', the others chatting whilst another was 'looking at the stars', etc." The arts-&-craft activity was in reference to the making of a "Welcome Back" sign.

A song* (see below) was written and rehearsed, sung tongue-in-cheek to the tune of Amazing Grace, to greet the two.

Morning came and supporters and well-wishers arrived to greet the two as the time of release neared.

At around 10 am, Mr Shafi'ie emerged. He strode to the gates, calm, composed and dignified. He was garlanded and warmly hugged. He was also presented with a booklet, a compilation of articles about his valour and strength in the face of such difficulty, especially at such a young age. The song was performed with gusto and to much laughter.


Mr Isrizal appeared soon after (at about 10.30 am). Upon exiting the prison, he punched the air shouting "Merdeka!" The same welcome was extended and he was also garlanded, hugged and "serenaded".




*Song lyrics

Oh Shafi'ie and Isrizal,
For seven days, you were jailed
Because of _ _ _ and _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (**)
And a single kangaroo

And now you're back with us today
We hope you enjoyed your stay
But John's still inside this afternoon
And the rest will join in, soon

Hip Hop Hooray
Hip Hop Hooray
Hip Hop Hooray Hooray

Hip Hop Hooray
Hip Hop Hooray
Hip Hop Hooray today

**Play hangman. Fill in the blanks at your own peril.

3 Jan 09 - Memorial service for J B Jeyaretnam

Date: Jan 3, 2009
Time: 5pm - 6.30pm
Venue: St Andrew's Cathedral
Organiser: Kenneth Jeyaretnam
Sign-up/log-in to see the facebook event page here. See here for the facebook group In Memory of J B Jeyaretnam.

Overnight vigil for 3 prisoners of conscience on Dec 17

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.

What the Constitution gives, the State takes away

Judge refuses to consider ban on protests unconstitutional
Singapore Democrats, 4 Dec 08

In the ongoing trial of four activists charged for attempting to participate in a procession, Dr Chee Soon Juan asked District Judge Toh Yong Joo to allow the defendants to question the police on why it rejected the application for a permit to conduct a rally and march. The Judge refused.

Dr Chee also asked the Judge to determine that the policy to ban all demonstrations and processions in Singapore is unconstitutional. The Judge also refused.

Dr Chee is charged together with Mr Gandhi Ambalam, Ms Chee Siok Chin and Mr Teoh Tian Jing for protesting during the WB-IMF meeting in Sep 06.

In his submissions Dr Chee cited a decision made by former Chief Justice Yong Pung How who had relied on Lord Justice Woolf's judgment in an English case.

Woolf LJ had ruled that where it is pointed that there has been an abuse of power and bad faith on the policy maker a criminal court should allow cross-examination of the prosecution witness to determine the issue.

The issue stemmed from prosecution witness Deputy Superintendent Marc E Kwan Szer's testimony that the "policy position of the police regarding outdoor processions and demonstrations is one of disallowance."

Dr Chee asked Judge Toh to rule that this policy contravenes the constitution that guaranteed Singaporeans the right to freedom of speech and assembly.

"No person, able to reason, would conclude that the policy is not substantially out of line and patently unreasonable with the Constitution, both in spirit and in the letter," the SDP leader pointed out.

He added that the police are playing the fool with the Constitution which according to Article 4 "is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall...be void."

He cited Lord Justice Woolf's judgement on this issue: "No citizen is required to comply with a law which is bad on its face. If the citizen is satisfied that that is the situation, he is entitled to ignore the law."

The Prosecutor insisted that the only thing that mattered was whether or not the defendants had a permit to conduct their activity. But didn't DSP Marc E testify that all applications for demonstrations and processions would be disallowed?

"The illogic of the charge jars the reasonable mind. Can the police accuse anyone of not having a permit when it makes clear that it will not give that permit?" Dr Chee posed the question to the Judge.

"If the Constitution clearly tells me that I have the right to freedom of speech and assembly," the SDP leader continued, "but the police tell me that it will not grant me a permit for it, then the police policy is clearly [unconstitutional].

"This being the case, LJ Woolf, to which Yong CJ attached much importance, tells me that I am not required to comply with such a policy."

Judge Toh dismissed Dr Chee's arguments and insisted that the only thing that was important was the "existence or non-existence of a permit."

