Singapore Democrats

Home News Singapore Judge fines Chee Soon Juan $10,000 for speaking in public
Judge fines Chee Soon Juan $10,000 for speaking in public Print E-mail
Sunday, 06 September 2009

Singapore Democrats

District Judge Thian Yee Sze convicted Dr Chee Soon Juan on two counts of speaking without a permit on Friday. She imposed a fine of $10,000 or 10 weeks imprisonment in default. The execution of the sentence was stayed pending appeal.

Dr Chee is charged with eight counts of speaking in public under the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act. He is already convicted of four, including the present two.

Judges Eddy Tham and Jasvender Kaur had previous found Dr Chee guilty of one count each. The SDP secretary-general served a five-week jail term in 2006 for Mr Tham's conviction. The sentence for Judge Kaur's decision in 2008 is still awaiting appeal.

 


The charges are over Dr Chee and his party colleagues selling The New Democrat during elections in 2006. He had asked for all the eight cases to be consolidated and tried at one go. The AG's Chambers and courts refuse to do this.

The SDP leader has repeatedly argued that the charge of him not having a permit is a red herring. The Ministry for Home Affairs and police have stated that no permit will be issued for outdoor political events.

Dr Chee pointed out that such a policy to issue a blanket ban on public speaking and assembly clearly violated the Constitution and are therefore legally invaild.

Citing legal authorities in common law jurisdictions, he drew Judge Thian's attention to the decision of the House of Lords in the UK that "a man commits no crime if he infringes an invalid [policy or administrative act] and has the right to challenge the validity of the [policy] before any court in which he is being tried."

Judge Thian refused to listen and proceeded to convict Dr Chee.

Chee Soon Juan's closing submissions

I have been charged under Section 19(1)(a) of the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act, Chapter 257 for speaking without a permit.

We are citizens of Singapore and as citizens, we are guaranteed of our fundamental freedoms under Article 14 of our Constitution which states that:

a. every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;
b. all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and
c. all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.


This Constitution was written and promulgated when we wrestled our country back from the British colonial government. It wasn't just a flight of fancy on the part of the framers of the constitution when it was written. Every word was scrutinised and considered before its inclusion in the document.

In other words, the Article 14 was written in to ensure that we, as a people, would be able to fully partake of our freedoms of speech and assembly. We were guaranteed these basic political and civil rights that enable us as free individuals to choose our own government instead of having to rely on and be subject to the rule of another sovereign.

The idea of applying for a permit is a red herring. The Minister for Home Affairs Mr Wong Kan Seng stated in February 2003 that the "government does not authorise protests and demonstrations of any nature."

He repeated in Parliament in February 2009 and I quote the Hansard: "We have stopped short of allowing outdoor and street demonstrations...Our experiences in the past have taught us to be very circumspect about outdoor and street protests."

As you can see, the Singapore government has stated plainly that it will not allow anyone to hold protests and demonstrations of any nature.

Contrast this with Article 14. The constitution says we have the right to freedom of speech but the Minister says he will not authorise such activity.

Clearly there is a contradiction. In other words what the Minister says and does is in conflict with the Constitution.

There is display of our legal system and the Constitution in the foyer of the Subordinate Courts. One of the display panels describes the "Tools of the Law" and a paragraph in it states that "Any law that conflicts with the Constitution is void and Singapore courts can strike down any legislation or executive acts that go against the Constitution."

It cannot have been the intention of the framers of Singapore’s constitution that Parliament can exercise its authority to limit free speech in an arbitrary manner. What limits exist must have at least some rational and bona fide basis.

A sweeping ban, one that presumptively eliminates the right of free expression, cannot possibly be one that is genuinely and rationally targeted at any mischief that Parliament can lawfully address.

Moreover, the Constitution of Singapore must be construed, where possible, to be consistent with customary international law. The latter provides for free expression for all citizens everywhere; it does not tolerate bans that are massive, arbitrary and disproportionate.

Still less does the administrative law of Singapore permit the exercise of executive discretion in a manner that is harshly, arbitrarily and disportionately inimical to freedom of expression and assembly.

The across the board refusal of the Executive to issue permits is not consistent with the rule of administrative law, which requires rationality and good faith in the exercise of discretion, a willingness to consider situations on their merits rather than adopting rigid rules that have no basis in enabling legislation, and the interpretation and application of legislation in a manner that is consistent with the basic principles of a human rights, customary international law, Singapore’s solemn international commitments, and parliamentary democracy.

Freedom of expression and assembly are part of the preconditions for a meaningful parliamentary democracy. An interpretation of the constitutional and administrative law of Singapore must take into account all of its components.

It is not reasonable to accept any and all interferences with political liberties that Legislature or Executive attempt, forgetting that it is political freedom and accountability to the public that is the foundation for the exercise of legislative and executive authority. This point was acknowledged by the Supreme Court of the United States in many cases that identify freedom of expression and assembly as “preferred freedoms” because they are absolutely fundamental to the existence and operation of a free and democratic society.

Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada arrived at a similar conclusion in the famous Alberta Press case.

Ironically, the Minister for Home Affairs Mr Wong Kan Seng goes on to couch such a Constitutional breach by invoking the concept of the rule of law: "I believe that Singaporeans understand and support the fundamentals that have made Singapore what it is today. What are these fundamentals? The first fundamental is the rule of law."

But what really does the rule of law specify and require? The former Chief Justice of India Mr P N Bhagwatie stated that the State must act

"within the limits of power conferred upon it by the Constitution and the laws...thereby, making the rule of law meaningful and effective. Most countries have a written constitution which provides the structure allocating and regulating power relations amongst the different organs of the State. The Constitution confers power on the various organs of the State and also lays down the limits within which such power may be exercised...in other words, where the State or its officers act outside the Constitution on the laws...the rule of law is violated."

But when the constitution, and by extension the rule of law, is undermined by the executive branch of the government, who is going to ensure that the problem is corrected? Mr Bhagwatie says:

"The judiciary is one such institution on which rests the noble edifice of democracy and the rule of law. It is to the judiciary that is entrusted the task of keeping every organ of the State within the limits of power conferred upon it by the Constitution...It is the solemn function of the judiciary to ensure that no constitutional or legal functionary or authority acts beyond the limits of its power nor that there be any abuse or misuse of power.

It should be the goal of the rule of law that these multifarious and diverse encounters are fair, just and free from arbitrariness, and it is, therefore, necessary to structure and regulate the power of the executive so as to prevent its abuse or misuse or arbitrary application or exercise...

The judiciary stands between the citizen and the State as a bulwark against executive excesses of misuse or abuse of power or the transgression of constitutional or legal limitations by the executive as well as the legislature."


Chief Justice of Canada, Madam Beverly McLachlin, wrote in December 2005 that "Judges must resist...making 'law' out of what cannot be just, and hence, in a profound sense, cannot be legal. To do otherwise is to allow injustice to hide itself under the cloak of false legality."

But what is she referring to when she talks about making law out of what cannot be just? She is referring to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). She stated plainly that "the drafting and adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 was a giant step forward in legal and societal thinking." (emphasis added)

Explicitly and unambiguously stated in the UDHR, I believe they are Articles 19 and 20, that no person shall be denied his or her right to freedom of speech, association and assembly.

May I point out that Singapore has ratified two United Nations conventions, the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC).

It is clear that the Singapore accepts the fundamental premise of the UDHR, otherwise we would not have ratified these two Conventions. Underpinned in these Conventions, CEDAW and CRC, are the general rules of which the game is played, so to speak.

In other words the UDHR is the foundational statement from which CEDAW and CRC are born. What this means is that when Singapore raitifies these Conventions, we have to abide by the general rules as laid out in the UDHR. We cannot pick and choose which rules we want to abide by and which ones we want to ignore.

Also at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Abuja, Nigeria, in December 2003, Singapore fully endorsed the Commonwealth (Latimer House) Principles on the Three Branches of Government.

This document states that the Commonwealth countries reaffirm their commitment to the Statement on Freedom of Expression adopted in March 2002: "We stand united in our commitment to democracy, the rule of law, good governance, freedom of expression and the protection of human rights..."

In addition, Singapore has ratified the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Human Rights Charter which states in Article 1(7) that members states will "strengthen democracy, enhance good governance and the rule of law, and to promote and protect human rights and fundamental freedoms..."

