The Singapore High Court dismissed another attempt by the defence to show that the police had acted in bad faith and abused its powers when they arrested Tak Boleh Tahan protesters while allowing a similar event held by the Consumers Association of Singapore (CASE) to take place.
Readers will recall that District Judge Chia Wee Kiat had disallowed questions put to licensing officer Station Inspector Yeo Kok Leong on why the police had rejected the application Dr Chee Soon Juan made for a protest on 15 Mar 08 outside Parliament House. (See here)
Dr Chee argued that the defendants are alleging mala fide (bad faith) on the part of the police and cited the landmark decision by the House of Lords in the UK that ruled that "a man commits no crime if he infringes an invalid [policy] and has the right to challenge the validity of the [policy] before any court in which he is being tried."
The Singapore police had declared in 2008: "Police do not issue permits for outdoor political events in public places."
Dr Chee pointed out that the stated policy of not allowing outdoor political events is ultra vires (beyond the power of) the Constitution and is therefore invaild.
While the Constitution allows Parliament to impose restrictions of public assembly under certain consitions (such as when national security is threatened) it does not allow a total ban on such activity.
Dr Chee, together with Mr Ambalam and Mr John Tan, then applied for a Criminal Motion which is a hearing that allows the High Court to direct a District Judge to revise a decision.
High Court Judge Mr Kan Ting Chiu heard the Motion last Tuesday (10 Mar 09). Dr Chee presented the arguments he made before the trial judge to Judge Kan.
"If the courts in Singapore rule that any 'wrong' decision made by the police, even if it is made in bad faith, cannot be questioned then where do citizens go to seek redress?" the SDP leaders asked.
If such a situation is allowed to develop, then won't the judicial system be complicit, or worse, aiding and abetting an act that is unlawful and unconstitutional? Worse, won't such protection of the police encourage even more abuse of power?
"If after hearing and considering the evidence, the trial judge decides that there is no bad faith on the part of the police, then so be it," argued Dr Chee. "But if he stops us from adducing the evidence, then how is he going to see the whole picture and come to a just decision?"
Shockingly the two Deputy Public Prosecutors Han Ming Kwang and Isaac Tan did not counter the authorities Dr Chee cited or attempt to rebut the legal points. Instead they chose to make arguments that had no legal basis:
First, they accused the defence of deliberately delaying the trial.
Second, they said that the Criminal Motion was premature because it was only the second witness.
Third, they cited that Dr Chee and Mr Ambalam had taken up criminal motions in other cases and those motions were dismissed.
While Dr Chee argued on the law and showed overwhelming legal precedence that it was important for defendants to question witnesses in order to prove mala fide, the DPPs made no such effort in rebuttal.
At the end of the arguments Judge Kan acknowledged that questions regarding abuse of power were "not irrelevant considerations." Despite this he dismissed the motion.
It is judicial actions/decisions as such that holds up our courts to self inflicted contempt.I can sympathise with the defendents.Perhaps ,Dr Chee you should ask the fervent defenders of the judiciary and it`s integrity ie the Law Minister,Ag and the Chief Justice how such contempt is so blatantly practised.I am sure international legal orgs would like to hear how well our courts apply the rule of law.No one has done more to bring discredit to our legal system than those who dispense such justice.
Tue 17 Mar 2009 9:04 AM
|
Robox
Let's begin at the end:
Re: [color=red]"At the end of the arguments Judge Kan acknowledged that questions regarding abuse of power were "not irrelevant considerations." Despite this he dismissed the motion."[/color]
That's excatly why Kan(garoo) Ting Chiu is a [b]kangaroo judge[/b] presiding over a [b]kangaroo court[/b].
He has cemented his own reputation by dismissing the motion; no judge worth his weight in salt would have done that.
Tue 17 Mar 2009 9:06 AM
|
Gopalan Nair
What was the basis for the dismissal? Did he give any grounds or nothing? Kindly elaborate. Clearly his dismissal was wrong in law, which I am sure can be taken to pieces in public. Anxiously waiting the grounds.
Thank you Sir
Gopalan Nair
Wed 18 Mar 2009 7:58 AM
|
Robox
Re: [color=red]"Isn't the judicial system then complicit, or worse, aiding and abetting an act that is unlawful and unconstitutional?"[/color]
[color=black]Yes, and Kan(garoo) Ting Chiu has to take personal responsibility for this act of corruption that leads Singaporeans to declare the courts to be nothing but kangaroo courts - he is helping Singaporeans and international human rights organizations to establish this as a fact.[/color]
Re: "Worse, does such a protection of the police encourage even more abuse of power?"[/color]
I'm afraid that this question is a long overdue one. The 'more abuse of power' that the defendants argue could occur in the future is already an entrenched reality. The abuse of police power is right here in this very case.
Wed 18 Mar 2009 7:59 AM
|
Robox
Re: [color=red]"But if he stops us from adducing the evidence, then how is he going to see the whole picture and come to a just decision?"[/color]
I guess that those are exactly the corrupt and underhanded manipulations that Lee Skunk Yew has ordered this easily corruptible judge to perform: deny the defendants any procedural fairness for the express purpose of denying them a fair trial.
How else can this corrupt judge get to keep his fat paycehck intact?
Or have we all forgotten Michael Khoo who was exiled into obscurity for ruling in favour of the late JB Jeyaratneam?
Tue 17 Mar 2009 6:36 PM
|
Tan Tai Wei
That the DPPs (not one - two!)would not argue against Chee's legal grounds, instead raised objections to do only with procedural technicalities and purported delaying, and that Judge Kan conceded that Chee's grounds are "not irrelevant", are very telling.
Seems like our two honourable DPPs were evading the legal argument because unanswerable, and so used procedural considerations instead, in order to enable Kan to avoid the responsibility of giving Chee the case!
Wed 18 Mar 2009 12:55 AM
|
nganesan
[color=red]How else can this corrupt judge get to keep his fat paycheck intact?[/color]
This is why Lee's minions are paid millions in salary. We can just call it permanent bribery.
You have to wonder though how Kan Ting Chiu sleeps at night or what he tells his children or his grandchildren?
Wed 18 Mar 2009 3:20 AM
|
quantum
Lim Boon Heng: CDC bonus is fair
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a7xZQzjZ3ho
Wed 18 Mar 2009 8:56 AM
|
Robox - To Gopalan Nair
Re: [color=red]"What was the basis for the dismissal? Did he give any grounds or nothing?"
[color=black]As if Singapore's kangaroo judges would ever illuminate on such matters; their final word, like God's word, is indisputable.
If they have any doubt whatsoever that public confidence in the courts is low and is due entirely to them, I leave this as food for thought for readers.
"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."[/color]
Justice will be seen to be done when the grounds for rejecting the motion are made visisble i.e. stated explicitly.
“The rendering of useful service is the common duty of mankind, and that only in the purifying fire of sacrifice is the dross of selfishness consumed and the greatness of the human soul set free.”
Singapore Democrats
Support SDP , buy our 30th Anniversary Magazine here