The hearing continues at Subordinate Court 19 at 9:30 am tomorrow.

Full text of Dr Chee's submissions

Your Honour,

When the defence tried to question the witness, licensing officer DSP Marc E Kwan Szer, to show that the police had acted in bad faith when they rejected my application for a rally and march on 16 September 2006, and hence violating my constitutional rights, the prosecution objected on two grounds:

One, the line of questioning was irrelevant to the charge and, two, that even if it was relevant, this court is not the forum to hear such an issue. The proper forum should be by way of a Judicial Review.

Let me begin by addressing the second question first, that is, whether this court is the proper forum to canvas issues about bad faith and mala fide on the part of the police as it relates to the constitution.

I will do this by citing the decision of Yong Pung How, then CJ, in Colin Chan v PP (1994) 3 SLR 662. In the decision, Yong CJ had examined a host of authorities and culminated with the citing of an English case Bugg v PP (1993) 2 WLR 628 which was heard by Woolf LJ.

Yong CJ remarked that some “conflicting decisions seem to have been finally determined“ by Woolf LJ in Bugg v PP. I quote Yong CJ to emphasize the weight he placed on Woolf's LJ judgment, that there was a sense of a finality, and hence great importance, in Woolf's decision.

Woolf had addressed the issue of the role of a criminal court, such as this one, as it related to the question of substantive validity of a law or subordinate law. Woolf LJ said:

"These developments are, in our judgment, of importance when considering the proper role of a criminal court where a defendant who is charged with breaching a byelaw seeks to challenge the validity of that byelaw. It is possible to identify at least two different situations in which this will arise. The first is where the byelaw is on its face invalid because either it is without the power pursuant to which it was made because, for example, it seeks to deal with matters outside the scope of the enabling legislation, or it is patently unreasonable. This can be described as substantive invalidity."

Is there a question of substantive invalidity in the present case? Of course, there is. I want to place these two statements side by side. The first statement is Article 14 (1) of the Constitution which is the supreme law of the land:

(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;

(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and

(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.

The second statement is from the witness DSP Marc E: "police position regarding outdoor processions and demonstrations is one of disallowance...Our policy position is clear: Outdoor processions and demonstrations are disallowed whether or not there is a major meeting going on.”

Your Honour, you will first have to rule whether, on the face of it, this police policy enunciated by DSP Marc E is substantively invalid vis-a-vis the Constitution.

I recognise that subsection 2 of Article 14 provides that Parliament may by law impose restrictions. But these restrictions are imposed only under certain circumstances such as the security of Singapore is concerned, or where public order is threatened.

It does not allow the government, or worse the police, to adopt a "position" that "outdoor processions and demonstrations is one of disallowance" and that "all applications are rejected."

The police are playing the fool with the Constitution. They are making a mockery of our Constitution which states in Article 4: "This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void."

It would take someone very reckless to say that there is no substantive invalidity in this police policy. No person, able to reason, would conclude that the policy is not substantially out of line and patently unreasonable with the Constitution, both in spirit and in the letter.

Or course the next question that is: Does this court have the power to consider such a question of substantive validity? Of course, you have. Woolf LJ writes:

"In the criminal proceeding what has to be established is that the byelaw is unreasonable in the way in which it operates. This aspect of substantive invalidity was illustrated by Lord Russell of Killowen CJ in Kruse v Johnson (1898) 2 Q B 91, 99 as occurring, for instance, if the byelaws:'were found to be partial and unequal in their operation as between different classes; if they were manifestly unjust; if they disclosed bad faith; if they involved such oppressive or gratuitous interference with the rights of those subject to them as could find no justification in the minds of reasonable men...' "

Woolf reiterates this point later:

"In the case of substantive invalidity, it is a matter of law whether, for example, a byelaw is unreasonable in operation or is out with the authorising power. No evidence is required; the [criminal] court can decide the issue by looking at the terms of the primary legislation and the subordinate legislation which is alleged to be invalid."

So the law is utterly clear that the criminal court, that is this present court, can consider the question of whether the written policy of the Singapore Police Force is substantively invalid of the Constitution.