It is clear that Singapore has agreed to abide by customary international norms regarding the fundamental freedoms of speech and assembly. It is also clear that the Singapore government refuses to honour and practice what its has signed on to.

I will do this by citing the decision of Yong Pung How, then CJ, in Colin Chan v PP (1994) 3 SLR 662. In the decision, Yong CJ had examined a host of authorities and culminated with the citing of an English case Bugg v PP (1993) 2 WLR 628 which was heard by Woolf LJ.

Yong CJ remarked that some “conflicting decisions seem to have been finally determined" by Woolf LJ in Bugg v DPP. I quote Yong CJ to emphasize the weight he placed on Woolf's LJ judgment, that there was a sense of a finality, and hence great importance, in Woolf's decision.

Woolf had addressed the issue of the role of a criminal court, such as this one, as it related to the question of substantive validity of a law or subordinate law. Woolf LJ said:

"These developments are, in our judgment, of importance when considering the proper role of a criminal court where a defendant who is charged with breaching a byelaw seeks to challenge the validity of that byelaw. It is possible to identify at least two different situations in which this will arise. The first is where the byelaw is on its face invalid because either it is without the power pursuant to which it was made because, for example, it seeks to deal with matters outside the scope of the enabling legislation, or it is patently unreasonable. This can be described as substantive invalidity."

Constitution which states in Article 4: "This Constitution is the supreme law of the Republic of Singapore and any law enacted by the Legislature after the commencement of this Constitution which is inconsistent with this Constitution shall, to the extent of the inconsistency, be void."

It would take someone very reckless to say that there is no substantive invalidity in this police policy. No person, able to reason, would conclude that the policy is not substantially out of line and patently unreasonable with the Constitution, both in spirit and in the letter.

Or course the next question that is: Does this court have the power to consider such a question of substantive validity? Of course, you have. Woolf LJ writes:

"In the criminal proceeding what has to be established is that the byelaw is unreasonable in the way in which it operates. This aspect of substantive invalidity was illustrated by Lord Russell of Killowen CJ in Kruse v Johnson (1898) 2 Q B 91, 99 as occurring, for instance, if the byelaws:'were found to be partial and unequal in their operation as between different classes; if they were manifestly unjust; if they disclosed bad faith; if they involved such oppressive or gratuitous interference with the rights of those subject to them as could find no justification in the minds of reasonable men...' "

Woolf reiterates this point later:

"In the case of substantive invalidity, it is a matter of law whether, for example, a byelaw is unreasonable in operation or is out with the authorising power. No evidence is required; the [criminal] court can decide the issue by looking at the terms of the primary legislation and the subordinate legislation which is alleged to be invalid."

So the law is utterly clear that the criminal court, that is this present court, can consider the question of whether the written policy of the Singapore Police Force is substantively invalid of the Constitution.

Which brings us to the next question: What does this Court do with a policy that is substantively invalid? On this subject Woolf LJ he didn'tt mince his words:

"Where the law is substantively invalid...No citizen is required to comply with a law which is bad on its face. If the citizen is satisfied that that is the situation, he is entitled to ignore the law."

Let me use the analogy of a person being penalised for not displaying a parking coupon. An element of the charge is that there was no coupon displayed at the time the car was checked. The driver cannot then say that at that time the shops were all closed and there was no one from whom he could purchase the parking coupon. Such a defence is irrelevant to the element of the charge.

But what if the authorities said they did not sell the coupons? Would the matter now change? The driver had no way of buying such coupons at any time to display on his car. Could he still be charged for parking his without a coupon?

This is exactly what is happening in our present charge. The prosecution maintains that the element of the charge, or at least one of the elements, is that we did not have a permit for the procession. But as you have heard from DSP Marc E, the police's policy position is that they reject all applications and that they disallow all processions.

The illogic of the charge jars the reasonable mind. Can the police accuse anyone of not having a permit when it makes clear that it will not give that permit?

If the Constitution clearly tells me that I have the right to freedom of speech and assembly but the police tells me that it will not grant me a permit for it, then the police policy is clearly substantively invalid and this being the case Woolf's LJ decision, to which Yong CJ attached much importance, tells me that I am not required to comply with such a policy.

Clearly there is an abuse of power on the part of the police to not give permits under any circumstance because, as I outlined above, the Constitution does not grant the blanket ban on demonstrations and processions.

We have been trying to demonstrate to the court that there is abuse of power, mala fide and bad faith by the police. Woolf LJ cannot be clearer on this:

"We have particularly in mind cases where it is suggested that there has been an abuse of power because of mala fides on the part of the byelaw maker. In the case of bad faith, there may be an issue which the criminal court can determine and if so, evidence will be required."

Summary

The crux of the matter is that our constitutional rights may not be taken away by the police taking on some "policy position." Such policy is substantively invalid.

The issue of substantive invalidity of the police policy must be relevant to the charge because it renders the charge null and void. No citizen is expected to obey a law that is substantively invalid to the Constitution.

There is more than a suggestion of bad faith and mala fide on the part of the police. This necessitates our cross-examination of the licensing officer in order for us to adduce evidence.

Because of the issues of substantive invalidity and bad faith, this court has the power to hear the arguments without the need for a Judicial Review.

Your Honour, the law is clearly with the defence and we ask that you administer justice accordingly.

 


Mr Yap Keng Ho, who was the other defendant, was also convicted. He was fined $2,000. Mr Yap refused to pay the fine and is servng a 20-day jail term in default.

 

Share this article:
Facebook Technorati Stumble It! Newsvine Reddit Del.icio.us Digg This!
Comments (47)
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 6:59 AM | BryanT - CSJ - reading with one-eye closed?
    CSJ deliberately reads the constitution with one eye closed to suit his convenience and theatrics.

    It is indeed true that Article 14 Clause 1(a) states that "every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression".

    But the above clause is subjected to the following : "on the rights conferred by clause (1)(a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, [b]public order[/b] or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence."

    As such, there is no contradiction between the law and constitution, unless CSJ is in self-delusion or trying to delude the rest of us with his one-eyed gloss over facts.
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 4:48 AM | quantum
    Are you sure public order is disrupted?
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 5:36 AM | hechua
    ByranT,

    Aiyah, we can flush our Constitutions like we can flush our history into the toilet. Don't need to go indepth into the academics of it. A country which is ruled by a wicked vicious old man who just wants to be worshipped like an evil God would have no place for basic rules of law, truism and forthrightness. Shame on those lap dogs - the judges, ministers, technocrats, etc who are so educated yet have to suck up to one old
    peesai miserable man. Just imagine, why old fart needs to mobilise the whole system just to go after one innocent man - Dr Chee. From that, how much respect can such an insecured man gained from his fellow human beings. All Singaporeans will be reduced to the lowest of the lowest nationalities of the world if we can accept such insecured and ungently man as a founder of modern Singapore. I rest my case.
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 5:53 AM | slapshot101 - BryanT - You have to try harder..
    Trying so hard to discredit CSJ thru your retarded logic?

    Since the clause 1(a) is subjected to the [b]conditions[/b] you mentioned, then why did the Minister for Home Affairs Mr Wong Kan Seng state that the "government does not authorise protests and demonstrations of [b]any nature[/b]."?

    I think that is exactly what Dr Chee was contending.
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 7:42 AM | BryanT - Irony and Paradoxes
    Since I have already elucidated above, I will not again touch on CSJ's willful myopia with regards to the wordings of the constitution.

    Let me now address his closing submission to District Judge Thian Yee Sze, which is laden with irony and paradoxes. I'll cover but a few.

    [quote]The idea of applying for a permit is a red herring. The Minister for Home Affairs Mr Wong Kan Seng stated in February 2003 that the "government does not authorise protests and demonstrations of any nature."[/quote]

    Here, CSJ is the one providing the red herring himself. He knows that a permit would not be issued to him and blatantly exploits his breach of laws to draw attention to himself. Coming from him, it is not a very novel fishy tail (ermm, I mean "tale").

    [quote]The across the board refusal of the Executive to issue permits is not consistent with the rule of administrative law, which requires rationality and good faith in the exercise of discretion, a willingness to consider situations on their merits rather than adopting rigid rules[/quote]

    He presumptuous to even consider that his is a situation that has merits and deserves some exercise of discretion. Coming from a person who is infused with a dogged determination to break laws, his statement here is ironical.

