Singapore Democrats

Home News Singapore Kangaroo case postponed
Kangaroo case postponed Print Email
Tuesday, 04 November 2008

Singapore Democrats

High Court Judge Judith Prakash postponed the contempt hearing today to 24 Nov. The three respondents, Mr John Tan, Mr Shafi'ie and Mr Isrizal, had asked the court for an adjournment because the AG's Chambers (AGC) had served documents on the three at short notice.

In addition, Mr Tan and Mr Shafi'ie are currently engaged in an ongoing trial at the Sub-court for illegal assembly and procession. Officials from the AGC walked into the courtroom at the Subordinate Courts last Friday afternoon and served four thick bundles of documents on the two defendants and expected them to respond in court after only one-and-a-half working days.

Judge Prakash allowed the adjournment and set 24 and 25 November 2008 as the new hearing dates.

The Attorney General has accused the three men for contempt of court because they were wearing T-shirts with the picture of a kangaroo in judge's gown within the Supreme Court vicinity during the defamation suit hearing of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Mr Lee Hsien Loong vs. Dr Chee Soon Juan, Ms Chee Siok Chin and the Singapore Democratic Party. Mr Shafi'ie was represented by Lawyer Mr Chia Ti Lik.

In another development we reported yesterday that Mr John Tan was suspended by James Cook University where he was teaching Psychology. We reproduce here the letter that Mr Tan had written to the CEO of the university, Dr Dale Anderson:

 

Dear Dr Dale Anderson,

I want to register my deep disappointment with the way James Cook University handled my suspension over the recent news about my impending legal problem with the Attorney General's Chambers (AGC), and a supposed feedback from a student. I am also disappointed with your response thus far to the students (28 in total from my last count) who wrote in support of me.

During our recent meeting on 21 October 2008, you showed me an email from a supposed student who signed off as Collin Lim. In it, he pointed out my political activities and my association with Dr. Chee Soon Juan, a well known Singaporean dissident and secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party? You also noted to me that he had copied his email to Singapore's Minister of Education Ng Eng Hen.

In our meeting, you had expressed doubt that Collin Lim was a student of JCU. Notwithstanding, even if he was a bona fide student, it is unthinkable that a lecturer was suspended because of the feedback of a single student despite 28 opposing voices.

The Dean Mr. Noel Richards and Associate Dean Dr. Denise Dillon had handed me my suspension letter earlier that morning. In that meeting, Noel mentioned that in Australia, lecturers do not bring politics into the classroom. Perhaps he was indirectly accusing me of bringing politics to the classroom. I offer no apologies for the appropriate use of political examples as illustrations when I teach social psychology or any other topic. But no one can accuse me of politicizing the classroom, a fact clearly attested by the 28 students.

On the contrary, by suspending me on the basis of Collin Lim's email, is JCU not politicizing the classroom since the gist of Collin's complaint is my association with Dr Chee. Your expression of concern that the complaint was copied to Dr. Ng Eng Hen is instructive.

When I pointed out that you are working for a university owned by a free country, your response was that "half of the school is owned by Singapore" and that your position is directly "under the control of that half".

I am accused of donning a T-shirt depicting the picture of a kangaroo in a judge's gown. I expressed my opinion as a Singaporean over a Singaporean matter. What does this have to do with JCU? I have not committed a crime that has brought disrepute to the university. In fact one would have thought that a university would respect my right to freedom of expression.

Moreover, even before the AGC served me the charges, JCU had already meted out its sentence on me. This was done unilaterally without my input whatsoever. The letter of suspension was already printed and signed prior to my meeting with the deans. Given such a hasty and unilateral action based solely on an email copied to Ng Eng Hen when the case has not even begun leads one to only one conclusion: that JCU acted under political pressure over my suspension.

Chief among the reasons given by Noel for my suspension is "to protect the reputation of the school." Would the reputation of the school not be enhanced if it listens to 28 of its students rather than to one? Would the reputation of the school not be enhanced if it separates academics from politics, and refuses to allow itself to get embroiled in political dispute? Would the reputation of the school not be enhanced if it stands up for the bullied rather than with the bully—albeit the bully in this case is the Government of Singapore

You and your colleagues come from a nation where the freedom of expression is valued, sometimes taken for granted. Here in Singapore we face bankruptcy, endure fines and imprisonment just to make ourselves heard.

Desmond Tutu said, "If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality." As such, in my struggle for a freer society, it would have been reasonable had I asked you for help and support. Yet, I did not ask for that. All I am asking for, from you and your colleagues, is that you do not add to my struggle.