Which brings us to the next question: What does this Court do with a policy that is substantively invalid? On this subject Woolf LJ didn'tt mince his words:

"Where the law is substantively invalid...No citizen is required to comply with a law which is bad on its face. If the citizen is satisfied that that is the situation, he is entitled to ignore the law."

I had a discussion with a lawyer and she had tried explaining to me what an "element of the charge" was. She used the analogy of a person being charged for, say, not displaying a parking coupon. An element of the charge is that there was no coupon displayed at the time the car was checked.

She went on to explain that the driver cannot then say that at that time the shops were all closed and there was no one from whom he could purchase the parking coupon. Such a defence was irrelevant to the element of the charge.

But what if the authorities said they did not sell the coupons? Would the matter now change? The driver had no way of buying such coupons at any time to display on his car. Could he still be charged for parking his without a coupon?

This is exactly what is happening in our present charge. The prosecution maintains that the element of the charge, or at least one of the elements, is that we did not have a permit for the procession. But as you have heard from DSP Marc E, the police's policy position is that they reject all applications and that they disallow all processions.

The illogic of the charge jars the reasonable mind. Can the police accuse anyone of not having a permit when it makes clear that it will not give that permit?

If the Constitution clearly tells me that I have the right to freedom of speech and assembly but the police tells me that it will not grant me a permit for it, then the police policy is clearly substantively invalid and this being the case Woolf's LJ decision, to which Yong CJ attached much importance, tells me that I am not required to comply with such a policy.

Clearly there is an abuse of power on the part of the police to not give permits under any circumstance because, as I outlined above, the Constitution does not grant the blanket ban on demonstrations and processions.

We have been trying to demonstrate to the court that there is abuse of power, mala fide and bad faith by the police. The only way that we can do this is to adduce evidence through cross-examination of the present witness, Mr Marc E. Should Your Honour allow us to do with such cross-examination?

Woolf LJ cannot be clearer on this:

"We have particularly in mind cases where it is suggested that there has been an abuse of power because of mala fides on the part of the byelaw maker. In the case of bad faith, there may be an issue which the criminal court can determine and if so, evidence will be required."

To recap:

The crux of the matter is that our constitutional rights may not be taken away by the police taking on some "policy position." Such policy is substantively invalid.

The issue of substantive invalidity of the police policy must be relevant to the charge because it renders the charge null and void. No citizen is expected to obey a law that is substantively invalid to the Constitution.

There is more than a suggestion of bad faith and mala fide on the part of the police. This necessitates our cross-examination of the licensing officer in order for us to adduce evidence.

Because of the issues of substantive invalidity and bad faith, this court has the power to hear the arguments without the need for a Judicial Review.

Your Honour, the law is clearly with the defence and we ask that you administer justice accordingly.

Back to being Singapore Dissident

I wonder what the Attorney-General's Chambers means when its reported to have said its "currently looking into the matter". Ominous choice of words. Don't tell me they're going to pursue Gopalan Nair all the way to the United States.

Nair retracts apologies
by Zakir Hussain, ST Online, 3 Dec 08

FORMER Singaporean lawyer Gopalan Nair, now back home in the United States, has retracted apologies and statements he made in court here last month.

Mr Nair, an American citizen, had admitted to being in contempt of court and apologised for offending remarks he made about the judiciary and a district judge.

He also promised to remove two blog posts relating to his trial and conviction for disorderly behaviour.

But in a blog post on Nov 28 - two days after returning to the US from Singapore - he announced that he was withdrawing the admission and apologies, and repeated his criticism of the judiciary.

Mr Nair, who lives in Fremont, near San Francisco, wrote: 'The only reason for my apology was a desire to get out of prison as soon as possible.

'They brought these new contempt charges while I was incarcerated in prison, with only eight days to go for my release. If I had not apologised as Lee Kuan Yew wanted, there was the possibility that I could be kept in prison for a further period of up to six months...'

On the two postings he agreed to remove, and which he did delete from his blog, he 'will be re-posting those two blog posts and stand by every word that I had written in them'.

He has yet to re-post them, a check last night showed.

Asked for comments on these developments, a spokesman for the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) said it is 'currently looking into the matter'.

Mr Nair came to Singapore in May to attend a hearing to assess damages in a defamation suit that Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew won against the Singapore Democratic Party, its chief Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin.

