Judiciary crushes free speech yet again

Home

News

Singapore

Tuesday, 22 February 2011

Singapore Democrats

Unsurprisng perhaps but the Judiciary has again crushed Singaporeans' right to freedoms of speech and peaceful assembly. High Court Judge Woo Bih Li this morning dismissed all the appeals of SDP activists who were convicted of three charges all involving public assemblies and processions.

After the Judge gave his verdict, Dr Chee Soon Juan said: "It is most unfortunate that basic freedoms are completely crushed in Singapore." He said that the appellants would pursue the matter all the way to the Court of Appeals.

In ordinary circumstances, appellants are allowed one level of appeal. However, there is provision for cases of public interest to be heard by the Court of Appeals even though the case is first heard by the Subordinate Courts and the appeal heard in the Court.

The appellants had asked the Judge to look into the abuse of powers by the PAP in outlawing public assemblies and processions when the Constitution clearly guarantees Singaporeans those freedoms.

Secondly, the appeal also argued that the Government allows organisations affiliated to it to conduct assemblies whereas it bans other groups from doing the same. This one-rule-for-PAP-and-another-for-others is clearly not what rule of law is about.

The Singapore Democrats continue to fight for basic freedoms of speech and assembly because without them elections continue to be a sham and used as a facade to legitimise autocratic rule.

Despotic governments in the Middle East have long held elections designed to keep the despots in power. Whether it was Saddam Husien in Iraq or Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, elections were a regular affair and every election was a foregone conclusion. For a time such shenanigans worked but in the long run they covered up much discontent in society. Over time, however, the people's discontent and frustrations build up and eventually boil over.

In Singapore, PM Lee Hsien Loong has admitted that he will buy his support and fix the opposition. Like in other authoritarian systems, this may help prop up the PAP for a time.

The Singapore Democrats have repeatedly appealed to the good sense of Singapore's rulers to let the political society in Singapore evolve peacefully and avoid upheavals like those we see in other jurisdictions. But like all autocratic regimes, appeal to logic falls on deaf ears.

Nonetheless, the SDP will contunue to campaign on behalf of the people on all fronts including in court.

Obviously, we will also contest in the elections to make sure that the people's voices are heard especially on the Internet where information flow is harder to control, and use the opportunity to educate the people on the importance of their political freedoms.

The present appeal involves Gandhi Ambalam, Chee Siok Chin, Chee Soon Juan, Seelan Palay, John Tan, Chong Kai Xiong, Jaslyn Go, Mohd Shaff'ie and Jufrie Mahmood. The first five defendants have already served their sentences. The Judge gave Chong, Go, Shaff'ie and Jufrie two weeks to pay their fines.

Share this article:

Comments (12)

Tue 22 Feb 2011 7:16 PM | breeze - no freedom of speech

Only Singaporeans themselves can overthrow the despots, stand up and refuse to be suppressed any longer. What 'quality of life' do you have when you do not have the most basic of human rights - freedom of speech. When you are ruled and controlled to such an extent that you cannot choose your own government. Only Singaporeans can liberate themselves. The sooner the better.

Wed 23 Feb 2011 9:17 AM | Tan Tai Wei

Legalistically, the judge is probably right. Things had been right procedurally. Fundamentally, despite guarantees of "freedoms" in the Constitution, it also protects national security, such that those "guarantees" function only to throw the onus of justification onto the authorites that want to curtail freedom to show how security is at stake enough to warrant the curtailment.

The problem, if indeed there had been "one rule for PAP and another for SDP and the likes", is probably due to issues regarding the integrity of persons placed in authority to administer the law. An application is received from SDP, another from some, say NTUC, to demonstrate in public. SDP's is ruled out, honestly because of real threat to peace, and NTUC's ruled in because of no such threats? Maybe. And it's all legal, as it is. The law does not require authorities to show cause.

But then, so much would depend upon the personal integrity of those in positions of authority. Now, these appointments have not been direct government appointments, but done lower down the line. Government have no diect oversight of the criteria and outcomes of such apointments. And LKY-style top-down, "I'll smack you down if as I press the button it doesn't work" administration might have resulted in persons down the line being appointed who were perceived to be dependable to be "safe" for the establishment they represent, whatever might have been the overt criteria of appointments. {I once worked for a Dean who said openly "We must never say no to MOE" whatever the issue!)

Judges down the line too are human, and when called upon to decide on disputable cases where all would depend upon their integrity to give one side or the other the case, where one or the other could arguably be made with "justification", can we depend on them to be superhuman?