    [quote]There is more than a suggestion of bad faith and mala fide on the part of the police. This necessitates our cross-examination of the licensing officer in order for us to adduce evidence.[/quote]

    CSJ happily quotes the Home Minister earlier on that activities such as his are not permitted. His accusation of bad faith on the part of the police is superfluous since obviously the latter (including the licensing officer) takes the cue from its ministers. What else do we expect?

    Perhaps with such a long submission, he'd lost track of what he had said earlier on.
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 9:27 PM | BryanT - slapshot101
    [color=red]"I think that is exactly what Dr Chee was contending."[/color]

    slapshot101, thank you for your comments.

    You are right that CSJ's main gripe is that the "government does not authorise protests and demonstrations of any nature."

    But the minister cannot pronounce prohibitions without legal basis and we should not allow it to happen if that day should come. And the legal basis which CSJ is very upset about is the the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act which he says contradicts the constitution.

    My point is that there is no contradiction based on the proviso I cited. CSJ willfully chooses to ignore it since it is not convenient to his cause.

    It is acceptable that he is unhappy with the way the constitution is written since he wants unfettered freedoms. But it is not acceptable that he also exercises the freedom to maliciously misread the constitution on our behalf.
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 3:46 PM | BryanT - hechua - Please don't flush.
    [color=red]"Aiyah, we can flush our Constitutions like we can flush our history into the toilet."[/color]

    hechua, thanks for your comments.

    I disagree that the constitution should end up in the sewage. People who disregard "basic rules of law, truism and forthrightness" may come and go, but our regard for the constitution should not be taken lightly.

    I am happy to note that CSJ feels the same way about the constitution; he said :

    [quote]This Constitution was written and promulgated when we wrestled our country back from the British colonial government. It wasn't just a flight of fancy on the part of the framers of the constitution when it was written. Every word was scrutinised and considered before its inclusion in the document.[/quote]

    ...if only CSJ does not only read the clauses that he favours.
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 7:57 AM | quantum
    BryanT :
    You have once again shown how puny you are. People like you were everywhere when big men were creating history.
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 6:31 PM | BryanT - quantum - Pretence is Deceit
    [color=red]"Are you sure public order is disrupted?"[/color]

    quantum, no, I will not pretend to be sure that public order was indeed disrupted by CSJ's activities. I will also not pretend to know what criteria were used by the licensing officer NOT to grant CSJ a permit in the first place.

    But the issues are these :

    a. The government sees the Public Entertainments and Meetings Act as a means to maintain law and order and public safety, as well as safeguarding public morality and decency. (I may or may not agree with this)

    b. The constitution allows for restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression including with respect to public order. (I may or may not agree with this)

    c. BUT, CSJ knows this proviso, deliberately ignores it, breaks the law and then proclaims a contradiction.

    We may or may not agree with the restrictions on some freedoms, but to pretend that the constitution allows unfettered freedom is deceit.
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 3:54 PM | BryanT - quantum - Strength of Puniness
    [color=red]"You have once again shown how puny you are. People like you were everywhere when big men were creating history."[/color]

    quantum, I agree with you totally that I am puny. My aspirations and capabilities are indeed diminutive.

    But one's puniness should not stop him from pointing out facts and expressing his opinions.

    In fact, one can turn puniness to an advantage. Without baggages and being tangled in webs of influences and obligations, one can be more frank.
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 5:48 PM | hechua
    BryanT,

    Most of the times, I think you are arguing for the sake of arguing. Of course, I have the upmost regard for consitutions, truism and forthrightness. What I am saying is that only the constitutions and history in Singapore are as good as the shit in the toilet that need to be flushed away because they are so manipulated by the ruling party that they have become meaningless. The worst, the ruling party
    has used the whole civil system like the police, army, media and justice to perpetrate the manipulation and suppression on the people just for the benefit of one old peesai, insecured, wicked, egomanic and self-indulged man and his aristocratic leeching family
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 8:57 PM | tewniaseng
    The reason they target CSJ is because he is smarter than any other pap men.As such he has to be destroyed. Old man ever said he will destroy JBJ because he was a threat.Who ever opposes old man will be banished,people like Lim Chin Siong,Ong Eng Guan, Francis Seow etc.will be targeted.Dictator rules the world
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 8:59 PM | Tan Tai Wei
    While it is right that freedom to speak, etc., cannot be absolute, and the constitution qualifies it in the interest of peace and order, atill, the authorites have the responsibilty, in the spirit of the constitution, to apply the law as to permit to speak with due discretion.

    Only where peace and order is truly at stake should that law be applied. That is why the AO office has been given the right to decide whether to prosecute or not.

    And I can't imagine how a Chee and those very few, who have dared to join him in attempting, mostly unsuccessfully, to retain several fearful by-passers to listen, could pose any problem so as to warrant spending public money and court personnel and time to prosecute them.
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 10:12 PM | Brendan
    Hey BryanT,

    Will you stop contridicting yourself over and over again. See, now you know you cannot win against our arguments, you are forced to bear your fangs and reveal your true self!

    We all now know who you are! Maybe, just maybe guys just ignore him for now. Let him continue to talk to himself and the wall!! Haha
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 10:27 PM | BryanT - Tan Tai Wei - Break law & expect discretion?
    [color=red]"...in the spirit of the constitution, to apply the law as to permit to speak with due discretion."[/color]

    Tan Tai Wei, you raise several important points.

    I agree with you that civil servants (including the police) should exercise discretion why they apply rules and laws. It is more important to conform with the spirit and intent of the rules and laws than to aim for word-for-word enforcement.

    However, even if you and I do not agree with certain laws in the country, we do not go out to deliberately break them and then expect discretion (or mercy) when caught.

    In this case, CSJ intentionally makes a mockery of the law by not even bothering to apply for a permit. He knew he would be arrested even before he started making his speeches. His current protestations in court are just the epilogue of his performance act.

    The police is vested with the duty to manage the issuance of licenses under the PEM Act. CSJ cannot brush aside the police and then accuse it of bad faith when it is also performing.... in its case, enforcement duties.

    I am not sure whether what he said would incite the audience to public disorder or mass riots. Any assessment would be subjective (and political) and I reserve my comments.

    What is not subjective is the fact that CSJ is NOT being persecuted (I mean... prosecuted) for creating public disorder during his road-side performances, but for speaking without permits. You either have the permits or you don't.

    You brought up an important point - it is the Attorney-General's Chambers' call whether to prosecute, not the police's. As such, he was incorrect to accuse the police of having taken "policy positions" in his closing submission.

    Others (including other SDP members) have taken advantage of the Speakers' Corner to say their pieces, political or otherwise. Perhaps CSJ regards himself too highly to do what others do. If he thinks his message is important to him and the people, does it matter where he delivers it?

    Or is he more concerned about proving a point to international audience about liberty and freedoms in Singapore?
  • Mon 07 Sep 2009 10:44 PM | Clear eyed - We need change
    Is anyone surprised by this? Everyone knows kangaroos run our courts! Monstrosities such as permits (which are never granted)needed to speak in public, unjust laws, tinkering with our Constitution, etc etc will continue to thrive here as long as the old dictator and his regime are allowed to rule over the hapless citizens. The only way we can be saved is to rid the land of the old dictator and his assortment of kangaroos, poodles, monkeys, etc. We need CHANGE and soon!
  • Tue 08 Sep 2009 12:47 AM | tangeo
    If the PAP is such a clean, strong, confident and uncorrupt party in government, why does it resort to such draconian laws to silence its dissenters?

    It is the very nature of a cowardly and insecure government to conjure up oppressive laws such as the recent POA to avoid exposure of its deceit and criminal actions against the people.
  • Tue 08 Sep 2009 6:32 AM | BryanT - Brendan - Bare-fang Democracy?
    Brendan, thank you for your interest in my posts and expressing such strident points.

    [quote]"[b]Will you stop contridicting yourself over and over again. See, now you know you cannot win against our arguments, you are forced to bear your fangs and reveal your true self[/b]!"[/quote]

    Like everyone else's, my comments in this website speak for themselves and are humbly open to scrutiny by anyone here.

    In my post above, I explained why CSJ's proclamation of contradiction between law and constitution was fallacious. The fact were laid out for all to judge for themselves. I'd be most appreciative if you could point out where my contradictions are, something that you alluded to but inadvertently omitted to state in your post. Or was it deliberate?

