Singapore Democrats

Home News Singapore Cuffed, shackled and chained
Cuffed, shackled and chained Print E-mail
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Singapore Democrats

They shuffled into the courtroom clothed in orange overalls labelled "Cluster B", cuffed, shackled and chained. Six guards surrounded them as they were led into the dock.

Their crime? Distributing flyers.

Mr. Gandhi Ambalam and Dr. Chee Soon Juan are serving a one-week prison sentence after they were convicted of assembly without permit because they had distributed flyers that were critical of the Government in a group of six persons.

Ms. Chee Siok Chin was similarly treated two weeks ago when she served her jail term for the same conviction. She was transported to court in a high-security prison van that consisted of a small, dark, windowless, claustrophobic compartment the size of a coffin with all four limbs chained together.


But even before they could finish their sentences they were brought back to court to answer yet to more charges for illegal assembly.In court, Dr. Chee stood up to address the judge on three points. He said:

1. New prisoners are not given "yard" time for exercise for up to a week. This means that prisoners are locked in for 24 hours a day.

2. The lights in the cells are not turned on making the cells very dark and dingy.

3. He had brought in a book but was not allowed to take it into the cell until "clearance was given".


District Judge Chia Wee Kiat said that he would inform the prison authority of the issues.

Even in the dock, the wardens refused to remove the restraints until DJ Chia Wee Kiat ordered the cuffs to be removed. However, their ankles were still shackled and fastened to the bench. Ms. Chee asked the judge to remove the shackles on the feet of Mr. Ambalam and Dr. Chee. "Speaking from personal experience the shackles on the feet cause much pain as they cut into the ankles."

She went on to cite the Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights before DJ Chia. She read out section 33 which states:


Instruments of restraint, such as handcuffs, chains, irons and strait-jackets, shall never be applied as a punishment. Furthermore, chains or irons shall not be used as restraints. Other instruments of restraint shall not be used except in the following circumstances:

( a ) As a precaution against escape during a transfer, provided that they shall be removed when the prisoner appears before a judicial or administrative authority;


Ms. Chee asked DJ Chia to order the shackles on their feet removed as "these men posed absolutely no security threat whatsoever" and that the judge had absolute discretion and jurisdiction in his court.  Mr. Jufrie Mahmood, a co-defendant added that the shackles on Mr. Ambalam and Dr. Chee was an overreaction by the authorities as the two men are not common criminals and should not be treated as such. They are victims of blatant violation of human rights by the PAP Government.

After hearing these applications the judge directed Mr. Ambalam and Dr. Chee to be placed in another dock that had bars all around it, and the restraints to be removed.

Mr. Ambalam who is on medication for a heart problem also told the judge that the doctor in Changi Remand Prison was not following the prescription given by his specialist. The prison doctor had insisted that Mr. Ambalam consumes all his different pills at one go whereas the medicines were to be taken at prescribed times. The prison doctor's insistence that Mr. Ambalam takes all his pills at the same time contradicts that which is prescribed by the specialist shows a total disregard for the safety of his patient.

Is this how a confident government treats political opponents?

Share this article:
Facebook Technorati Stumble It! Newsvine Reddit Del.icio.us Digg This!
Comments (25)
  • quantum
    Some PRC people hijacked a SBS bus and protested for 5 hours! How come police never send them to jail?

    http://www.temasekreview.com/2010/01/18/prc-family-refused-to-leave-bus-sbs-paid-for-a-cab-to-send-them-home/
  • Jaslyn
    It is a actually quite painful to see your fellow friends n colleagues being treated this way..I was almost in tears to see CSJ n Gandhi walk with such difficulty..they must have been in pain..

    Later on when CSJ wanted to use the toilet, they shackles him too..it makes you wonder, if the same treatment been given to MSK, he would not been able to escape..why are political opponents treated worse than a terrorist whereby it is the latter that pose more security threat to the citizens??
  • jbeji
    e day shall come when 'T Kong'will open eyes & as 'Lei Kong'to blast all these bastards dogs with lightings!if not now,sure sure next life when all meet in e next realm...with such dogs around,sometime i wonder is it worthwhile to fight & suffer for these animals?e very country men whom u call "singaporeans"lacky,dogs & simply wanting to please the master & making ur life,even just seconds,miserable...where is justice? & sure sure must see how karma will knock on their doors no matter how long it takes to arrive,glad that God have created all men but one day all shall die & e cycle of karma...stand strong guys & i salute ur guts...
  • quantum
    Look at all these "less serious" police cases:-

