Singapore Democrats

Does the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA) contradict the Constitution?

In our family fiefdom. the Constitution is not worth the paper its written on.

Singapore is not a democracy.Kuan Yew already said that the Singapore pledge is just an aspiration.

Singaporeans must come together to reclaim our lives and land from the rotten PAP.

Today,it is just the 3 - Gandhi,CSJ and CSC.Tomorrow,they might just come after you and me.If we don't do anything now,it will be too late to do anything in the future.

Do not just stand in silence as the PAP bully you.And let us all bring meaning back to the pledge,especially the part "to build a democratic society,based on justice and equality"

Isn't it ironic that the ST Forum http://www.straitstimes.com/STForum/Story/STIStory_468308.html ,Chong Wan Yieng (Ms)
Press Secretary to Minister for Law wrote, "Engaging in robust criticism per se is not and has never been a crime or libellous in Singapore." and they have been found guilty for doing that. What a bunch of hypocrites! They really believe in their own drivel.

The judges decision was going to be obvious. Let me not suggest that that someone told him what to say. But ....you know what I mean.
Maybe someone should remind the Law Minister what a laughing stock he made of himself in front of the worlds journalists when he told then there is freedom of press and all things else in Spore.

MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES (PUBLIC ORDER AND NUISANCE) ACT (CHAPTER 184)
PART I - PRELIMINARY

Interpretation

2. In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires —

"horse" includes mules and asses, whether two- or four- legged, or otherwise conjoined as in 'horse's asses';

"cattle" includes bulls, cows, bollocks and buffaloes;

"kangaroo" includes Wallabies and the Judiciary;

Offences how punishable

4. All offences under this Act shall be tried by a Magistrate’s Court or a District Court or the Singapore Zoo; and notwithstanding the provisions of any other written law, a Magistrate’s Court or a District Court or an Authorised Marsupial Keeper shall have the power to impose the maximum penalty prescribed for any such offence.

I have just checked the wikipedia for info about Marsupial

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marsupial

Marsupials are an infraclass of mammals, characterized by a distinctive pouch (called the marsupium), in which females carry their young through early infancy.

Am I the only one who thinks the Judge in question looks like one Ex-MP we all know ?

I doubt it is even in the statutes that criticism of the government is an offense. If such a law exists, then it is unconstitutional. If the district judge found the SDP trio guilty of distributing pamphlets criticising the PAP government without a permit, then he should be wrong in law.

In fact, the Sedition Act (Cap 290) has a provision to protect precisely such criticism, viz.

3(2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), any act, speech, words, publication or other thing shall NOT (emphasis added) be deemed to be seditious by reason only that it has a tendency —

(a) to show that the Government has been misled or mistaken in any of its measures;

(b) to point out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution as by law established or in legislation or in the administration of justice with a view to the remedying of such errors or defects;

(c) to persuade the citizens of Singapore or the residents in Singapore to attempt to procure by lawful means the alteration of any matter in Singapore; or

(d) to point out, with a view to their removal, any matters producing or having a tendency to produce feelings of ill-will and enmity between different races or classes of the population of Singapore,

if such act, speech, words, publication or other thing has not otherwise in fact a seditious tendency.

Since the three SDP leaders have filed notices of appeal against the sentence, let's wait and see whether the Court of Appeal agrees with Stevewu77.

I was looking for this story in Saturday's ST, and saw a headline on page A42 that read "Political criticism not a crime here".

Thinking that it was about this court case, I read on but it turned out to be something else.

It's a letter from the press secretary to the Minister for Law that said "engaging in robust criticism per se is not and has never been a crime or libellous in Singapore".

The press secretary also claimed: The latest World Economic Competitiveness Report rated Singapore first out of 131 countries for "public trust of politicians" and "transparency of government policymaking".

What a load of garbage.

I have looked through the World Economic Competitiveness Report . It also says that Singapore ranks only 19th for judicial independence, and it is labeled as a competitive disadvantage.

Maybe, the judge should have made it clear that the "guilt" has been only in five or more having assembled in public without permit to oppose a cause.

It is indeed a glaring and telling error to enter the part about opposing government into the charge, and for the judge to not point it out, indeed to seemingly endorse the implication that criticising government is itself a defining feature of the offence.

And what the police really meant to say, with regard to distributing commercials, is probably that. while technically a permit is also needed should five or more assemble to do it, they would exercise the option of not policing against it, judging no risk of disorder.

(Not being able to speak, state and charge in an accurate and non-misleading manner is, of course, a serious shortcoming not expected of our "talents" handpicked for such public duties. So does it happen only because of, yet again, over-jealousness to please and get along?)

We all know what the score is. Abuse the powers of the state to savage your political opponents singling out the one party which will not bend to your will because their courage frightens you the most. It really matters not what the letter of the law is since with a 2/3 majority and no opposition worthy of the name, the law is your plaything to do with as you please. But it's not 1963 and we the people know what you are up to now.

I'm sure the SDP has taken up the challenge with eyes wide open. They will appeal this dishonourable verdict well aware of the foregone conclusion but it sets a marker, edges the boundary forward. The appeal will be dismissed by yet another invertebrate judge. Then three innocents will go to prison with their heads held high and another coffin nail will be hammered into PAP's already tattered reputation.

“First they ignore us, then they laugh at us, then they fight us, then we win.”

Of course, the law minister's press secretary's statements reveals a glaring self-contradiction on the part of the PAP establishment.

At any rate, criticizing the government is the raison d'etre of the non-ruling parties, and if political parties are legal in Singapore, I wonder what other role the they are supposed to be playing if not criticizing the government. Where has that role been previously defined and is it known to the general public as well as to the political parties themselves.

