Judge contradicts himself in flyer distribution case

Home

News

Singapore

Wednesday, 07 January 2009

Singapore Democrats

District Judge Chng Lai Beng contradicted himself in court today in the on-going trial of Mr Gandhi Ambalam, Dr Chee Soon Juan, and Ms Chee Siok Chin.

The three are charged with taking part in an assembly without a permit. They were distributing flyers announcing the protest that was to be held during the WB-IMF meeting in Singapore in 2006.

It started when the Prosecution said that they had video footage of the activists distributing flyers at Raffles City outside the City Hall MRT Station on 10 Sep 06. Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Anandan Bala, however, said that he may consider introducing the footage as evidence later in the trial if the need arises.

The defendants said that if the DPP has video evidence, he should produce it instead of relying on police eyewitnesses. This is more accurate and efficient than relying on the officers' memory of events especially when the incident took place more than 2 years ago.

But the DPP refused to tender the video as evidence.

The defendants turned to Judge Chng and applied for the video to be produced.

The Judge said that he could not force the Prosecution to produce the evidence. "It is the prerogative of the Prosecution to present its evidence as it sees fit," Judge Chng noted, "its case will stand or fall according to the evidence it submits."

Ms Chee Siok Chin pressed the Judge on this issue to which he replied: "I don't know by what law I can force the Prosecution to produce this video."

On hearing that, Ms Chee relented saying that the Judge was the expert and that he would know best.

Later, upon checking the Evidence Act it was discovered that Section 167(1) states that: "The Judge may, in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts,...order the production of any document or thing..."

Following the lunch break, Dr Chee pointed out to the Judge that contrary to what he stated earlier, the court clearly had the power to direct the Prosecution to produce the video to show proof of the relevant facts.

Ms Chee reminded the Judge what he had said earlier about not being able to direct the Prosecution to produce the evidence: "Clearly this is not true as Section 167 shows."

"I will not respond to this," Judge Chng replied.

Dr Chee added: "We are concerned because you had told us that there was no law that empowered you to compel the Prosecution to produce the video evidence, when in fact there is."

"We had stood guided by you because as Ms Chee had said that she deferred to you because you were the expert and we are laypersons. Now we discover that you had said something diametrically opposite of the law."

Judge Chng then replied: "This is an adversarial system. My ruling stands."

Unsure what that comment meant the defendants persisted, indicating that they were not taking issue with the Judge's decision not to direct the Prosecution to produce the video evidence but were concerned that the Judge had indicated something that was not true.

At this point, Judge Chng denied that he had said that he did not have the power to direct the Prosecution to produce the evidence.

Dr Chee asked the Judge to read back his notes that he had recorded earlier. "I did not say what you say I said," Judge Chng insisted.

He brushed the matter aside saying that he did not want to continue talking about it as it was not relevant to the case. He then ordered the hearing to proceed.

The hearing continues tomorrow in Subordinate Court No 19 at 9:30 am.

Share this article:

Comments (12)

Thu 08 Jan 2009 8:54 AM | Tan Tai Wei

If the description of court proceedings is accurate, it appears that we have a judge who first was ignorant of a ruling, resulting in his failure to judge by that, and then when subsequently found out and told, denied it ever happened.

How can one who seems to lack the integrity, honesty and commitment to justice and truth to judge fairly and acknowledge the truth of his own conduct, and not be prejudiced in his own favour in his own case, be depended upon to continue judging the case?

It would be much worse if the whole episode were due to his being driven by the motive of not being seen to be conceding anything to the defendants against the prosecution, given the political significance of the case. And so he had refused to rule against the prosecution when the defendants pressed him to do so, pleading he had not the power, and then, when unexpectedly discovered to have been wrong in law, he could not concede that either, and so "contradicted himself" by denying it ever happened.

Hopefully, the latter cannnot be true, given the great care of our CJ, AG and Law Minister for upholding the integrity of our judiciary.