    2004 - Huang Na’s killer escaped on toilet break under police custody.
    2006 - Tan Chor Jin (One-Eyed Dragon) escaped to Malaysia, allegedly on a fake passport after shooting a man.
    2006 - NKF Richard Yong managed to flee to Hong Kong.
    2008 - Mas Selamat Kastari - toilet break again.
    2008 - Ng Ting Hwa, the employee who siphoned almost S$2m from his company, fled to Malaysia when he’s under investigation.
    2010 - Silviu Ionescu suspected of killing someone on the road and then ran back to Romania

    http://singaporeanskeptic.blogspot.com/2010/01/you-gotta-love-our-police.html
  • BryanT
    All three opted to serve their prison sentence DESPITE the fact that the appeal at High Court is still pending. SDP has devoted quite a few articles to this and yet has deliberately hidden from us the reasons for this very unorthodox step. It is hence justifiable that eyebrows are raised. There is suspicion that the underlying reason could be something more mischievous than what meets the eye.

    First, all three seems to have deliberately opted to serve their sentences while there were court appearances for other offences scheduled DURING their imprisonments. Unless the trio appear in court almost every week throughout the year, one begins to suspect that the overlap between prison terms and court appearances are NOT coincidental.

    It was aimed at providing a public spectacle of how they, as self-professed political prisoners, are treated by the authorities here. Having themselves appear in court clad in prison attires and the emphasis on them being “cuffed, shackled and chained” is meant to achieve the intended effect – that of drawing sympathy for themselves and distaste for the authorities.

    To make the act complete, CSJ would also complain about the dire prison conditions - no “yard” time, not lightbuld and no book. It was hardly the picture gulag that he wanted to paint. We should also remind ourselves that he is complaining about these despite the fact that he is only spending ONLY seven days.

    Did anyone draw comparisons to Gandhi and MLK (Jr)?

    Of course, the latest article would also record CSC chiming in to highlight the discomfort of metallic restraints and Ambalam's displeasure with prison doctor. All these to get the extra mileage from this episode.

    I don't think it was claustrophobia caused by the small, dark, windowless high-security prison van that SDP was concerned about. SDP was disappointed that there weren't any photo-op to capture the two in orange garb and chains so that the pictures could be flashed around the world. I suppose the authorities had read into the scheme and gotten this (literally) covered.

    SDP is rightfully disappointed that it failed to achieve its intended media effect, but instead expresses this as a further stab at the MSM. In the 5th Jan article, it unsurprisingly reminded us that “the local media has decided to completely blackout this news.” Still not ready to give up, SDP hopes that the trio's antics are “closely watched not just in Singapore but around the world.”

    Now we know why the gang-of-three opted to prematurely serve their sentences. I am aware of the saying not to “kick a man (or two) when they are down”, but I had to snigger when a statement such as the following is made : “even before they could finish their sentences they were brought back to court to answer yet to more charges for illegal assembly.”

    Of course they would not have finished their sentences - it was SCHEMED to be so.
  • shawn
    this is ridiculous. inhuman. i am angered by reading this article.

    fight on.
  • ACDC110
    This is sickening...did they shackled and handcuffed Selamat when he escape from the restroom? A terrorist need not shackled but a political prisoner had to?
    Glad that such things were brought out in the open...PAP just lost 3 votes. The next election just hope the Media don't play the film shot of CSJ encounter with GCT at the food centre. It's very damaging. CSJ, keep up the style in which you conduct yourself oversea...
  • Robox
    After ranting and raving like a lunatic complete with foam around his mouth, the racist pig BryanT comes to a shocking conclusion:

    Re: "Now we know why the gang-of-three opted to prematurely serve their sentences."

    Where, oh where in all of those 7 million words is your Grand Expose, sewer rat BryanT?
  • Robox
    SDP, ban this fool.

  • Robox
    Re: "All three opted to serve their prison sentence DESPITE the fact that the appeal at High Court is still pending. SDP has devoted quite a few articles to this and yet has deliberately hidden from us the reasons for this very unorthodox step." - sewer rat, BryanT

    Yes, all the three convicted have indeed opted to serve their prison sentence despite having their appeal heard.

    How would this be possible if there were no legal provisions for it in the first place?

    And since there are obviously legal provisions for this 'very unorthodox step' to be carried out, why would those so blessed with the inverted logic that BryanT obsiously is, not finally rejoice that those he is so bent on criminalizing on Uncle Lee's behalf are finally acting lawfully?

