AGC drops charges against Chee Soon Juan

Home

News

Singapore

Friday, 04 December 2009

Singapore Democrats

The Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) has dropped three remaining charges against Dr Chee Soon Juan for speaking in public without a permit. Dr Chee was originally charged with eight separate counts.

The Prosecution made the surprise announcement in Court on Wednesday but did not give a reason as to why the charges were dropped. The withdrawn charges would amount to acquittals.

The eight charges all stem from activities in 2006 during the general elections period. Of the five charges, four have already been dealt with and one more will proceed next year.

Dr Chee served a 5-week jail sentence for the first charge. The second, third and fourth charges all ended up with convictions and the matters are awaiting appeal.

In 2008 during the trial involving the second charge, the Prosecution offered to drop the rest of the six charges if Dr Chee would plead guilty. The SDP secretary-general turned down the offer.

At that time DPP Lim Tse Haw had told the court that if Dr Chee pleaded guilty to the remaining seven charges, the Prosecution would apply to have the charges taken into consideration for sentencing. In other words, sentence would be meted out for only one or two of the charges, not all seven of them.

As tempting as it was, Dr Chee refused to plead guilty.

As a result, the AGC decided to proceed with one charge after another dragging the matter out for more than three years.

Instead of prosecuting the eight charges all at one trial, the AGC insisted that it would proceed with one charge at a time. A few judges had asked why the matters could not be heard all together. This, the judges noted, would be neater and less time consuming.

But each time the Prosecution refused to give an explanation and insisted that it would proceed with the cases singly.

On Wednesday, however, the AGC suddenly announced that it would not go ahead with the three remaining charges.

"Does this mean that the charges would be withdrawn amounting to an acquittal?" the Judge asked.

"Yes," the DPP confirmed.

The DPP did not state the reasons for the withdrawal of the charges.

Mr Yap Keng Ho is the other defendant.

In a separate development on the same day, the High Court granted Mr Yong Vui Kong a reprieve, albeit only temporarily.

Judge Woo Bih Li allowed a last minute stay of execution after Mr Yong's lawyer, Mr M Ravi, made an application on constitutional grounds.

Mr Yong, 21, was convicted of bringing in heroin in 2008 and was due to be hanged today. Judge Woo said that he was allowing the matter to be heard in the Court of Appeal (Singapore's highest court) next week.

Share this article:

Comments (16)

Fri 04 Dec 2009 11:52 AM | Jaslyn

As a layman and one who do not know the laws well or how the court operates, but after my own experience in court for the TBT trial, my observation and impression is that - it seems like it is always the AGC calling the shot and judges taking instruction from them...

Take this matter as a eg. as a judge, don't they have the power to over rule AGC insistence of having the charges proceed one by one knowing full well not only it is wasting the court time, it is also unfair to the defendants?

What kind of 1st world Judiciary system we have that when the judges are seen to be beholden to the AGC?

Fri 04 Dec 2009 2:39 PM | BryanT - congrats

Congratulations are due, at least for having three lesser!

Fri 04 Dec 2009 5:01 PM | Seelan Palay

"How long? Not long, because no lie can live forever.

How long? Not long, because you shall reap what you sow.

How long? Not long, because the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

~ Martin Luther King, Jr.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAYITODNvlM

Fri 04 Dec 2009 5:38 PM | AnnA - Congratulation Dr. Chee

Glad that u decide to proceed on the legal matters, Dr Chee :)

It really pays off. Right move.

Congratulations!

Btw, I think they hv decided to re-investigate and found out that all charges are due to exaggeration against Dr, Chee.

Happy for you, Sir.

Fri 04 Dec 2009 7:49 PM | April Fool - General Election is coming

Surely GE is around the corner !

Fri 04 Dec 2009 8:36 PM | maxchew - Life of a nobody is so cheap in Singapore?

Malaysian Yong Vui Kong, a nobody, was due to be hanged today (friday 4 Dec) but Justice Woo gave him a reprieve to allow his lawyer to apply for a hearing in the Ct of Appeal as is mandatory for all capital cases....so why the hell is the AGC opposing this move? Is it not a protocol to comply with according to the CPC?
Are they so eager to hang this poor young man? Life is so cheap for these scumbags who have no compassion whatsoever.....a-holes!

Sat 05 Dec 2009 12:20 AM | F C D Chan - Embarrassment

i think the only reason why they have dropped the case is that they wanted to save the police involved from embarrassing themselves and the police force they represent in court.

Sat 05 Dec 2009 2:21 AM | g_e - Justice, Alice-in-Wonderland style.

If the three remaining charges "would be withdrawn amounting to an acquittal" as the DPP was forced to concede in front of the judge, then by what logic can the convictions for charges 1-4 stand? All eight charges are separate counts for the exactly IDENTICAL OFFENCE of speaking in public without a permit.

If Dr. Chee is acquitted of even a single charge, ALL of the earlier convictions must immediately become highly questionable. We don't even have to go into that charade of double jeopardy which is itself condemned in every nation in the world that claims to be civilised.

I can hear the sound of changkols being dropped and feet scrambling to escape the collapsing deep hole they've dug themselves.

Sat 05 Dec 2009 8:28 AM | Aung - I'm glad

Congratulations to Dr. Chee and SDP!!! I admire you for being resolute and truthful to your belief.

Glad to hear these good news.

Sat 05 Dec 2009 9:58 AM | quantum

I wonder what happen if you wear a T-shirt with the word "MARSUPIAL" on it in court?