Clearly, the matter has nothing to do with my competence or performance as an academic. This is established by the 28 letters, and further confirmed by Noel and Denise in our meeting. It involved, however, the freedom of opinion that any university should respect and uphold. In fact, JCU should encourage and be proud of the diversity of opinion.

I therefore beseech you to restore my contract and standing with the university. In your consideration, may I also ask that you to take into account my good standing and the goodwill I have built over almost four years as an associate lecturer with JCU and its students?

Sincerely,
John Tan
28 Oct 2008
Share this article:
Facebook Technorati Stumble It! Newsvine Reddit Del.icio.us Digg This!
Comments (25)
  • SDP Mirror (Infer the worst) - The Story : Part 1
    I begin my story:
    [color=blue]Soon is in the drivers seat, his face grim with concentration. On this right, his right-hand man, John. Coming along for the ride, in the back, Tik and Gopal. The traffic conditions are challenging, and Soon grips the wheel hard.
    The radio announces :
    "This is traffic watch. Please watch out for a crazy car going the wrong way up the expressway. Please drive with caution! "
    Soon shouts out "One?! There are hundreds of them! All going the wrong way!"
    John agrees "The state-controlled radio is lying! Distorting facts!"
    Gopal pipes up :"Yes, I want the TRUTH, In USA, we get the TRUTH! We do things right! We drive on the RIGHT side of the road! "
    Soon : "Hey! You shut up! I did not say you can talk in MY car!"
    Tik " But Gopal is right! You are driving on the right side of the road........"
    Soon : "Hey! If you want to be in this car, you shut up too! You stop defending Gopal NOW! " [/color]

    Stay tuned for the next exciting episode!
  • About Time - re: The Story : Part 1
    [quote=SDP Mirror (Infer the worst)]I begin my story:
    [color=blue]Soon is in the drivers seat, his face grim with concentration. On this right, his right-hand man, John. Coming along for the ride, in the back, Tik and Gopal. The traffic conditions are challenging, and Soon grips the wheel hard.
    The radio announces :
    "This is traffic watch. Please watch out for a crazy car going the wrong way up the expressway. Please drive with caution! "
    Soon shouts out "One?! There are hundreds of them! All going the wrong way!"
    John agrees "The state-controlled radio is lying! Distorting facts!"
    Gopal pipes up :"Yes, I want the TRUTH, In USA, we get the TRUTH! We do things right! We drive on the RIGHT side of the road! "
    Soon : "Hey! You shut up! I did not say you can talk in MY car!"
    Tik " But Gopal is right! You are driving on the right side of the road........"
    Soon : "Hey! If you want to be in this car, you shut up too! You stop defending Gopal NOW! " [/color]

    Stay tuned for the next exciting episode![/quote]

    [b]THAT'S PEPPER FOR MY SOUP.

    KEEP IT UP... I JUST LOVE YOUR ANALOGY !!![/b]
  • AnnA To SDP Mirror - Interesting Analogy
    Wonderful and interesting way to put across your points... very creative !!!

    Keep it up yeah...
  • ah beng - to SDP mirror
    What was that? Your story is crap. Write another better one.
  • Keep on fighting - Stand up taller
    [color=blue][b]Wipe out the Lee Regime!

    Stand up taller each time you fight for your values SDP/John![/b][/color]
  • Mike - to SDP Mirror
    You mean there is no right from wrong?

    Do you believe in fairness? Or politics is just a dirty game?

    Do you think LKY should give us more freedom to choose?

    Do you think LKY+family ways of handling Singapore's monies is right? Or it is perceived to be right?

    I don't know. I may not agree with CSJ but ... I also not agree with LKY and his way of handling the lives of Singaporeans.
  • Daniel Ling - Sincerely
    I feel the example is quite right. The journey is indeed tough due to the fact tat in SG, Majority of the population still adopts the "I'm fine, I dun care, I dunno" attitude.

    Thus of coz SDP is surely treading down the hard way. And for that I respect SDP. I may not entirely 100% agree with some of the Methods but i do agree that the cause is good.

    I sincerely hope that SDP will persevere and do wat no man did before. In SG.

    Sincerely
    Daniel Ling

    PS: Slowly but surely, the masses are turning. Persevere!!!
  • Mike - A suggestion
    My suggestion is for SDP to think about "indirect" revenue stream to support its cause and vision.