Thu 08 Jan 2009 7:07 PM | Robox - Kangaroo Adamantly Obstructs Justice

This time, with yet another "conversation stopper" - thank you my friend, ally and brother Alex Au!

http://www.yawningbread.org/arch_2008/yax-959.htm

The conversation stopper in this instance is this:

"This is an adversarial system. My ruling stands." - kangaroo judge (no reason necessary since justice DOES NOT need to be seen to be served in Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore)

To remind your readers and to reinforce the same points that Alex had raised in his classic expose:

"This is what is known as a conversation stopper -– when someone, usually a person with power or influence, cites some authority or principle which he considers incontestable, and if possible, raises the ante for disobedience, in an attempt to silence the other side. This tactic is often employed when the side with power knows it cannot win an argument through debate about the relevant merits of an issue." - Alex Au

Excuse me, but isn't ANY trial inherently adversarial? Isn't that the very nature of trials: the prosecution VERSUS (think: football match) the defendants!

When one party accuses the another of a crime, and especially when the second party is trying to establish innocence, the two parties are in CONFLICT; an adversarial relationship is set up automatically, and it is not a creation of Ms Chee's!

Yet the judge decided to penalize Ms Chee and the other defendants for it.

(Note: "adversarial" is also what Lee Kuan Yew claims he does not want Singapore's POLITICS to be characterized as - very palatable words for his cowardly way of dealing with human rights challeges. Isn't the judge's choice of words telling? I'll bet "adversarial" is just something the judge does not want the defendants to be with the government's lawyers - it'll put them in a spot in which the truth has to be forced out. But as I said the adversarial nature of a trial is built into the system; no one needs to apologize for it.)

And the judge' s role - the job he is paid to do - is to MEDIATE conflict. If the judge doesn't understand the nature of his work, I would question whether he is in the first place qualified to be sitting at the judge's bench - one instance of judicial incompetence which I will come to shortly.

Most importantly, by introducing this 'incontestable' conversation stopper - which I refuse to allow to remain in the realm of the incontestable - the judge is ACTIVELY OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE for the defendants.

To make matters worse, when judges refuse to be accountable (to the public, and NOT just the defendants, the former of whom finally has some measure of free access to court proceedings of political cases in Singapore) then they are in violation of an important principle of natural justice: that justice needs to be SEEN to be done.

To quote wikipedia on this particular point: "Justice should be seen to be done. If the community is satisfied that justice has been done, they will continue to place their faith in the courts."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_justice

Thus it can be seen: the onus for trust in our judiciary clearly lies with those tasked with the dispensation of justice; both the police prosecution as well as those who are in the position to dispense justice like judges; NOT those seeking redress!

When the police prosecutors in collusion with the judiciary conspire never to give reasons for decisions (the reasons for permits not being issued; the reasons for a judge's ruling, etc.), those watching will reason that justice is not being served because it can't be seen to be served. (Why the heck was XXX ruled inadmissable, for instance?)

I conclude with the following wikipedia entry on "fair trials" which I hope can be the basis of further exploration on the topic:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_a_fair_trial

Relevant to this case as documented by Singapore Democrats in this article:

A fair trial can have these as impediments (I'm only highlighting the ones that I feel are relevant to the case as it is being reported here):

a) Corruption or incompetence (judicial or otherwise)

[Robox: clearly the judge is incompetent if he does not know the existence of Section 167(1) of the Evidence Act. Additionally, the link to "corruption" in wikipedia includes this sentence: "Forms of corruption vary, but include bribery, extortion, cronyism, nepotism, patronage, graft, and embezzlement. I leave readers to speculate, in the absence of transparency by the judge, which of these forms of corruption might apply to the judge presiding, if at all.]

b) A lack of legal counsel

[Robox: My own opinion is that when the judge refused to advice MS Chee on how he can compel the prosecution to produce the video evidence, he is unfit to provide legal counsel. I stand corrected if someone can point out if legal counsel must necessarily only come from lawyers. What if there is no lawyer defending the three? Can it come from the judge?)

Conversely, according to the same wikipedia entry, the requirements for a fair trial include (and again, only the ones relevant to this case as reported are included here) :

a) A competent, neutral and detached judge and (if applicable) jury

(Though not relevant here, another interesting requirement for a fair trial that has been relevant in many previous cases is "...a sufficient and equal amount of legal counsel for all parties".)

I would urge all readers to read the wikipedia entry and famialiarize themselves with the contents; this is the only weapon left that we can defend ourselves - and our comrades - with: knowledge!

So it's plain then: kangaroo?

Or no kangaroo?

You decide.

Thu 08 Jan 2009 10:38 AM | Gopalan Nair

Judge Chng Lai Beng is making a mockery of the law, just as the entire Singapore judiciary for Lee's political ends. Is it not sad for Lee Kuan Yew to say that Singapore aspires to be a legal hub and claim it is a democracy!