Sat 05 Dec 2009 7:56 PM | | seebeng - Stop criminalising politics

I was told that every shred of police evidence given in this case and other cases involving SDP and its supporters had been exposed as fabrication by the defendants.

All the so-called prosecution witnesses were from the police who are supposed to maintain law and order. None from the public to give evidence in court to prove that the actions of the defendants were indeed “a threat to public security“.

To avoid embarrassment, the PAP bootlicking mouthpieces in all languages have been told to skip the various on-going trials at the subordinate courts. So much for a First World media.

What we are witnessing at the courts is PAP’s obnoxious attempt to criminalise politics in Singapore that has been turned into a family fiefdom.

.

Sun 06 Dec 2009 6:37 AM | Robox

Yes, congratulations Dr Chee.

But my opinion is that this has happened partially because Dr Chee had started showing the thunder that he can be in the way of the previous court cases that the PAP-directed police arrested him for.

I definitely DO NOT feel that gratitude towards either the judiciary - if it is as independent as it so anxiously claims when we know otherwise - nor the PAP is appropriate here: these arrests should never have happened in the first place.

Meanwhile, g_e has raised a couple of excellent points:

Re: "All eight charges are separate counts for the exactly IDENTICAL OFFENCE of speaking in public without a permit...If Dr. Chee is acquitted of even a single charge, ALL of the earlier convictions must immediately become highly questionable."

Sun 06 Dec 2009 6:42 AM | Robox - If greyhern is reading this...

greyhern,

I have been very overwhelmed by Vui Kong's - the boy on death row - case and that's the reason that I was not able to reply to your very interesting question that I would like to pursue discussion on.

I will try and find a time to do it.

Watch this space.

Sun 06 Dec 2009 7:11 AM | Robox - To AN If You Are Reading This

True SDP-ers Will Want To Know This.

I had always been suspicious of:

1. The Online Citizen (TOC); and,

2. their true agenda.

I have recently been experiencing quite a few inexplicable run-ins with TOC that seems to confirm my initial suspicions about those snakes - it's definitely an anti-SDP agenda in short.

I may elaborate on these run-ins at some later point, but in the meantime - to AN - I had replied to your post to me on Vui Kong's case but TOC censored it. As with all PAP inspired outfits, they walk a ground that is so different from the one that we do, and thus are too high up to condescend to reply to me.

This was my reply to you:

[Quote]

129) Robox on Your comment is awaiting moderation. December 4th, 2009 10.43 am

Hi AN,

Thank you for your post; it’s indeed very comforting to have a ‘familiar face’, so to speak, in what is seeming like a very lonely battle.

Where are all the rest of our fellow SDP-ers?

We are the ones who have been at the forefront of this issue from the word “Go”.

It’s heartening to hear about your vigil. I’m overseas right now, but if I were in Singapore, I would definitely organize a vigil for Vui Kong at HL Park.

[Endquote]

Now tell me, which of TOC's TOS or moderation policies did I violate in the above post that it wasn't deemed fit for publication? (There are many other posts that remain censored but I want to try and remain thematically consistent so I will stick to this for now.)

It all started when I had the AUDACITY to retort to a racist post - by a poster named Singa - that claimed that Chinese Singaporeans HAVE the right to discriminate against Indian and Malay Singaporeans BECAUSE China won more gold medals in the Olympics that either India or Indonesia.

(Gee, I wonder he why he also didn't make the case FOR the RIGHT for Caucasians to discrimiante against the Chinese when THEY were topping the Olympics medal tables.)

And why did TOC think that his post remained suitable for publication (and therefore was not deleted) but my retort to him wasn't?

Ask TOC.

That is if - and that's a big "if" because they are as unaccountable to those who sustain them as the PAP are - they even think that they answerable for their unreasonable actions.

Mon 07 Dec 2009 12:31 AM | Jufrie

Being one who is not legally trained I cannot really understand what these acquitals really mean.

Does it mean that the AG has at long last realised that Dr. Chee is not guilty of the offence? Or can it be that the offence has been committed but the AG has forgiven him or cannot be bothered with charging him.
Could it also mean that the AG's boys are suffering from self induced legal fatigue?

Are we finally seeing the dawn of a new era? Or could it mean that the powers that be are trying to play god, just like the pharoah who claimed that he could bring back to life someone whom he had earlier sentenced to death by cummuting the sentence?

Or could it mean ...............?

Thu 10 Dec 2009 10:53 PM | quantum

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_464915.html#
Dec 10, 2009

Chee, supporter cleared
By Jeremy Au Yong
Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan (right) and party supporter Yap Keng Ho (far left) have been cleared of three charges each of speaking in public without a permit. -- ST PHOTO: WONG KWAI CHOW

SINGAPORE Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and party supporter Yap Keng Ho have been cleared of three charges each of speaking in public without a permit.

The Attorney-General's Chambers on Thursday confirmed that the prosecution withdrew the charges last week and the Court ordered a discharge amounting to an acquittal.

The three charges were part of a set of eight similar ones filed against the two for their activities in the lead up to the 2006 General Election.

A trial date for the remaining charge is due to be set at a pre-trial conference next Tuesday.

The conclusion of that trial will bring to a close a series of cases that started soon after the May 2006 election. Both Chee and Yap had been found guilty of the four charges already heard.

Chee was jailed for 10 days because he did not pay the fine for the first conviction. He is appealing the other three convictions. Yap also refused to pay his fines and was jailed for a total of 35 days on different occasions for his convictions. Each charge carries a maximum fine of $10,000.