    You said that I know that I cannot win the arguments. Frankly, winning arguments is not important to some of us. What we want are discussions to clarify our and others' thoughts. You do not sound as if you are interested in such ventures.

    Perhaps the fangs you allegedly saw are those of mirror images. We seem to detect a high degree of venom in your tone used. Or was it just a histronical performance?

    [quote]"[b]Maybe, just maybe guys just ignore him for now. Let him continue to talk to himself and the wall!! Haha[/b]"[/quote]

    The opposition has often complained that the PAP ostracizes it by downplaying its contributions, not respecting its views and not offering it a constructive role.

    I will respect your perception that my comments are not useful or intelligent to you; as such, you have indeed the right to ignore them.

    Let me make the daring assumption that you are an ardent supporter of the SDP. And to live up to its aspiration of upholding democratic principles, it might occur to you that it' important to practise what is preached.

    Otherwise you will be exactly guilty of what you accuse the PAP to be - undemocratic and authoritative. And Ah Seng of Ah Seng might even add... not inclusive.
  • Tue 08 Sep 2009 10:27 AM | g_e - Off with his head!
    Every person with an interest in justice will be gagging over their breakfast as they read that Dr. Chee Soon Juan has been convicted yet again for the SAME bloody misdemeanor! And repeatedly jailed he will be (such is PAP's fear of the good doc saying his piece during APEC) since there are another 4 counts of the identical offence to be reprised in court. Later, as they say menacingly.

    Did someone mention double jeopardy? The prosecution of a defendant for a criminal offence for which he has already been tried; prohibited in the fifth amendment to the United States Constitution? Dr. Chee should be so lucky.

    It's as if you leave a shop with a box of 8 cookies; you are falsely accused of shoplifting; and you are then separately convicted in 8 separate trials by a series of 8 mad judges for your 'offence'. A sanctimonious, solemn, costly, surreal, charade of a Kafkaesque 'trial' is held — per poxy cookie! Give me a break, gag me with a spoon!

    Is this the Republic of Singapore or the Republic of Cloud Cuckooland that we live in? Did one zip over the cuckoo's nest while we were distracted?

    Do you punish the child who refuses her food by counting each item left on her plate as a separate offence? Do you then repeat the punishment on separate days, per item, day after day, [i]ad infinitum[/i]? This is what Judge Thian Yee Sze's conviction of Dr. Chee amounts to.

    It mirrors the utter travesty of justice meted out to Tang Lian Hong when dozens of wretched PAP MPs queued up to persecute him with separate 'cannot lose' lawsuits, for the same alleged offence, with separate teams of expensive lawyers, to force him, [i]inter alia[/i], into bankruptcy with a bill for US$12 million.

    I guess this is what an honours degree in law from Cambridge teaches you eh, Mr. Lee Kuan Yew? What a tragic waste of public funds giving you that scholarship. For I'm afraid it has to be said - you are a sorry disgrace to your profession and you reek of the lowest form of gutter politics.

    No judiciary in the free world would ever tolerate such an appalling abuse of common justice. And perhaps that is the nub of it for we no longer live in a free nation and have not done so since the beginning of the shameless Lee dynasty (1959-20??).

    Singapore — the regional legal hub for arbitration, a beacon of truth and light, a shining example of the rule of law? Is that at all probable when any foreign company that rubs a pet GLC the wrong way has to weigh the potential hazard of being repeatedly convicted of multiple counts of an identical offence, one at a time? I don't think so, and neither does the New York City Bar Association which warned American companies to be wary of agreeing to let commercial disputes be settled in Singapore courts:

    [quote][i][b]"What emerges...is a government that has been willing to decimate the rule of law for the benefit of its political interests. Lawyers have been cowed to passivity, judges are kept on a short leash, and the law has been manipulated so that gaping holes exist in the system of restraints on government action toward the individual."[/b][/i][/quote]
    Amen.
  • Tue 08 Sep 2009 7:18 PM | BryanT - g_e - hardly quintuple-jeopardy
    [color=red]"It's as if you leave a shop with a box of 8 cookies; you are falsely accused of shoplifting; and you are then separately convicted in 8 separate trials by a series of 8 mad judges for your 'offence'."[/color]

    g_e, morning bro, glad to see you here.

    I must first admit that my experience of the legal system does not extend very far beyond having to deal with am occasional parking ticket. In other words, quite an ignoramus in extremis.

    But as a layman, I had some difficulty with the flow of logic in your post above. So I hope you would tolerate my slapdash foray into the realm of legalese.

    Let's take the simple example of a robber who robs ten banks and gets caught; and another bumbling one who gets arrested on his first try. I think we should agreed that the first robber should be indicted on ten charges and not one. I think this is based on the principle of retributive justice.

    Let's take another example. Another robber who breaks into a house, rapes one of the inhabitants (usually feminine), and then burns the house down. Compared to another who simply grabs the stuff and bolts, I would think more charges should be leveled on the former.

    I am not privy to the details of CSJ's current incursions or oratory tour. I hope you can enlighten us if you do.

    But allow me to assume that he made his elocutions at different places and/or on separate dates. He could have said exactly the same stuff on each occasion(how boring). Yes, the offences are identical, but I'd venture to say that they should be treated as separate offences.

    If that is the case, I don't call it quintuple-jeopardy to have him charged the fifth time.

    Another scenario could be that he went ahead to speak without a permit, throws his microphone at a disruptive heckler, and then resists arrest when the police turns up. Then I think three charges would be fair. Of course, I doubt CSJ likes to throw things.

    PS. by the way, thanks for making me look up the meaning of "double-jeopardy". I thought it was just a TV game show! Ignorant me.
  • Tue 08 Sep 2009 7:34 PM | AleeBaba - Time to CHANGE
    Hello SDP,

    Time to look more closely to your speech in order not to offence the Leegime and keep going to jail cos I know you are not going to pay up.

    What is the point for fighting so hard for the 66.6%.

    When my Japanese wife talked about DPJ - Democratic Party of Japan. I tell her they are good sincere party for the people and why not you support them with your vote.

    She says DPJ cannot handle Japan adminstration. I told her Yes, if they are not given a chance to handle how would you know as they have not been the Government.

    The LDP, PM Aso do not even know how much is a pack of ramen - instant noodles cost and he call for support to give each every Japanese Jyen 1000 to spend which is Sgd 16.

    Media ask the Japanese public what can you do with Jyen 1,000 do for the economy? Most reply just good for kids tibits!

    I say to her look, you have told me that long for the PAP Government in Singapore, LDP have been to long too and it is time to CHANGE to send the DPJ to clean up all the Japan Government Offices.

    She say OK, give the Chance to DPJ to CHANGE with her vote.

    If Singaporeans do not want to CHANGE you can help them to remind them that voting for PAP is very good.

    PAP loves to help Singaporeans in all ways they can when elected.

    PAP will help them to increase GST, indirectly increase cost of living for pigeons holes, food and services.

    Promote FT Talents to compete for jobs.

    Just end sweetly, the choice is up to them to CHANGE for their advantage.

    Do you want it or not?

    You dun have to make PAP annoy, praise them instead!

    Can't Win Singaporeans help them instead to remind them of PAP help of more increases.
  • Wed 09 Sep 2009 8:16 AM | g_e - Sentence first -- verdict afterwards.
    Greetings BryanT, my old fruit 'n' nut case. I couldn't help noticing with some astonishment that of the 14 posts on this topic, fully 9 of them were perpetrated by...wait for it...yes, you, you naughty old T-bagger you. Hardly anyone else got a look in with you hugging the megaphone like it was Ho Ching's nursing bra.

    Was it a quiet day at Mein Führer Towers or are you plotting the takeover of [i]yoursdp.org[/i] in a parody of Pinky and the Brain? I'm sure Pinky is behind you but who's the rat playing the Brain, that is the worry. Perhaps in a free moment you'll give us a hint?

    [quote][b][i]"I must first admit...quite an ignoramus in extremis...I am not privy to the details...Ignorant me...."[/i][/b][/quote]
    Please! Lashings of false modesty are like a whore with too much makeup my dear BryanT, quite unnecessary and likely to have unintended consequences. Not that I would for a moment liken you to a brazen tart or even the Whore of Babylon, of course. Remember you are among friends here.