    A man has to eat, he has to support his family. If a man is not secured, he cannot fight for you. It is foolish to think that such a man is one you don't need. If so, you will find no supporters.
  • Tommy
    PAP to get my vote next election...?
    "Nahhhhhhh' !!!!

    They will get it only when pigs start to fly!
  • AnnA - Blessing In Disguise
    It is a blessing in disguise JCU is giving you ample opportunity to fight tooth and nail in court, otherwise you may also accuse the JCU of denying you the opportunity to do so. You should thank JCU for its kindness and magnanimity instead of going down on a bended knee. Be a man and not a kangaroo. Reap what you sow. Show your intellectual prowess in court to defeat the AG once and for all. Stand up and be counted!
  • Anonymous
    LKY's commitment to Singapore?

    Seems, again, like his vindictive nature has taken hold, and he is once again prepared to sacrifice Singapore's reputation, and even his own son's attempt to build a more gracious Singaporean society, just to satisfy his craving for vengeance!

    How dare he point to me the kangaroo on his T-shirt as I passed by!!!! (Any mature person faced with that would, if really called for, respond only with a fatherly sense of humour.)
  • Mike - To Tommy
    Do you think your vote alone make a damn difference?

    SDP needs to think about how to get the popular votes
  • ah loong-ah loong ah loong..lo - re: The Story : Part 1
    [color=gray][quote=SDP Mirror (Infer the worst)]I begin my story:
    [color=blue]Soon is in the drivers seat, his face grim with concentration. On this right, his right-hand man, John. Coming along for the ride, in the back, Tik and Gopal. The traffic conditions are challenging, and Soon grips the wheel hard.
    The radio announces :
    "This is traffic watch. Please watch out for a crazy car going the wrong way up the expressway. Please drive with caution! "
    Soon shouts out "One?! There are hundreds of them! All going the wrong way!"
    John agrees "The state-controlled radio is lying! Distorting facts!"
    Gopal pipes up :"Yes, I want the TRUTH, In USA, we get the TRUTH! We do things right! We drive on the RIGHT side of the road! "
    Soon : "Hey! You shut up! I did not say you can talk in MY car!"
    Tik " But Gopal is right! You are driving on the right side of the road........"
    Soon : "Hey! If you want to be in this car, you shut up too! You stop defending Gopal NOW! " [/color]

    Stay tuned for the next exciting episode![/quote][/color]

    What are you driving at?! You better drive home alone...your comment is utterly verbose to the point of being vexatious.
  • k z
    australia does not have freedom of expression of everyone

    it only has freedom of expression for white people. if anyone says anything bad about australia and they not white. they are told to go home.

    as an asian i have more freedom of expression in singapore even though i know it is limited.
  • ah beng - kill for thrills
    Poeple like SDP Mirror and jacys and all those clowns would even murder for papees, I'm sure.
  • David
    A unknown Collin Lim can even be taken seriously, so can someone send a email toNg Eng Hen indicating that the way James Cook University is handling Tan's case is actually breeding the mindset of a brainless kangaroo, and so proposing that Jame Cook University must be closed down to prevent further Kangaroo Ideas for damaging the reputation of the educational standard here.
  • Brendan - Lessons learnt
    Things have to evolve.

    Take a look for example, even so in the world's greatest superpower America they until now rejected the archaic notion of a black president (or half black for that matter)

    Now guess who is going to become the first black president.

    History has been made!!

    America has moved foward.

    Now it's about time Singapore should evolve to keep abreast with the wold.
  • Anonymous - re:
    [quote=k z]australia does not have freedom of expression of everyone

    it only has freedom of expression for white people. if anyone says anything bad about australia and they not white. they are told to go home.

    as an asian i have more freedom of expression in singapore even though i know it is limited.[/quote]

    No you are wrong. There are many Asians there were born in Australia. Go home? Australia is their home. Maybe you are right that if someone criticize Australia while enjoying their stay there, some people might be piss and tell you to go back to where you came from. But I'm sure that no one would say this if you were to criticize a certain political party and voice issues like rising cost of living, etc. In fact, Australians would be more than happy and proud if you do so.

    However, in Singapore, that certain political party would see to it that you be harassed, intimated, arrested, jailed, fined, barred from election, fired from your job, shamed by their propaganda machines, etc. Moles would be sent to persuade you to leave Singapore permanently.