    Or does he merely get kicks out of insinuating them of having ulterior motives by making scurrilous accusations of them having 'deliberately hidden from us the reasons' for their moves?

    And why do they owe the public this explanantion as if they were public officials paid by BryanT's taxes, and especially to a mere sewer rat who is clearly ill-intentioned towwards them?
  • Robox
    I am personally NOT interested to know why the three convicted have chosen to do what they did.

    If there is clever plot behind this, I would rather they hide it till the very last minute and spring a surprise on the court.

    I'll be cheering wildly. that's for sure.
  • Seelan Palay
    The reply by commentator 'shawn' who expresses his concern totally unaffected by BryanT's rant shows that people don't bother to read his nonsense and/or his views are not convincing at all.

    Dr Chee and Mr Gandhi, our thoughts are with you.
  • worldrights - Provocateur
    BryanT is what’s known in police circles and intelligence work as a provocateur. In his case, he’s an intellectual provocateur. His well-crafted comments are meant to incite, distract, irritate, undermine—but never to seriously inform, except in the darkly negative. His primary agenda is to riddle online conversation with cannonball volleys of compound negatives, based on an agenda that has one end in mind--to subdue SDP.

    The trouble with BryanT is that he never really espouses anything of positive consequence. He is defeatism incarnate. He is a writer who relishes, remarkably, a not-so wholesome disregard for core human principles and appears unwilling to pay any price at all to achieve even a modicum of civil liberties and human rights for his fellow Singaporeans. His arguments would no doubt have found a good home in Vichy France between 1940 and 1944. They would have served him well had he lived in the shadow of the Third Reich, but today his curiously passive acceptance of one indignity after another being heaped on the Singaporean people by a hopelessly paternalistic and fossilized regime reflects a deeper psychology of acquiescence that dignified Singaporeans, young and old, should be mightily ashamed of.

    There’s only one sure way to de-legitimize deliberate provocateurs and backward supporters of a second-class status for a first-class people: They should put him back on the shelf, like a bad book, with little or no fanfare.
  • Tan Tai Wei
    Something worthy of serious note has emerged.

    Have prison wardens, etc., been lazy and flouting the law and human rights in the way they routinely shackle and cuff prisoners at court appearances and other places, without bothering to assess the need, in light of the UN rules for treatment of prisoners?

    And has this been only negligence of prison personel, or government policy?

    Chee and Gandhi's imprisonment would have served an important cause even if it only enables this disrespect of prisoners' rights as human persons to be brought out.
  • BryanT
    First, I apologise for the multitude of grammar mistakes and some incomplete sentences in my last comment. It was quite late into night for a decrepit old man.

    Second, I would like to respond to worldrights, since he seems to be only one trying to make a logical point (although he has also deliberately omitted examining the circumstances of the latest prison indulgences by CSJ and gang).

    Worldrights used the word "defeatism". I doubt I have ever displayed any signs of accepting or being resigned to the prospect of defeat.

    On the contrary, my intentions are to ensure that our (limited) success to date is not lost to those with destructive tendencies. We have discussed enough about SDP's central strategy, and that is to tear down what it can't change. This must be curbed and that is the reason for my presence here.

    I'd admit that the system is not perfect, and there is a long way to go, if not just to meet the aspiration of the next generation. Change there should be, and there can be, but not with the kind of toxic strategies that SDP advocates.

    The other opposition have wisely take a different tack towards effecting change, and that is why I have only needed to make cursory remarks on what they say.

    In fact, it more appropriate to associate SDP's tactics with defeatism, since it seems resigned not to be able to succeed in find a constructive niche. Hence, the need to resort to playing up its woeful plight through well orchestrated courtroom antics.

    Victims, I think not.

    And yes, I do possess some books that I keep on my modest bookshelves, so that I can make references to some wise words occasionally. Others, I discard.

    PS. I would like to take this opportunity to remind the S'pore Prison Services (if they are reading, and I know they are). If indeed the two prisoners were indeed as chained up in court as was described, I think it was an overkill, even if they were (probably) causing chaos in the cells. The amount of restraints must be commensurate with the risk of escape; and it is obviously quite low in this instance. CSJ is committed to staying in S'pore (even for disruptive reasons). Besides, having them chained up only serves the underlying intentions of SDP to portray themselves as victims in this episode.

    The civil service must be fair, and seen to be fair.
  • kestrel83 - About being chained up...
    Let me be frank.

    I have been to prison twice. I have been in court a few times.