In writing about the case on his blog, he insulted High Court Justice Belinda Ang, who presided over the case. He was charged and found guilty of the offence and received a three-month jail term in September.

Separately, in July, he behaved in a disorderly fashion and hurled expletives at police officers. He was charged and after a trial held on various dates between July and September, he was fined $3,000.

In late October, while he was serving his three-month term, the AGC applied to start contempt proceedings for Mr Nair's attacks on the independence of the judge and judiciary. These were made during his trial for disorderly conduct and in two blog posting.

The posts on Sept 1 and Sept 6 were titled 'Another classic case of trying to use the courts to silence dissent' and 'Convicted'.

But when he was brought to court on Nov 12 for the contempt hearing, Mr Nair unconditionally withdrew the allegations he made against District Judge James Leong, and statements alleging that the courts were beholden to the Government.

As a result of the apology and an undertaking he gave not to make such statements in future, and to remove the offending blog posts, the AGC did not press for a jail term.

Mr Nair was admonished, warned against launching future attacks on the judiciary, and had to pay the AGC $5,000 in legal costs.

Shortly after his release from prison on Nov 20 - following a one-third remission on his three-month sentence for good behaviour - he returned to the US.

Apart from last Friday's blog post retracting his statements, Mr Nair had a separate post on Sunday criticising High Court Justice Judith Prakash. This was over the jail terms she imposed on three men found to be in contempt of court for wearing T-shirts depicting a kangaroo in judge's robes.

---

Fremont attorney released from Singapore jail
By Linh Tat, The Argus, 28 Nov 08

FREMONT — Immigration attorney Gopalan Nair returned to the Bay Area this week after six months in Singapore, where he was imprisoned for two months after being convicted of sedition.

Nair, a San Jose resident who practices law in Fremont — in an office above The Argus — maintained his innocence Friday and continued to lash out at the Singaporean government as being corrupt.

The 58-year-old had traveled to his homeland in May to observe the defamation trial of some opposition political leaders.

Afterward, he criticized the High Court judge, Belinda Ang, as a "stooge" for the country's leader, Lee Kuan Yew. She was "prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders," he wrote in a May 29 blog entry.

Friday, he pulled out his Webster's dictionary to explain what he meant by prostitute: "a person ... who sells his or her services for low or unworthy purposes."

Nair said he did not mean the judge engaged in sexual activities, but that she had misused her powers.

"Those words were strong, no doubt. But ... those words were necessary because this judge was ... shamelessly abusing her authority," he said.

"She was not carrying out her duties in a judicial manner."

In the same blog entry, Nair seemingly challenged the court by providing his name and the name and address of the hotel at which he was staying, stating that, "It will be interesting to see if ... Lee Kuan Yew and son, who strut around ... bullying everyone who so much as criticized (them), will sue me now for calling him nothing more than a small time street bully."

Nair was arrested at the hotel May 31 and spent several days in solitary confinement, during which time police officers would interrogate him at odd hours of the night to try to get him to confess to e-mailing the judge with threatening letters, he said. He has continued to deny that accusation.

The immigration attorney posted bail about a week after his arrest, and a trial date was set for September. But Nair said authorities confiscated his passport, forcing him to remain in the area.

Homeless, Nair at one point slept in a warehouse and developed a respiratory problem that landed him in a hospital for five days, he said.

On July 4, while awaiting trial, Nair was arrested again — this time for disorderly conduct and insulting an officer. He denied both claims, saying he was walking alone on the street when five plainclothes officers attacked him. Nevertheless, Nair was found guilty and fined $3,000.

As for the sedition charge, despite his insistence that he had used the term "prostituting" correctly and that he never sent threatening e-mails to the judge, Nair was sentenced in September to three months in jail. After serving two months, he was released Nov. 20 for good behavior.

A week before his release, Nair said authorities accused him being contemptuous in court during the trial regarding his July 4 arrest. Because he did not want to jeopardize his chances of being released, Nair said he pleaded guilty and agreed never to criticize the government on his blog again. He also agreed to remove controversial entries he had posted Sept. 1 and 6.

But on Friday, he said he plans to repost the two previous entries and that he will continue to write critical pieces of the government, realizing he'll never be able to step foot in Singapore again.