    But I have to say that I'm slightly disappointed to hear, [i]"... thanks for making me look up the meaning of 'double-jeopardy'..."[/i] when I had carefully placed its dictionary definition right in the very next bloody sentence. Do pay attention to the pearls being cast grasshopper, otherwise you might miss seeing that heavenly glory we mentioned earlier.

    Right then, let's have a whiff of that lovely cheap Zen perfume. Bank robber...10 banks...will be convicted for a couple of those offences with the remainder taken into consideration [b][i]AT THE SAME BLEEDING TRIAL[/i][/b], not 10 separate trials a la Mr. 'Mockery of Justice' Lee Kuan Yew. Bank robber number two...one go...will be similarly dealt with and given a sentence commensurate with his crime.

    As for your other wildly fecund imaginings — the criminal acts of robbery/rape/arson relate to the innocent act of selling a newspaper...exactly...how? Try not to muddy the waters too much or next thing you know you'll lose the plot like LHL and demand that your Shunday Times delivery man be given a tight slap for looking disgruntled.

    Come now BryanT, surely a veteran warrior such as yourself must know when to bet and when to fold? The spiteful, vindictive act of effectively kicking a man over and over again when he is down is the action of a coward that would sicken anyone and I'm sure it affects you that way too. Double-jeopardy is downright egregious and the practice is rightly shunned by every civilised country in the world. It is completely indefensible. Only tyrants derive comfort from it.

    Now dry your eyes and listen to this terrific CD I got specially for you (since it was on offer). It's by an outfit cunningly named [i]Butthole Surfers[/i] and is entitled [i]"Brown Reason To Live"[/i]. Excellent album for those dull days when you're stuck at the orifice.
  • Wed 09 Sep 2009 3:41 AM | BryanT - tewniaseng - CSJ's self-targeting Act
    [color=red]"The reason they target CSJ is because he is smarter than any other pap men.As such he has to be destroyed."[/color]

    tewniaseng, I feel that there are two types of targets.

    One type comprises those who are blur and innocent and get caught in the cross-fire. To these, we should be sympathetic and exercise the discretion CSJ calls for.

    The others are those who present them as targets to entice other to (metaphorically) shoot them. These deserve little sympathies.

    CSJ planned to breach the laws that he (and some of us) disagree with. He was prepared to be arrested so that he could put on display in court to expound on how his cherished freedoms are curbed (again).

    Nobody coerced him to carry out his walkway-performances. He put himself up to be a target, so that he can be seen to be victimised.

    The irony is that he has fulfilled his objective (of being seen to be a victim) by being arrested and charged. Otherwise he would not have the opportunity make his long closing submission about perversion of the constitution and notch yet another badge of honour (of being legally punished).

    I know it's perverse logic, but perhaps we can say he had targeted the police instead, and coaxed them to arrest him.

    As to whether CSJ is smart. I'd say, "definitely yes", based on the good plot.
  • Wed 09 Sep 2009 3:11 AM | BryanT - g_e - cool mate!
    g_e, looks like someone's gotten up on the wrong side of bed, or has the [i]Butthole Surfers[/i] gotten into you(literally)?
  • Wed 09 Sep 2009 4:33 AM | nirvana - Truth is a great offender
    Bryan_T,

    It seems to me you are rather inexperienced about the ways of the world. Everytime someone speaks the truth or has to act out in opposition to unjust laws, they get crucified. Jesus got it. Mohamed got it. Moses got it. Gandhi got it. Osho got it. Martin Luther King, etc. The list goes on. WE ARE NOT ALLOWED TO SPEAK OUR VIEWS. Are you kidding me? Which part of the world are you living in? Are you sure you're in Singapore? Or are you in denial to accept that in Singapore your wings are clipped. Must be hard on you. Have you ever wondered that the Speakers Corner was created to give the public the impression that they can speak their mind? It is imnportant that the government is SEEN to allow that that liberty. Enforcement of that liberty is a totally different matter. We are all in this hypocrisy trap. And I think CSJ sees the need that we should start cutting through that. Why has permits and licenses when you, as the government already have presdispositions NOT to grant contrarion views? Don't tell me about Speakers Corner, the Complains Choir was BANNED. LOL!
  • Wed 09 Sep 2009 4:39 AM | nirvana
    Singapore is well-known in not celebrating contrarion heroes. Heck! We don't even celebrate heroes, let alone promote critical thinking in schools. What about a Liberal Arts school? We still have a less than first class government who enjoys eg-gratifications.
  • Wed 09 Sep 2009 7:04 AM | Mr Lim - Dear BryanT
    BryanT, you don't reason and debate. You make falsehoods and assert them as the truth, something straight out of the PAP playbook. You must be called out. I'll cite a few examples:

    [b]1. “But the minister cannot pronounce prohibitions without legal basis and we should not allow it to happen if that day should come.”[/b]

    The Minister is pronouncing prohibitions without legal basis and folks like you are allowing it to happen. Can you please tell everyone on what legal basis is the minister making his prohibitions (that is, to not authorise protests of any kind).

    [b]2. "It is acceptable that he is unhappy with the way the constitution is written since he wants unfettered freedoms."[/b]

    Dr Chee has only cited that that the administrative acts (Govt/police acts) are violating the constitution. Where does he say that he is unhappy with the way the constitution is written?

    Also where does the SDP or CSJ say that they want unfettered freedoms? Please point this out. From what I've observed, the SDP accepts that under certain conditions permits may be denied.

    [b]3. "And the legal basis which CSJ is very upset about is the the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act which he says contradicts the constitution."
    [/b]
    Where does CSJ say that PEMA contradicts the constitution? Dr Chee has said that it is not the Act that is unconstitutional but rather it is WKS who declares that no permit will be given for protests of any kind that is unconstitutional. It is this blanket ban that is unconstitutional.
    [b]
    4. "However, even if you and I do not agree with certain laws in the country, we do not go out to deliberately break them and then expect discretion (or mercy) when caught."[/b]

    First, when has the SDP/CSJ expected “discretion (or mercy) when caught”? The position is that the prosecution is baseless because the acts of this Govt/police are invalid. This has legal basis in the House of Lords' decision.

    Second, the protesters were not “caught”. They stood their ground and were arrested. You should have the intellectual honesty to call it like it is.

    [b]5. "Others (including other SDP members) have taken advantage of the Speakers' Corner to say their pieces, political or otherwise. Perhaps CSJ regards himself too highly to do what others do."[/b]

    When has CSJ regarded himself too highly to speak at SC? In fact, he has spoken there repeatedly.

    You must be held accountable for your words. You have the license to hold opinions but not to spread lies. I've asked you a few simple questions in my post. I hope you will answer them.

    You are also using the PAP technique of ensuring that the matter is reduced to a personal one. Note that it has become a CSJ issue, not an SDP or even national one.

    You pepper your posts with derogatory words like “theatrics”, “histrionics”, “road-side show”, etc in order to ridicule, trivialise, and make unimportant a very important issue.

    I note that throughout your comments you make no attempt to address the lack of freedom of speech in Singapore, only to attack arguments for free speech and assembly. This, again, is PAP's cherished technique.

    Cheers, pal.
  • Wed 09 Sep 2009 6:27 AM | jbeji
    to BryanT...walau,u blah blah too much lar,make simple talk lei,what? u use dictionary to type ur comments urh? simple thing make so chimp, how to understand what u say,u talk eveytime until u dot hear what other say,u talk even deeper than PAP lar,at least they use easy & simple english,for u, here u try to lecture everyone lei?who are u arh? young or old...must be old becus u like to blah blah balh everytime..
  • Wed 09 Sep 2009 7:25 PM | BryanT - Mr Lim - answers questions
    [b]"...you don't reason and debate. You make falsehoods and assert them as the truth, something straight out of the PAP playbook."[/b]

    Mr Lim, on the contrary, I have been trying my level best to explain my views to the point where, if you have only observed, my posts get too extended even when I covered a single point. Even the examples here bear witness to this.

    Also, I make it a point to reply to religiously anyone who addresses me directly or raises issues concerning my views. This is precisely what I am doing here as well. Unlike some who are just here to some derogatory comments, I refrain from shooting from the hip and then abscond. I believe I have almost always been here to account for my words.

    Perhaps you don't consider it a debate, but we have to live with the limitations of this means of discussion. You also may not like or accept what others say, but you should not dismiss it as "falsehoods [asserted] as the truth, something straight out of the PAP playbook". By dismissing it so, you are also precisely guilty of what you are accusing others of. As I often say here, check the mirror. Would it be proper for me to accuse whatever comes from CSJ's mouth as just something straight out of his playbook?