    Singapore has freedom of speech??? Gimme a break, don't make me laugh!!!
  • MATE' d (Lai Lai Chinese Resta - A 'Dear John' Letter
    Dear John,

    Has it occurred to you that you were perhaps given your marching orders because the Aussies Down Under were very upset when you pointed out your kangaroo
    - despite and nowithstanding the term 'kangaroo court' having had its origins from during colonial Australia (when convicts were summarily sentenced without trial, just as we have here in MODERN 21st CENTURY, FIRST-RATED WORLD-CLASS SINGAPORE) -
    to Lee Kuan Yew, thereby alluding that ALL kangaroos were as vicious and evil like the Old Devil himseland that it was in fact Kevin-ROO who has issued the sack order from Canberra (or was he in a Chinatown teahouse at that time collecting protection money and bribes and freebies from ethnic Chinese businessmen...)?

    Oh, how wounded their pride must be - kangaroo owners and connoisseurs of kangaroo meat, and the Socceroos, and the Mathildas!

    Just wear some heavy metal rock T-shirt with ghastly-looking musician's face on it and point that out to the equally ghastly-looking Lee Kuan Yew (or Kwa Geok Choo, or their stepdaughter-in-law Ho Ching).

    Nothing kangarooffensive about that. Is that?

    Cheers, mate!
  • Asian in Asia, specifically Si
    [quote]as an asian i have more freedom of expression in singapore even though i know it is limited.[/quote]


    HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHHAHAHAHHAHHAH
  • Anonymous - Shame 'em in their own land, John!
    What's the point of taking up the case with JCU Singapore CEO/Dean when their minds have already been made up - the very day they set foot in Singapore to do business, as every wise investor should know?

    Go Down under, pursue your case there, bring THEIR shame HOME.

    Certain that there will be in fact MORE Aussies sympathetic to your injustice and sufferings than you can EVER get from your own kind in Singapore!

    Do newspaper interviews, work the TV circuits - Old Mr Tang is there, ain't he? Sure he'd have contacts aplenty by now.

    CAVEAT: KEVIN RUDD, LIKE HIS PREDECESSOR JOHN HOWARD, MAY WELL ALREADY HAVE BEEN BOUGHT BY OPTUS-SINGTEL-TEMASEK-GIC, SO YOU MAY NOT EVEN GET PAST IMMIGRATION. Sorry, mate - but that's the way life is; we Aussies are sons and daughters of crooks and convicts after all, heehee
  • yawnz
    john! you make a good drama script writer! or those aunty who complain after buying a product that is lousy!!


    hahaha if 28 students say YES HE IS GOOD but 1 pointed out that HE STOLE FROM ME, who do we listen? slightly skewed, but the point is, pls la stop using tt "TWENTY EIGHT" as some magic weight. 28 a lot ah? hahahahahha

    i can imagine if u become my mp ah, when i go to you for problem, u noe what you'll do? start telling me YOUR problems!! haha you do psychology... how about dissecting the majority singaporean's psychology? that we have rejected your style and brand of politics?
  • vile-n-frenzy - CONTEMPT OF COURT...AN INTRODUCTION
    Contempt of court is a court order which, in the context of a court trial or hearing, deems an individual as having been disrespectful of the court, its process, and its invested powers.

    Often stated simply as "in contempt", or a person "held in contempt", it is the highest remedy of a judge to impose sanctions on an individual for acts which excessively or in a wanton manner disrupt the normal process of a court hearing.

    A finding of contempt of court may result from a failure to obey a lawful order of a court, showing disrespect for the judge, disruption of the proceedings through poor behavior, or publication of material deemed likely to jeopardize a fair trial.

    A judge may impose sanctions such as a fine or jail for someone found guilty of contempt of court.

    Typically judges in common law systems have more extensive power to declare someone in contempt than judges in civil law systems.

    In civil cases involving relations between private citizens, the intended victim of the act of contempt is usually the party for whose benefit the ruling was implemented, rather than the court.

    A person found in contempt of court is called a "contemnor." To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt:

    existence of a lawful order
    the contemnor's knowledge of the order
    the contemnor's ability to comply
    the contemnor's failure to comply

    In English law (a common law jurisdiction) the law on contempt is partly set out in case law, and partly specified in the Contempt of Court Act 1981. Contempt may be a criminal or civil offence.

    The maximum sentence for criminal contempt is two years. Disorderly, contemptuous, or insolent behavior toward the judge while holding the court, tending to interrupt the due course of a trial or other judicial proceeding, may be prosecuted as "direct" contempt. The term "direct" means that the court itself cites the person in contempt by describing the behavior observed on the record.