Nair, who lived a total of 35 years in Singapore, twice ran for Parliament as a member of the Workers Party, but lost his bids for office. He immigrated to the United States in 1991, where he was granted political asylum and became a U.S. citizen in 2005.

After leaving Singapore this week, he flew into San Francisco airport Wednesday, and spent his first two nights back in the United States at the Islander Motel in Fremont because power and water lines had been turned off at his San Jose home. Although electricity had not been restored to his home by Friday evening, Nair planned to return home.

He owes about six months in mortgage payments for his house, back rent for his law office, plus he needs to pay off his credit cards, including half a year's worth of interest. While waiting for his trial to begin in Singapore, Nair took out cash advances on his credit card to pay for living expenses.

Factoring in lost wages, court fees and the interests on debts he owes, Nair estimated that the entire ordeal has set him back $100,000 — and he believes he is in danger of losing his house.

"I paid a price, but the Singaporean government has paid a bigger price," he said, adding that his case has shed more light on what he called a tyrannical government.

"Before this incident, I was just Gopalan Nair. Who? ... But after this case, (Singaporean leaders) have made me more popular. They made my blog popular. They've given publicity to my cause," he said.

Singapore (government) strikes again: Wall Street Journal

Singapore Strikes Again
Wall Street Journal, 29 Nov 08

The city-state resumes its campaign against the Journal.

Let us begin with an apology to our readers in Asia. Unless they are online, they will not see this editorial. For legal reasons, we are refraining from publishing it in The Wall Street Journal Asia, which circulates in Singapore.

Our subject is free speech and the rule of law in the Southeast Asian city-state -- something on which the international press and Singapore's government have often clashed. We can't say which side would prevail if the Singapore public could hear an open debate, but the fact is that we know of no foreign publication that has ever won in a Singapore court of law. Virtually every Western publication that circulates in the city-state has faced a lawsuit, or the threat of one.

Which brings us to the ruling against us this week in Singapore's High Court. Dow Jones Publishing (Asia) was found guilty of contempt of court for two editorials and a letter to the editor published in The Wall Street Journal Asia in June and July. The Attorney General, who personally argued the contempt case against us, characterized the articles as "an attack on the courts and judiciary of Singapore inasmuch as they impugn the integrity, the impartiality and the independence of the Court."

In suing for contempt, Singapore chose to go after us for the most basic kind of journalism. The first editorial, "Democracy in Singapore," reported on a damages hearing in a defamation case brought (and won) by former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew against opposition politician Chee Soon Juan. The second editorial, "Judging Singapore's Judiciary," informed readers what an international legal organization had said about Singapore's courts.

Regarding the first editorial, we'll note that court proceedings are privileged under Singapore law, which means they can be reported -- though Singapore's media rarely do the job. Mr. Chee wrote a letter in response to the first editorial, which we published and which is cited in the contempt charge. We also published two letters from Mr. Lee's spokeswoman.

In the second editorial, we reported on the International Bar Association's critical study of the rule of law in Singapore. This is the same outfit that held its annual conference in Singapore last year, a meeting that Mr. Lee himself touted as a sign of confidence in Singapore's courts. The Law Society of Singapore is a member of the IBA. If reporting on what such a body says is contemptuous of the judiciary, then Singapore is saying that its courts are above any public scrutiny.

Again, we published a letter from the Singapore government responding to the editorial. This one was from the Law Ministry, which blasted the IBA report and us for repeating its "vague allegations." The IBA then weighed in, in a posting on its Web site, saying it wished "to correct some inaccurate comments" in Singapore's letter. It invites readers to read the report and "see for themselves" that its views are "based on comprehensive examples and evidence." The IBA homepage is www.ibanet.org.

In his ruling, Justice Tay Young Kwang refers to us as a "repeat offender." He's right in the narrow sense that this isn't the first time Singapore has pursued the Journal Asia for contempt. In 1985, the newspaper and its editors were sued over an editorial about legal actions against opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam. The editors apologized.

In 1989, the paper was sued for contempt again, this time over a news story that quoted Dow Jones's then-president, Peter Kann. Mr. Kann had criticized a libel judgment won by Mr. Lee against the Far Eastern Economic Review, the Journal Asia's sister publication. The paper, its editor, publisher, local distributor and local printer were all named. They lost.