Keep exposing this dictatorship. Thank you. As each day passes the truth is known by even greater numbers.

Thu 08 Jan 2009 8:53 PM | mic1838

Sometimes when you point out the truth to these people, they react by saying "I am the judge, don't challenge my ruling." I think last night he ate too much for dinner and he must have forgot to do his reading before trial. To err is human guys, give that man a break...

Thu 08 Jan 2009 9:14 PM | black-scholes - hahahah...

I laughed at this post.
Forgive me, I do have a good sense of humour. It's a natural gift, and sorry...I really couldn't help it.

I usually laugh at:
a) clowns
b) Liang Po Po (Jack Neo)
c) dumb blonde jokes
d) Jay Leno
e) silly ironies
f) etc.

Must say...this is a good one.

Thu 08 Jan 2009 9:27 PM | exSINgaPOORean - What do you expect?

What do you expect from an "kangaroo".

This exactly why John Tan and his gang put on the kangaroo judge T-shirts, which should be auction out in the eBay.

Dr. Chee should play the recording in this website and Youtube. Let the whole legal world hear it. If this is not kangaroo court then what is?

Thu 08 Jan 2009 11:01 PM | whjho - Is that accountability and integrity

If it is as it was reported in this website, there is

i) lack of professionalism
ii) lack of intgerity
iii)lack of accountability; and most of all
iv) lack of humbleness and courage to recognise and correct damages/mistakes

Fri 09 Jan 2009 12:12 AM | g_e - Here cum de judge...

[i]"To err is human guys, give that man a break..."[/i]

Sure hope you're being ironic. Are you actually saying that Judge Chng, in digging in his heels in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is making no more than [i][b]an honest mistake[/b][/i]??? C'mon! These kangaroos have been handed the right to [b][u]destroy[/u][/b] other people's lives with their verdicts. Such ruinous power requires, indeed demands, the utmost responsibility to get the facts absolutely spot on as far as is humanly possible. To state it plainly, there is simply no room for his petulance in law, much less a break.

Case by case over the years, every single Singapore judge from Chief Justice on down has been shown to have been got at whenever a politically sensitive trial takes place. The evidence is so stark and in-your-face you'd have to be blind, deaf and dumb not to wrinkle your nose at the taint. Here we have, once again, another instance of the ugly face of Singapore justice doing its worst.

Didn't someone once proclaim ominously, [i]"To my friends, everything. To my enemies, the law."[/i]?

Fri 09 Jan 2009 5:22 AM | Dick - How many Kangaroo Judge do we have?

This clown, should first excuse himself for being bias, then go back to law school.

If a lay person can point to you a section of the law that you should know in the first place, it is embarrassing enough, to deny and lie about what is being recorded, is down right stupid.

How can ordinary citizen, trust that the court will be fair and just when one of the party involve, happen to be his paymaster?

Let us remember this Kangaroo Judge, for the disservice he do everyday, taking pay from people's tax money but serve only Dirty Harry.

Fri 09 Jan 2009 7:00 AM | jacys

Hi guys,

Let's not jump to the conclusion. So far we have only heard one side of the story and knowing how unreliable the Chees are, they may distort the truth. I find it hard to believe that our eminent and well-trained judges cannot even recall the evidence Act.

Fri 09 Jan 2009 10:15 PM | | Kaffein

Because we can never get the recordings/transcripts from this hearing, I more supportive of the defendents.

This is because so far, they were able to produce recordings and transcripts from the court. See Lee vs Chee court case. And the transcripts published in the website had been very very accurate.

Already the Chees and Ghandi have already been charged. No point in lying in this website.

Kaffein

Mon 12 Jan 2009 11:06 PM | F C D Chan - Counterparts from Australia

Please could our most eminent District Judge get his act together before he presides over any more cases?

My advice for him is this - he should do his homework during adjournments by going through laws relevant to the case he is presiding over so as to save himself from further embarrassment.

Know ye not that he carries the reputation of Singapore's judicial system on his shoulders?

Please ignore professional creed such as "impartiality" as it only applies when presiding over a game of tennis in Singapore Tennis Courts.

If he is once again faced with a situation similar to the one mentioned in the news article above - he should watch the cartoon on Timid-Little-Ostrich and learn a lesson or two in regard to the appropriate actions to take in such situations.

Above all, he should also consult his counterparts from Australia. (no pun intended!)