    Direct contempt is distinctly different from indirect contempt, wherein another individual affected by a court order may file papers alleging contempt against a person who has willfully violated a lawful court order.

    Criminal contempt of court
    The Crown Court is a court of record under Supreme Court Act 1981 and accordingly has power to punish for contempt of its own motion. The Divisional Court has stated that this power applies in three circumstances:

    Contempt "in the face of the court" (not to be taken literally; the judge does not need to see it, provided it took place within the court precincts or relates to a case currently before that court);

    Disobedience of a court order; and

    Breaches of undertakings to the court.

    Where it is necessary to act quickly the judge (even the trial judge) may act to sentence for contempt.

    Where it is not necessary to be so urgent, or where indirect contempt has taken place the Attorney General can intervene and the Crown Prosecution Service will institute criminal proceedings on his behalf before the Divisional Court of the Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice of England and Wales (Criminal Division).

    Magistrates' Courts are not courts of record, but nonetheless have powers granted under the

    Contempt of Court Act 1981. They may detain any person who insults the court or otherwise disrupts its proceedings until the end of the sitting. Upon the contempt being either admitted or proved the court may imprison the offender for a maximum of one month, fine them up to GB£2500, or do both.

    It is contempt of court to bring an audio recording device or picture-taking device of any sort into an English court without the consent of the court.

    It is not contempt of court (under section 10 of the Act) for a journalist to refuse to disclose his sources, unless the court has considered the evidence available and determined that the information is "necessary in the interests of justice or national security or for the prevention of disorder or crime."

    Strict liability contempt
    Under the Contempt of Court Act 1981 it is criminal contempt of court to publish anything which creates a real risk that the course of justice in proceedings may be seriously impaired.

    It only applies where proceedings are active, and the Attorney General has issued guidance as to when he believes this to be the case, and there is also statutory guidance. The clause prevents the newspapers and media from publishing material that is too extreme or sensationalist about a criminal case until the trial is over and the jury has given its verdict.

    Section 2 of the Act limits the common law presumption that conduct may be treated as contempt regardless of intention: now only cases where there is a substantial risk of serious prejudice to a trial are affected.

    Civil contempt
    In civil proceedings there are two main ways in which contempt is committed:

    Failure to attend at court despite a subpoena requiring attendance. In respect of the High Court, historically a writ of latitat would have been issued, but now a bench warrant is issued, authorizing the tipstaff to arrange for the arrest of the individual, and imprisonment until the date and time the court appoints to next sit.

    In practice a groveling letter of apology to the court is sufficient to ward off this possibility, and in any event the warrant is generally 'backed for bail' i.e. bail will be granted once the arrest has been made and a location where the person can be found in future established.

    Failure to comply with a court order. A copy of the order, with a "penal notice" - i.e. notice informing the recipient that if they do not comply they are subject to imprisonment - is served on the person concerned. If, after that, they breach the order, proceedings can be started and in theory the person involved can be sent to prison.

    In practice this rarely happens as the cost on the claiming of bringing these proceedings is significant and in practice imprisonment is rarely ordered as an apology or fine are usually considered appropriate.
  • Anonymous - re: To Tommy
    [quote=Mike]Do you think your vote alone make a damn difference?

    SDP needs to think about how to get the popular votes[/quote]

    Patience my friend, $1 saved (against PAP) is $1 earned (for SDP). Qin dynasty was around for 15 years, Tang dynasty for 289 years. Lee? at most 60 years.

    Thanks for the reminder. Yes, my vote alone makes a differnce. Because there are more "Tommy"s out there.
  • lee marks
    Can anyone send me one of the kangaroo t-shirts, please?! Or tell me where I can get one, thanks.
Please login or register to post your comments.
 

Latest Videos

SDP's Chinese New Year walkabout 2012
You need a Flash Player enabled browser to view this YouTube video
youtube link

 

SDP Publictaions

Magazine Support SDP , buy our 30th Anniversary Magazine here

minsal
pdf
link

 

Act Now

Support Democracy!
Please Donate
Read:The party that stands up for you
More options to donate
 

Danny the Democracy Bear

Now available online here!

 
Singapore Democrats on Facebook
Banner
Banner

Awesome Words

Idiots are always in favour of inequality of income (their only chance of eminence), and the really great in favour of equality.

George Bernard Shaw
Banner

News feeds

Singapore Democrat News
Joomla Templates by JoomlaShack