    At the risk of further accusations from parties about not "debating", let me extend you the courtesy of answering those queries you have raised.

    [b]"Where does he say that he is unhappy with the way the constitution is written?"[/b]

    In his deliberate omission of the Clause 2 which clearly limits the freedoms stated in Clause 1, it is obvious that he wants unfettered freedoms of speech, expression and assembly. Alternatively, as I had said, it could just be the case that he is being deceitful in concealing material fact. Take your choice.

    If he is happy with what is really written in the Constitution, he does not need to do his one-eye closed act to suit his convenience and justify his breaches of law.

    [b]"Where does CSJ say that PEMA contradicts the constitution?"[/b]

    It might have been lost on you when you
    ploughed through his rather long submission, but he spoke of "any law that conflicts with the Constitution is void and Singapore courts can strike down any legislation or executive acts that go against the Constitution". This was made in reference to what he apparently saw in the SubCourt foyer. I observed that the only law in question here is the PEM Act.

    [b]"First, when has the SDP/CSJ expected “discretion (or mercy) when caught”?"[/b]

    If you checked back, the discussion on discretion was in response to it being raised by another reader.

    [b]"When has CSJ regarded himself too highly to speak at SC?"[/b]

    In case you did not notice, the word "perhaps" was used to preface that statement, very carefully and deliberately. Only CSJ can explain for himself why he found SC unsuitable for whatever he did and instead chose to do so without a permit elsewhere.

    If you may allow, let me pose these few questions to you:

    1. In his closing submission, why do you think CSJ chose to omit mentioning Clause 2 which is directly relevant to this case, besides the fact that it would have debunked his arguments? Do you think it is wrong to omit it since it gives readers/listeners the impression that the freedoms he cited in Clause 1 were unrestricted?

    For your benefit, I reproduce Clause 2(a) here:
    [quote]
    (2) Parliament may by law impose —

    (a) on the rights conferred by clause(1)(a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;

    (b) on the right conferred by clause(1)(b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and

    (c) on the right conferred by clause(1)(c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.[/quote]

    2. Why do you think he chose to proceed despite the fact that he did not apply for a permit? What do you think of him accusing the police of mala fide AFTER he has breached the law?

    3. Without a permit, do you think CSJ had already expected to be arrested and charged even before the police acted?

    I have several points more to make, but leave them aside for the time being.

    Meanwhile, cheerio too, Mr Lim.
  • Wed 09 Sep 2009 8:32 AM | BryanT - jbeji
    jbeji, sorry la, if my posts are too chim to read although I thot not too hard liao. At least I thot not as deep as CSJ toking.

    And ya lor, old man mah - so like to blah blah blah like a nagging teacher.

    Give old man chance, can?
  • Wed 09 Sep 2009 7:49 PM | Mr Lim
    Hey Buddy, don't squirm and wriggle. Not nice. I asked you a few straightforward questions but got a lot of words but no answer.
    [b]
    1. "Chee wants unfettered freedoms"[/b]

    I asked you where CSJ said he wanted unfettered freedoms. Your reply? "In his deliberate omission of Clause 1(b)...it is obvious he wants unfettered freedoms of speech."

    You see, Mr T, you use the age old PAP technique of ascribing intention where there is none and then proceed to hang the bloke for it. Dr Chee "deliberately" omitted Clause 1(b) and because of this it is "obvious" that he wants unfettered freedoms? That's how you show someone wants something?

    Let me save you some agony. CSJ said “I recognise that subsection 2 of Article 14 provides that Parliament may by law impose restrictions.”
    http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/1520-judge-refuses-to-consider-ban-on-protests-unconstitutional

    Now I've shown you that Dr Chee recognises that there are restrictions on freedoms. In other words he is not asking for unfettered freedoms. Now if you'll do us the favour of showing us where CSJ says he wants unfettered freedoms. No “obviously” no “deliberately”. Just a simple quote would do.

    [b]2. "CSJ says that PEMA contradicts the constitution?"[/b]

    Good grief. Dr Chee was reading a sign at the foyer that said any “legislation or executive act" that contradicts the constitution is void. In his submissions he clearly pointed out that the executive/administrative act of WKS was unconstitutional, he didn't say anything about any law.

    Now, the snake that you are, you are doing exactly what you accuse CSJ of. You omit the part about the CSJ referring to the executive act and then conclude that he was referring to the law (PEMA).

    Again, I'm asking you to show us where he said PEMA is unconstitutional? Cut and paste from his submissions and show us here.

    [b]3. "SDP/CSJ expect “discretion (or mercy) when caught”[/b]

    This is another example of your dishonesty. You said: “If you checked back, the discussion on discretion was in response to it being raised by another reader.”

    I did check back and no it was not you responding to another reader. It was you who brought it. You were referring to Dr Chee's submissions.

    Even then, again the snake that you are, you completely take out of context what Dr Chee was saying which was that in considering whether to grant permits, the police must exercise discretion (as to national security, threat to public order, etc etc) as opposed to saying that all outdoor political activity are not allowed.

    But you turn this argument on its head and accuse of CSJ of expecting discretion, or worse mercy, when caught, trying to portray CSJ as cowardly. This is not intellectual honesty. It is not even intellectual. It is just deceit.

    This is my third question: Can you please show us, the readers, when and where has CSJ asked or expected discretion or mercy when caught?

    [b]4. "CSJ regards himself too highly to speak at SC"[/b]

    I had asked you when Dr Chee regarded himself so highly that he didn't want to speak at SC. Your answer? “Only CSJ can explain for himself why he found SC unsuitable for whatever he did and instead chose to do so without a permit elsewhere.”

    Again the weasel that you are, you deliberately leave out the part of the above article that said: “The charges are over Dr Chee and his party colleagues selling The New Democrat during elections in 2006.”

    How do you sell newspapers at the SC? To the lampposts?

    But I have pointed out that CSJ has spoken at SC. I was there there when he talked about NKF. I was not there but I understand he spoke there on May Day.

    Question no. 4: Where does it say anywhere that Dr Chee is not interested in speaking at SC? A link to any post will do.

    [b]5. “WKS has legal basis in making his prohibitions”[/b]

    You said that the minister has a legal basis in pronouncing prohibitions (to ban protests outright). I asked you to provide the legal basis. You skipped the question. We are waiting...
  • Wed 09 Sep 2009 11:27 PM | ahchan - Dear Mr BryanT
    Hi Mr BryanT,

    I'm your quintessential residential silent reader found in most websites, usually content with reading and enjoying the various articles and comments rather than openly engaging with other readers.

    However, I feel compelled to make this comment regarding some of your postings Mr BryanT.

    Although I do appreciate your enthusiasm and continued participation here, and your generally civil and genial tone towards other commenters, and I'm sure other readers do as well, you do need to watch your style of prose and verbiage.

    What I have noticed, which other readers like Mr Lim has, is that you tend to state facts, then follow them up with veiled assertions of your own, unsubstantiated this time round, as well.

    This is highly disconcerting, and works to confuse readers, especially those who have no prior relevant knowledge, who will then inadvertently pass them off as facts.

    For the sake of fair and open discourse, I hope you will pay more attention to substantiating your claims and assertions instead of flitting through them and causing your writing to end up being fundamentally hollow. You can start doing so by addressing Mr Lim's concerns, whom I believe has brought up pertinent points for your substantiation.

    On a side note, it seems that another reader here has been concerned enough about your writings to even blog about it, and has brought up more relevant points awaiting your address. You can engage those points at the blog here as well:- http://secretpoliticalblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/chee-soon-juan-charged-for-speaking-in.html

    That said, let us all work together to do our part in elevating the level of discourse here to greater heights.

    Have a nice day.

    Sincerely,
    Ah Chan
  • Thu 10 Sep 2009 7:26 AM | BryanT - ahchan - thanks for the advice
    ahchan, thanks you for your instructive comments. I will bear them in mind.

    And thanks for the link too, but I thought the blog was meant to be secret. So I hope you have not done them a disfavour.

    Anyway, I had a look. I am very humbled that they/he took the trouble to have a blog entry to discuss my comments from here. But since it's meant to be a private thing, I will respect their space.