Wed 23 Feb 2011 10:16 AM | quantum - Fear

I think the authorities are very worried becasue of the "Arab moment". But when the "Singapore moment" comes, no "prcedures" is going to help, only genuine reform.

Wed 23 Feb 2011 10:22 PM | maxchew - Much safer to dismiss the appeal

In Justice Woo's mind...even if he wants to uphold the appeal, the DPP/AG wld certainly appeal to the Ct of Appeal and he wld be critiqued by the 3 judges likely headed by the CJ.

Wed 23 Feb 2011 12:52 PM | Tan Tai Wei

Talking about the LKY style, "I'll smack you down..." top-down administration, reminds me of what I heard Lim Swee Say say on Channel News Asia two days ago.

Referring to his appointment of personnel, he described some who were "idiots" and "dudds". And when asked if his management style had been misunderstood, he said "if misunderstood, it wasn't my fault" (edited version; he spoke in, I suppose, "Singlish"}.

Any trained human resource manager would ensure his demeanour and sayings aren't misunderstood by staff, or at least wouldn't, when misunderstood, dismiss it as "not my fault". His important expertise is in "human relations", and it is his fault if that goes awry. And if he so openly relished calling people he appointed "dudds" and "idiots", then any misgivings his staff had was probably a clear understanding of him and his ways!

Funny the way those "tea parties" went. Who would have appointed an interviewee to any management position, and not only human resource management, who spoke as he, and in that jocular demeanour when calling personnel "idiots" and the like?

Wed 23 Feb 2011 1:20 PM | Prime Citizen

even if all the opposition parties members are deem guilty in the PAP's 'courts' of law standard, the commoners will continue to fight for their own freedom from the boredom of unjust 'judgment'. This miscarriage of real justice will only enpower the people to hold up and go all the way out to ensure PAP unethical dishonest means will come to an end.

Wed 23 Feb 2011 2:33 PM | Rex

Dr Chee, why don't you accept the court's challenge and file for a judicial review of the police's actions? So far you have only raised your constitutional arguments as part of your defence to criminal charges, but apparently this is not the proper way to go about it.

In all these cases, the court has avoided addressing your constitutional arguments by saying that you did not use the proper legal procedure, and need to apply for a judicial review instead.

I'm sure lawyers like M Ravi or Chia Ti Lik would be willing to help you with such a case on a pro bono basis. Or you could call for a donation drive to fund such a lawsuit; I'm sure there will be an outpouring of support.

Wed 23 Feb 2011 7:18 PM | quantum - History In The Making

Many a times, people study histories of great people as a dead book of dead people of some events at distance past, seemingly unaware that history is a current and living document and we are living and smelling the air in the midst.

History is in the making! Be proud that you are living in the moment where the chapters are being written at this very moment, word by word, line by line, paragraph by paragraph, page by page, and we are all a part of it in the process! :)

Wed 23 Feb 2011 9:57 PM | Tan Tai Wei

It just occurred to me that I might have confused another prominent establishment person with Lim Swee Say in my above posting. Any one here also saw the brief preview of a Channel News Asia programme? What's the name of the person featured who talked about appointing "idiots", etc?

I probably need to profusely apologise to Lim Swee Say for the confusion.

Thu 24 Feb 2011 1:54 AM | quantum - Constitution

Rex:
The Constitution is supposedly the highest law of the developed nation. If you cannot quote the Constitution, does that mean that piece of paper is just a written joke? And how do you govern a country and make further laws based upon a piece of joke?

Thu 24 Feb 2011 7:42 AM | Tan Tai Wei

Just seen that preview again. It's of a show to be telecast tonight. That person is Philip Yeo, senior civil servant. Very sorry, Minister Lim. (The confusion arose probably because they both speak less than standard english. A bad mistake nonetheless; it really would be out of character for Lim to take that arrogant, "belittling-of-others" posture.)

The point I was making still applies, with Yeo as the example. Some high civil servants close to the PAP leadership had through the years been known to imitate the LKY/Goh Keng Swee "I'll smack you down" admin style. I recall the then new director of our establishment, a high-ranking civil servant appointed our director by Goh Keng Swee when he became our Minister, in her inaugural speech, whilst telling us she would work for a pay increase, also warning us that "you will have to work for it; money doesn't grow on trees". Totally uncalled! And totally unoriginal also!

Thu 24 Feb 2011 1:28 PM | freedomT

Tan tai wei, you should tell her and her Master LKY that money indeed do not grow on trees and now reduced all your out of this world pay to half for a starting. To them as corrupted people, money do grow on trees because it came from us. Selfish, greed and power lust lies in the PAP.