    The complaints about the Prisons staff by CSJ is VALID. It happens all the time.

    And at no time was I shackled and chained when I entered the courtroom from Queenstown Remand Prison. It was only during the mass transfer of inmates from QRP to Cluster B were we made to wear the shackles.

    In my humble opinion, CSJ does not deserve to be treated like a murderer, or at least a violent criminal. That is what those shackles are for.

    He merely wishes to be heard by more of our citizens. He wants to advertise his cause.

    Which is exactly what MITA does not want him to do.

    Expressing one's opinion that is contrary to the government's in an overt way seems to be a punishable crime in Singapore.

    It's the same in DPRK, Iran and other less-democratic countries.

    Are we one of them? Apparently.

    And it is a shame to think ourselves as a First World nation when we share the same mentality and ideologies of Third World nations. Enemies of the free world, nonetheless.

    Just my 2 cents worth...
  • g_e - Two black eyes for S'pore justice
    Two mild-mannered middle-aged men, one with a heart condition - chained and shackled like wild beasts, dressed in orange jumpsuits, dragged into a corrupt court under the stern gaze of half-a-dozen armed guards and arraigned before a kangaroo judge.

    Their heinous crime? Words, just words. Distributing a flyer critical of the govt, for heaven's sake...!!! It's the Dark Ages risen from the grave on a tropical island.

    As other posters have pointed out, not even terrorists who plot mass murder are so well-treated by our authorities. Now it is plain for all to see just how much PAP fears the SDP and all that it stands for.

    The firm, quiet refusal of Mr. Gandhi Ambalam, Dr. Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee to be intimidated is living testimony to the strength of their fortitude and an inspiration to us all. They walk the talk and make their tormentors look small. That, my friends, is true courage and steely determination.

    Liu Xia, wife of former university professor and human rights activist Liu Xiaobo, 53, who has spent most of the past 20 years in jail or under house arrest in China, cried out in despair, "It's time we stopped treating words as crimes!"

    It is to our eternal shame that we continue to keep in power those who would do exactly that: treat words as crimes.
  • AhKow
    BryanT: "All three opted to serve their prison sentence DESPITE the fact that the appeal at High Court is still pending. SDP has devoted quite a few articles to this and yet has deliberately hidden from us the reasons for this very unorthodox step. It is hence justifiable that eyebrows are raised. There is suspicion that the underlying reason could be something more mischievous than what meets the eye."

    Er any case of double-speak?

    First he complain that SDP is deliberately "breaking" laws and attempting to bring "Mobocracy" -- mob rule!

    Now the SDP are exercising their LAWFUL right to serve out their Prison sentence UNDER THE AUSPICES OF THE COURT -- they did not break the law to go to jail --, he says something fishy is going on?

    So what is it you want?

    Or may be its a case of to paraphrase what BryanT said earlier to "agitate (read violence)" -- BryanT word NOT mine -- against SDP at all cost?
  • g_e - SDP's prize mutt
    Didn't our very own “PAP bootlicker, running dog and poor prostitute” do well this time!

    While all normal people were appalled and sickened as Ambalan and Chee were dragged in chains to face Lee's justice, he had a very public orgasm rolling happily in their misfortune like a pig rolling in s***. Heh, one can only wonder how aroused he would have been had Gandhi suffered a coronary in the dock!

    But we really ought to thank our resident agent provocateur (the person, not the underwear) for letting his callous verbal diarrhoea run riot this time.

    Just as all immune systems need to be exposed to pathogens to build up an effective defence, so too do all opposition websites need one of his sadistic kind to keep us keenly aware that little has really changed since the days when Lee's ISD tortured Lim Chin Siong to the point of suicide.

    The more readers that are repulsed by his unholy glee the better, for the quicker will the desire build to see this ugly ruling dynasty swept into the dustbin of history.
  • Kai Xiong
    BryanT devotes pages of text to speculate on SDP's hidden motives, but never stops to question the PAP who wields tremendous power and negative influence over all our lives.

    Why, oh why?
  • Robox - On Law Breaking (1)
    This is a continuation of the discussion on CD, but I post this here for greater visibility.

    Note: The excerpts I am featuring here make explicit mention that this discussion of civil disobedience in the context of a liberal democracy; adjustments for undemocratic and anti-democratic regimes may be necessary. This is dapted from the chapter on “Civil Disobedience” in “Introduction to Political Theory” by John Hoffman and Paul Graham.