    As for your quintessential silence, I would seriously encourage you to put in your comments to issues being discussed, since it would benefit everyone.

    I've learnt quite a bit from sparring with the gang here (especially the rather long-winded Robox and other well-reasoned writers), also since they have compelled me to do much fact searching whilst I write.

    BTW, I have no personal vendetta against CSJ. I just think that Singapore deserves a respectable and more mass-appealing opposition that resorts less to the tactics I see here, even despite the domineering strategies of the ruling party.
  • Thu 10 Sep 2009 7:15 AM | BryanT - Mr Lim
    Mr Lim, When you first raised the concern that I didn't "reason and debate", I wondered what was amiss. As I said, compared to the many monologues here, I would consider myself rather religious in answering points raised by others.

    Now I realised where the desync is. It seems that your definition of debate meant it has to be colourfully reinforced with reptilian name-calling to add strength to your points.

    And that any answer that does not meet your satisfaction is tantamount to "squirm and wriggle". Or perhaps it is the Special Branch (SB) mode of questioning - till hell boils over, there is only one answer that it wants to hear, the one it has rigidified in it mind.

    If this is the kind of debate propounded by the opposition (or its supporters), I can understand why SDP's loud entreaties to get a debate with the ruling party has been curtly rejected, or even ignored. (and please don't get me started on the hue-and-cry act after that)

    Anyway, as I said, I have extended my courtesy to answer your questions in the spirit of my definition of debate (except the one where you missed a question mark and my poor old eyes missed). I am sorry that you seem to be unhappy with the answers. Perhaps you would only be satisfied when the answers conform to your visualisation ala SB?

    The issue now is this : would you like to extend some courtesy as well to answer my questions. Or perhaps you had envisaged a debate to consist of only one side holding the liberty to pose questions. Yes, you could be right it is preposterous to throw questions at the SB. Quite an insult, I would say.

    But I half suspect another possibility - the answers to my questions could be too embarrassing for you to admit.

    Or maybe you have weak eyes like mine and missed them. So here they are again for your benefit.

    [b]1. In his closing submission, why do you think CSJ chose to omit mentioning Clause 2 which is directly relevant to this case, besides the fact that it would have debunked his arguments? Do you think it is wrong to omit it since it gives readers/listeners the impression that the freedoms he cited in Clause 1 were unrestricted?

    2. Why do you think he chose to proceed despite the fact that he did not apply for a permit? What do you think of him accusing the police of mala fide AFTER he has breached the law?

    3. Without a permit, do you think CSJ had already expected to be arrested and charged even before the police acted?[/b]

    BTW, I would be away for a few days without internet access, so I would not be able to respond to further posts till I get back (with a tan). I hope you'd allow me to squirm away for a short break. The pun was deliberate.

    And just a small piece of advice : us aged folks need to keep calm so that we don't accidentally dislodge pieces of hardened cholesterol that might clog up the the arteries. Then we can have more debates.

    Cheerio, have a good school holiday too!
  • Thu 10 Sep 2009 5:43 PM | g_e - Death Before Dishonour
    [quote][i]"I am very humbled that they/he took the trouble to have a blog entry to discuss my comments from here. But since it's meant to be a private thing, I will respect their space."[/i][/quote]
    What? You [i][b]cannot[/b][/i] be serious, BryanT! Here you have a scrotum (probably a paid CSJ stooge I wouldn't be surprised) who maliciously puts up page after page of scurrilous twisted logic to deride your selective interpretation of Constitutional Law and you're going to let him get away with it scot free?

    Do you realise the irreparable damage it will do to your reputation here if you fudge a confrontation purely on the grounds that the blog has the word 'Secret' in its title? There'll be mutterings of 'lame', 'chickenshit', '[i]boh liao[/i]', and worse hurled your way, mark my words. You do understand that the vicious, over-zealous SDP apologists here are just dying for the opportunity to take you down?

    Don't be intimidated by this trouble-maker my boy, get in there with all guns blazing and hose him/her/it down with the cool flame of logic and the full metal jacket of truth for which you are justly well known. PAPA and I are both counting on you not to let the side down, ok? Good luck son, and may your God go with you.

    Love, Mummy.
  • Thu 10 Sep 2009 6:14 PM | Robox - To BryanT: Public Order (1)
    I had actually previously written exactly on this issue here several months ago, but it bears repeating.

    First, it is not in the least unusual that [i]any[/i] Constitution will qualify the right to assembly out of considerations for public order or some such thing. Singapore's Constitution follows in the same British Commonwealth tradition, and just to be doubly sure, I checked both the Indian and Malaysian Constitutions - for historical, geographical, and cultural reasons, as well as some similarities in political situations - and as expected they were there.

    You can verify these for yourself.

    That would raise the question: What then would account for the different handling of assembly involving political parties by the three jurisdictions? Do you think that Dr Chee would even have been charged in Malaysia or India if he committed the same act there?

    In this post I will deal with the political question.

    I strongly believe that the fascist PAP's political culture in its policing of political parties conforms to this maxim: [b]it's who the person is, not what s/he does[/b].

    That political culture alone flies in the face of the basic premise in criminology: a crime is about what you do, not who you are, and what you do must also cause harm.

    I'm sure, you are going to disagree with this. But this is essentially about second guessing the unspoken.

    But I think it is an educated guess after observing the pattern in the fascists' behaviour.
  • Thu 10 Sep 2009 6:42 PM | Robox - To BryanT: Public Order (1)
    Next, on to the matter of the issuance of permits.

    Again there is supposed to be nothing arbitrary in this process - rule of law, remember?. All applications would have to meet the criteria (not transparent in the case of Singapore, which is typical) for approval.

    When it comes to considerations for public order, the criteria are typically something like this:

    1. [b]Who the individual/s is (or are)[/b], for the sole purpose of determining if they have previously, repeatedly brought about the breach of public order in the course of their assembly;

    2. The [b]nature[/b] of the assembly (eg. is it a protest, or mass celebration, etc.);

    3. The [b]location[/b] of the event (eg. is it held in a high tension area); and [b]most importantly[/b],

    4. [b]The prevailing socio-political conditions[/b] in the country (ie. are there socio-political tensions that will raise the possibility of public order being breached?).

    Is the Singapore Police Force enough of a professional organization to be using criteria of this sort and issue permits on that basis? Or do they receive orders from another source? ("It's who the person is, not what s/he does")

    Is the judge who ruled in this case professional and competent enough to make considerations like those I listed above before considering whether to convict Dr Chee? Does the judge even have the independence to do so or do these mentally ill judges also hear voices telling them "It's who the person is, not what s/he does"?
  • Thu 10 Sep 2009 7:55 PM | Mr Lim
    Good day, Mr T.

    With PAP-trained snakes like you, I don't debate. I expose. You see a debate can only be conducted with a party that does not insist on claiming falsehoods as facts.

    Eg. you say that SDP/CSJ had “expected discretion or mercy when they are caught”. That is a lie. I asked you to show to readers where they said they wanted mercy. You ducked. Then you go into “your” definition and “my” definition of debates. Want to throw smoke must have skill, lah.

    And now you want me to debate you based your false premises? If you can show me the factuality of your claims, I promise you I will debate you.

    But first things first, show to readers here that you are not lying by answering the questions I posed. I'll make it easy for you by summarizing it. You said:

    1. Chee wants unfettered freedoms
    2. CSJ says that PEMA contradicts the constitution
    3. SDP/CSJ expect “discretion (or mercy) when caught
    4. CSJ regards himself too highly to speak at SC
    5. WKS has legal basis in making his prohibitions

    Now refer us to where CSJ has made the above claims (1-4) and what legal basis WKS has for banning protests (5).

    Mr T, readers here want an honest and substantive discussion/debate. Folks like g-e, Tan Tai Wei, Robox, etc make an effort to do that. They don't resort to lying and misrepresenting what others say. You do and you must be called to account.

    You say that I coloured my post with name-calling. Would you like to tell readers here what you are doing when you use words like “theatrics”, “histrionics”, “maliciously”. Can't take the heat when its turned on you, eh?

    As to your questions, you keep asking me what I think about what Dr Chee did. Rather than carrying on this silly charade of yours why don't you ask CSJ directly?

    Me thinks that you are avoiding answering my questions by trying to change the subject to my views on what CSJ did or did not do. I'll give you an A for effort. Happy? Now answer my questions.