We are not eager to return to that fractious era, when the Journal Asia had its circulation severely restricted in Singapore and the paper's reporters were unwelcome. Since 1991, when the newspaper and Mr. Lee reached a settlement, our relationship with Singapore had been more or less stable until the latest contempt charge.

Meanwhile, in September, the Far Eastern Economic Review lost a defamation case brought by Mr. Lee and his son, current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over an interview it published with opposition leader Mr. Chee. The elder Mr. Lee has long used defamation suits to silence his critics in the press and among the political opposition.

As for this week's contempt ruling, the first line of Justice Tay's decision is revealing as a standard for Singapore justice. "Words sometimes mean more than what they appear to say on the surface," he writes, going on to interpret the words as contemptuous because they had an "inherent tendency" to "scandalise the court." The fine he levied, S$25,000 ($16,500), is the largest ever meted out for such an offense. Justice Tay expressed the hope that it will deter "future transgressions."

We'll pay the fine. We'll also continue to express our views about politics, the courts and other subjects that we think our readers should know about. And we'll let readers decide what to make of the judiciary in Singapore.

---

Singapore Wins Again
Asia Sentinel, 26 Nov 08

A high court judge reinvents Alice in Wonderland in a contempt case

As expected, a Singapore high court judge has once again ruled against a western news organization, in this case the Wall Street Journal Asia, for contempt of court for three articles published in June and July that “impugn the impartiality, integrity and independence of the Singapore judiciary,” according to the complaint.

The court fined Dow Jones Publishing Co. S$25,000, said to be the highest amount ever levied for such a case, according to the Wall Street Journal. "Dow Jones is extremely disappointed with the ruling of the High Court and strongly disagrees with the court’s analysis that the editorials and letter to the editor constitute contempt of court," a Dow Jones spokesman said. "Also, contrary to what the attorney general has alleged, The Wall Street Journal Asia has not engaged in a ‘campaign’ of any sort against the Singapore judiciary. We will in the future continue to defend the right of The Wall Street Journal Asia to report and comment on matters of international importance, including matters concerning Singapore."

The 43-page judgment, written by High Court Judge Tay Yong Kwang, contains some startling language in its attempt to pin contempt charges on the newspaper, its editor, Daniel Hertzberg, managing editor Christine Glancey, and Dow Jones Publishing Co., now owned by Rupert Murdoch’s News Corp. In effect, Tay said, there were no actionable words in the articles. But, he wrote:

“Words sometimes mean more than what they say on the surface. This proposition is a recurring theme in the present proceedings before me, which concerns an application for by the Attorney General for orders of committal for contempt against [the] three respondents...”

And, as part of the background of the case, Tay wrote: “As will be demonstrated shortly, it is not the AG’s case that the publications contained passages or words that expressly scandalize the Singapore judiciary, but that they do so by implication, especially when the offending passages or words of each publication are read in the context of that individual publication.”

In other words, any publication deemed by Singapore to have been hostile to Singapore in the past could find itself in the dock without using “passages or words that expressly scandalize the Singapore judiciary” or presumably the family of ageing patriarch Lee Kuan Yew, the country’s minister mentor.

The court, however, is about as touchy as the Lee family. In October, three supporters of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party were promptly arrested when they turned up at Singapore’s Supreme Court wearing T-shirts depicting a kangaroo in judicial robes. The three, 19-year-old Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi Sariman, 33-year-old Isrizal Mohamed Isa and 47-year-old John Tan Liang Joo, were convicted and were to be sentenced November 27 for contempt of court.

Reporters Without Borders condemned the Wall Street Journal ruling, saying that "Even if the fine is not colossal, the ruling very clearly shows that Singapore's judges have no intention of letting the foreign media express themselves freely about the country's judicial system, which is lacking in independence."

As to the Journal case, it is hardly the first time Singapore has found the western press wanting, or used tortured language to go after them. The lawsuit-happy Lee family has filed a plethora of defamation lawsuits and contempt charges repeatedly against Dow Jones publications, particularly the Far Eastern Economic Review and the Asian Wall Street Journal, now known as the Wall Street Journal Asia, as well as Time Magazine, the Economist, the International Herald Tribune and many more.