    Civil disobedience, as distinct from revolution [which civil disobedience is not], must appeal to moral ideas accessible to those who support the existing laws.; civil disobedience is about *strengthening* the existing political system.

    Reasons for deliberately breaking the law fall into four categories, although the fourth is a sub-category of the third:

    1. Individual self-interest: a law is not in the individual’s interests.

    All defenders of civil disobedience would reject the first category as justifying law-breaking – to break a law simply because it does not suit your interests is to engage in a criminal act. [However, although] self-interest is not a justification for civil disobedience, self interest might well be a motivating factor.

    As an exercise to the reader, consider a case where you have broken a law on grounds of self-interest (eg. theft).

    Now ask yourself the following questions:

    a. How did you break the law? Was it a public act, or did you attempt to evade detection?

    b. Did you feel guilty about breaking the law?

    c. Did you consider your actions selfish?

    d. Do you believe you were morally justified in breaking the law?

    e. Were you morally obliged to break the law?

    f. Was the law widely respected [as opposed to, was it widely observed]? If not did that make a difference to your attitude?

    (cont...)
  • Robox - On Law Breaking (2)
    (...cont)

    The remaining three categories of reasons for deliberately breaking the law are:

    2. Group interest: a law is not in the interests of a particular group.

    3. Morality: a law is morally wrong.

    4. Justice: a law is unjust.

    To continue with the same reader exercise, now consider another two cases of law-breaking where:

    => you have broken a law because you considered the law morally wrong;

    => you have broken a law in the process of protesting against something you consider to be morally wrong.

    Again, ask yourself the same questions as above:

    a. How did you break the law? Was it a public act, or did you attempt to evade detection?

    b. Did you feel guilty about breaking the law?

    c. Did you consider your actions selfish?

    d. Do you believe you were morally justified in breaking the law?

    e. Were you morally obliged to break the law?

    f. Was the law widely respected [as opposed to was it widely observed]? If not did that make a difference to your attitude?

  • sgwatcher
    Obviously a pervasion of the law to silent critics. Shame on the Judges for being the knife that killed.
  • Robox
    Re: "Ms. Chee asked DJ Chia to order the shackles on their feet removed as "these men posed absolutely no security threat whatsoever" and that the judge had absolute discretion and jurisdiction in his court. Mr. Jufrie Mahmood, a co-defendant added that the shackles on Mr. Ambalam and Dr. Chee was an overreaction by the authorities as the two men are not common criminals and should not be treated as such. They are victims of blatant violation of human rights by the PAP Government...After hearing these applications the judge directed Mr. Ambalam and Dr. Chee to be placed in another dock that had bars all around it, and the restraints to be removed."

    Again, I see the above as evidence that the SDP's campaign in the courts - if I may call it that - is bearing fruit.

    I can imagine that in the past, the judge would have dismissively said something like:

    1. UN guidelines are not enforceable; or,

    2. parrot - they are careful not to quote - either Lee Kuan Yew or Lee Hsien Loong (eg. "This is an adversarial system.") to demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt the grip that the certain members of the Executive have on the feeble minds of the members of the judiciary.

    If the courts reform, it's because the SDP has been having a pivotal role to play in it.
  • AN
    Robox and all supporters of SDP, just ignore this decrepit old man Bryant and STOP replying to his post.

    SDP, pls do all of your supporters a favor, stop posting this bloody MF BryanT posts or else you lose your daily hits on your website.

    BryanT, seriously, pls do us a favor and STFU once and for all. Reserve all your comments to yourself and your master.

    If you don't understand what's the meaning of MF & STFU, pls reply to my post. I'll gladly oblige to explain to you the abbreviation meaning.
Please login or register to post your comments.
 

Latest Videos

Dr Chee Soon Juan's address at SDP's 30th Anniversary Dinner
by SingaporeDemocrats

You need a Flash Player enabled browser to view this YouTube video
youtube link
Share this article:
Facebook Technorati Stumble It! Newsvine Reddit Del.icio.us Digg This!
 
SDP's 30th Anniversary Dinner
by SingaporeDemocrats

You need a Flash Player enabled browser to view this YouTube video
youtube link
Share this article:
Facebook Technorati Stumble It! Newsvine Reddit Del.icio.us Digg This!
 

Other languages

Banner
Banner
Banner


 

Awesome Words

The worst enemy of life, freedom and the common decencies is total anarchy; their second worst enemy is total efficiency.

Aldous Huxley

Act Now

More options
 
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
 

Ads

News feeds

Singapore Democrat News
Joomla Templates by JoomlaShack