    And then very conveniently, you're now going on a holiday. Time to diffuse the heat and spotlight on you perhaps?

    BTW, cut the crap about you being an elderly fellow. If you really are one, you don't have to keep reminding us about it. Trying desperately to create the impression that you are a disinterested, independent-minded ol' fogie?

    More likely you're a trained PAP operative trying to sow confusion and doubt in the minds of readers here. You can do that on ST but here, you'll be called out.

    Have a good 'holiday'. But when you get back answer my questions, okay?
  • Sun 13 Sep 2009 4:33 AM | BryanT - Mr Lim -If exposure/exposing suits you...
    [color=red]"I don't debate. I expose"
    [/color]
    Mr Lim, I'm back! Don't worry, I won't run away from your kind engagement. I also bore in mind what your great leader (supposedly) had warned people before : "[b]you can run, but you cannot hide.[/b]" Remember this, Mr Lim?

    Anyway, now that we know your intent is not to debate, I assume you would prefer to maintain a monologue for yourself, or to let your ra-ra team admire your prose.

    Obviously you are still free to comment on my postings, like everyone else. In fact, I welcome you to do so, and appreciate the special attention that you may have chosen to focus on mine postings. It will certainly make the place more vibrant.

    Meanwhile, I hope you will have great pleasure in [b]exposure[/b]... err, I mean [b]exposing[/b]... errr.. why does it all sound so wrong?

    In the internet space, I am sure we have sufficient space for everyone, including those who desire to [b]expose[/b].

    Cheers!

    PS. It's quite funny, even my going for a holiday has been suspected. My personal suspicion of the [b]SDP Special Branch[/b] trailing me is becoming true. Are we supposed to be petrified?
  • Sun 13 Sep 2009 5:33 AM | quantum
    [quote]let your ra-ra team admire your prose[/quote]
    What is a ra ra team? Who is the ra ra team here?
  • Sun 13 Sep 2009 9:21 AM | BryanT - Robox - Who and what he did
    [color=red]"it's who the person is, not what s/he does."[/color]

    Robox, I do not doubt that the same clauses appear in the Msian and Indian constitutions that would "qualify the right to assembly out of considerations for public order", etc.

    I also agree with you that there are differences in the way these clauses are being applied here as compared to these two countries, or even UK.

    My issue is this - on which country should a universal standard for definition of threat to public order be based, since even in these three Commonwealth countries there are dissimilarities?

    Let's take the May 09 arrest of Msian opposition members who were arrested whilst sitting in a coffee-shop dressed in black. Would the same type of arrest have happened in, say London? I think we know the answer.

    In Msia, would they have been arrested if they were NOT opposition members?

    As you probably know, I normally would rather not compared the S'porean system with that of Msia. I hope you'd also agree that the latter sets a low benchmark for us to aspire to. And I would also not want to give the impression that if other governments can do it, so can ours. And vice versa too.

    Let me also touch on the permit issue.

    I am trying to envisage what goes through the licensing officer's mind should he receive an application for a permit to sell books (which is quite innocent) and speak in public about the political system and laws here.

    I agree with you that deciding whether to issue a permit should not be arbitrary and in most cases, I suppose it need not be, eg. if one is applying for a permit to teach, say, Ikebana, along Orchard Road.

    But it is very subjective what can give rise to public disorder, or even what constitutes public disorder. Would members of public shouting rowdily in unison with a speaker's emotional speech be considered that?

    In this case, I do not think we are talking about criminology yet since nothing has taken place at point of deciding whether to issue a permit. However, the licensing officer's assessment of whether to issue a permit is probably based on what can potentially happen. To make this decision, among other things, I think it is relevant that he considers who the person is, and what he has done before.

    In these aspects, I don't think CSJ's record of law-breaking and non-compliance with the police speaks well of himself.

    Of course, we know that the police takes instruction from it's political leaders (ie. minister). That's no different from the case in UK, Msia or India.

    I assume that CSJ eventually decided that he did not want to apply for a permit in this case since he felt he was unlikely to get one from the police who in turns takes guidance from the minister.
  • Sun 13 Sep 2009 11:29 AM | g_e - So many questions, so little time
    [quote][i]Don't worry, I won't run away from your kind engagement...Anyway, now that we know your intent is not to debate...[/i][/quote]
    Hummm, I hate to sound pedantic BryanT, but it would appear to a pefectly neutral observer from the planet Zog that debate is exactly what you are trying to avoid. Mr Lim has gently posed you the same 5 questions based on the assertions of fact in your posts and again invited you to substantiate them. Now, at this point it would seem to me that you either rebut him point by point with verifiable proof that what you say is indeed true or acknowledge your statements have no basis in fact, isn't that right? Isn't that what debate is all about?

    You also have a few loose ends to tidy up at [url]http://secretpoliticalblog.blogspot.com/2009/09/chee-soon-juan-charged-for-speaking-in.html[/url], in case you've forgotten after your relaxing holiday. As you say, the Internet has ample space for the views of everyone and we are really keen to see you robustly exposing and being exposed.

    So please don't let the side down. Be a man like the Old Testament Samson who remarked, "With the jaw-bone of an ass, heaps upon heaps, with the jaw of an ass have I slain a thousand men." You must slay a few ra-ra men here BryanT. You wouldn't want to lose your credibility, now would you?
  • Mon 14 Sep 2009 5:27 AM | quantum
    [quote]In these aspects, I don't think CSJ's record of law-breaking and non-compliance with the police speaks well of himself.[/quote]
    which law? who is breaking what?
  • Mon 14 Sep 2009 6:55 AM | BryanT - quantum - rhetorical questions, anyone?
    [color=red]"which law? who is breaking what?"[/color]

    quantum, since you are not directing the question to anyone, all of us have to assume that those are rhetorical questions.
  • Mon 14 Sep 2009 6:20 PM | Robox - To BryanT
    Re: [b]"My issue is this - on which country should a universal standard for definition of threat to public order be based, since even in these three Commonwealth countries there are dissimilarities?"[/b]

    It's not about which country to emulate, but whether Singapore is conforming to the standards of rationality that is inherent to the rule of law. Or whether it even desires to.

    My citing of countries was merely to show that there are some countries that meet those standards, but Singapore refuses to because it wishes to remain mired in fedual standards.

    Re: [b]"I do not think we are talking about criminology yet since nothing has taken place at point of deciding whether to issue a permit."[/b]

    Yes, we are.

    Dr Chee has been fined in lieu of jail; that's a sentence for what the marsupials have deigned to be a crime.

    Re: [b]"I assume that CSJ eventually decided that he did not want to apply for a permit in this case since he felt he was unlikely to get one from the police who in turns takes guidance from the minister."[/b]

    That's complete nonsense.

    They ALWAYS folow the procedure that has been set out according to law.

    But PAP-directed internal policy in the thug organization called the SPF always sees to it that the permit will be denied; civil disobedience is the tactic is meant to be applied evenly across the board and transparently.

    Re: [b]"But it is very subjective what can give rise to public disorder..."[/b]

    Again, that's complete nonsense.

    There are quite predictable guidelines, though never guarantees.

    But the PAP's importing of socio-political conditions from other countries to justify law, policy and action here when it doesn't apply in the least bit is the greater subjectiveness that you should be questioning.
  • Tue 15 Sep 2009 5:38 AM | BryanT - Robox
    Robox, I am pretty fine if you rather talk to the ra-ra gang then to hear my "nonsense". They will agree with every point you make, and vice versa. So there is not need to raise any to me since if gets you so upset.

    Cheers.
  • Tue 15 Sep 2009 5:35 AM | quantum
    BryanT:

    1) Which law?
    2) Who is breaking what law?
    3) Who is the ra-ra gang?
    4) Who is upset?

    I have the courage to ask, but do you have the confidence to answer the questions or the guts to admit your ignorance and fallacies?
Please login or register to post your comments.
 


 

Other languages

Banner
Banner
Banner

Awesome Words

“History provides an abundance of striking examples to show that, in the long run, even the most ruthless policy of repression does not suffice to maintain a government in power.”

Ludwig von Mises

Act Now

More options
 
Banner
Banner

Blogs of the week

Read more
 
Banner
Banner
Banner
Banner
 

Poll Results on...

 

Login



Ads

News feeds

Singapore Democrat News
Joomla! Template by Joomlashack
Joomla Templates by JoomlaShack