In 2007 for instance, the Financial Times issued a hasty apology and paid undisclosed damages for a story in which there appeared to be no libel. The article dealt with the growth of so-called sovereign wealth funds, particularly a new Chinese fund that was unveiled at the end of September, and referred to growing concern over the acquisition of strategic industries by funds controlled by governments in Asia and the Middle East. At the end of the piece, the author referred to Temasek, the increasingly troubled Singapore state investment fund, and described some of the problems Temasek has faced with the fallout from the fund's acquisition last year of Shin Corp, the Thai telecoms group owned by former Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, which ultimately contributed to Thaksin’s downfall. At the end of the article, the author referred to the fact that Temasek is run by Ho Ching, the wife of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, and concluded with these words:

“DBS Bank, whose biggest shareholder is Temasek, this week surprised many by announcing that US-born Jackson Tai would step down towards the end of the year. Mr Tai was said to be keen to ‘spend more time with his family.’

“Last week Jimmy Phoon, Temasek's chief investment officer, announced he was leaving ‘to take a break and spend some time with the family.’ “Perhaps we shouldn't be surprised at the reasons. Singapore, after all, is built on strong family values. Lee Kuan Yew, founding father of the city-state, must be proud to see Lee Hsien Loong, his son, occupy the role of prime minister. “Mr Lee (Jnr) himself will be pleased Ho Ching, his wife, has helped turn round the performance of Temasek after being appointed chief executive in 2002. The rumour mill now suggests Lee Hsien Yang, the younger brother, could replace Mr Tai at DBS. The younger Mr Lee earned his spurs as chief executive of SingTel, also part of the Temasek firmament.”

That caused an apparent explosion among the Lees, and allegations of libel over charges of nepotism. The FT quickly complied with its public apology.

In 1994, the Lee family sued the International Herald Tribune, which also quickly issued an apology and paid damages, for a column in which the author wrote about dynastic politics in China and, in passing, mentioned Singapore, saying “Dynastic politics is evident in ‘Communist’ China already, as in Singapore, despite official commitment to bureaucratic meritocracy. Similarly with the Kuomintang inheritance in Taiwan, which won out until 1987, when lack of candidates and the pressure of opinion ended the Sun Yat-sen and Chiang Kai-shek era".

The courts awarded aggravated damages on the basis of Lee Kuan Yew’s claim (and similar claims by Lee Hsien Loong and Goh Chok Tong) that "The said words, in the context in which they were published, and in their natural and ordinary meaning, meant and were understood to mean" that Lee Hsien Loong was "appointed to various offices in the Singapore government on the basis of nepotism and not on the basis of merit."

No member of the Lee family has ever lost a case in a Singapore court as far as can be determined. The Lees recently won damages against Far Eastern Economic Review for defamation and the government has banned the publication over a 2006 interview with Chee Soon Juan, the head of the Singapore Democratic Party, in which Chee said the authoritarian city-state would only change direction after the elder Lee’s death. At one point, Judicial Commissioner Sundaresh Menon refused to allow the Review’s lawyer, Australian Tim Robertson, permission to sit in on the hearing because Robertson had made comments critical of Singapore in 2005 over Singapore’s decision to execute a convicted drug trafficker.

Singapore's embattled human rights lawyer

Leading Rights Lawyer Faces Jail Term
By Baradan Kuppusamy

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.

"Kangaroo court" trio sentenced to 15 days and 7 days imprisonment

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.

Here are two recent related posts: Persecution and prosecution of activists continue and 3 out of 3 as Wall Street Journal Asia fined S$25,000 for contempt of court.

Updated at 1715hrs with this report:

Singapore jails 3 for kangaroo T-shirts in court

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.

Persecution and prosecution of activists continue

Speakers Cornered by Martyn See. See his blogpost here.

Chee, 5 others charged
By Aaron Low, Straits Times website, 26 Nov 08

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.

District judge Toh Yung Cheong will hear their application for an adjournment of the trial tomorrow morning.

---

First day of trial for WB-IMF protesters
Singapore Democrats, 26 Nov 08

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.

The trial continues tomorrow at 11.30 am in Subordinate Court No. 19.

---

A new trial begins before the last one ends
Singapore Democrats, 23 Nov 08

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.