And no, kangaroos, please don't redefine our political and cook up a cook and bull story about how our Asian values preclude political parties from plaing their role as the government's critics. I prefer to continue believing that the problem here is that the entire PAP consists of people who have the combined emotional maturity of exactly one 14-year old schoolboy; they are emotionallly ill-equipped to withstand any criticism.

I'm also a little unsure about stevewu77's post, especially if the section he quoted is meant as evidence at the appeal; of course mine is not a lawyer's opinion but a layperson's logic.

The section he quoted is from the Sedition Act, but since the SDP members were not charged for the crime of sedition but another 'crime' under another Act, I wonder how how this section from the Sedition Act can invalidate the judge's ruling.

Hope stevewu77 can elaborate.

"technically a permit is also needed should five or more assemble to do it"

So next time, just stand 10 meters apart while distributing pamphlets.

WOAH!!! since it is such a major problem, why it is commented by so little poeple? we need more poeple to comment on this. anyway, why is it always you few who comment? where are the others?

"our Asian values preclude political parties from playing their role as the government's critics. "

If this statement is true, that means India, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, Hong Kong, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand do not have "Asian values". If so many Asians countries do not have such "Asian values", I doubt we can still call such questionable values as "Asian".

As reports have shown, majority (around 95%) of Singaporeans on the net are "lurkers" that do not comment, write or create any content.

The law minister's press secretary has said, “engaging in robust criticism per se is not and has never been a crime or libellous in Singapore“, and that “there can be, and there is, vigorous debate on public policies“.

I believe that the reason that this act of distrubuting flyers was concocted to become a crime for one reaso alone, and it is becaiuse of the statement contained it referring to ministerial salaries/incomes.

I state categorically that ministerial remuneration, dispensed as they are from the public coffers is a matter of fiscal policy.

Fiscal policy IS public policy. So why aren't the SDP allowed to criticize this public policy without it being fraudulently deemed a crime?

Hi Robox,

I'm happy to elaborate. As reported, GA, CSJ and CSC were charged under an obscure subsidiary legislation of the MOA which states that an assembly intended to demonstrate support or opposition to the view of any person without a permit is an offense. It's obscure; I cannot even find the exact clause at http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/. Can someone help here? As was pointed out, there is nothing specific to criticism of the government. No one, not the DPP nor the district judge, should be able to provide a construction (no matter how awkward) that "any person" could refer to the government in some instance without defying both language and logic. Hence, I think the judge is wrong in law; there is really no offense.

Alas, this government would not make the same mistake twice. On and after 9 Oct 2009 the new Public Order Act (POA) 2009 comes into force with new definitions in section 2(1) plugging the "holes". This is a tacit admission of earlier inadequacy. Now "assembly means a gathering or meeting (whether or not comprising any lecture, talk, address, debate or discussion) of persons the purpose (or one of the purposes) of which is
(a) to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person, group of persons or any government,
(b) to publicise a cause or campaign; or
(c) to mark or commemorate any event, and includes a demonstration by a person alone for any such purpose referred to in paragraph (a),
(b) or (c);"

Also take a look at section 16 of the POA for the punishment ranging from $3000 to $20,000 in maximum fine and/or jail terms in relation to the "crime".

The intent of parliament is clear: don't assemble and criticize the government at the same time. I find the POA is so contrived it is not so much to contain "public order" but to eliminate "public embarrassment" of the government. Now even the lone campaigner is silenced by an unjust law.

Coming back, there is a conflict in law. Firstly, the pertinent element of the POA is incompatible with the Sedition Act (Cap 290). How can a behavior, i.e. legal and constructive criticism of the government, important enough to be explicitly protected by the Sedition Act be outlawed by another statute?

Secondly, the essence of POA is also blatantly unconstitutional. What sort of freedom is there to speak of if one requires a permit by default for the said speech and assembly? One of the key roles of the Constitution is precisely to protect the People from the possible abuse of the government.

Hence, there is a constitutional challenge here. The chance of a fair outcome may be vanishingly small, but it is still important to have it documented. Take heart; the law shall catch up eventually (see http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BM02B20091223 ).

Peace!

>>> They should also trial those involved in the TianAnMen Massacre.

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5BM02B20091223

Argentine judge asks China arrests over Falun Gong
Tue, Dec 22 2009

By Luis Andres Henao

BUENOS AIRES (Reuters) - An Argentine judge has ordered the arrest of China's former President Jiang Zemin and another top official for "crimes against humanity" in the alleged persecution of the Falun Gong spiritual movement.

Falun Gong hailed it as a historic human rights ruling on Tuesday, although a lawyer for the group acknowledged it is largely symbolic.

Federal Judge Octavio de Lamadrid on December 17 asked Interpol to issue an arrest warrant against Jiang and former security chief Luo Gan after four years of investigating charges of torture and genocide against the Falun Gong group.

The judge ordered the arrest of the two "over crimes against humanity committed in China" including genocide and torture, according to a copy of the ruling. Jiang was president from 1993 to 2003.

De Lamadrid made the ruling based on sections of Argentina's 1994 constitution that allow Argentine courts to address human rights issues in other countries.

In his ruling, the judge said "if universal jurisdiction is not admitted we would find ourselves allowing impunity, which is what the international community wants to avoid."

Alejandro Cowes, an Argentine lawyer representing Falun Gong, said: "It's a historic ruling because for the first time we're opening a universal jurisdiction to investigate crimes committed abroad."

However, a second lawyer for the group acknowledged that the ruling was mostly symbolic since it is unlikely that the arrests would be carried out. Falun Gong has pushed for such rulings without results in France, Spain and elsewhere.

Argentine President Cristina Fernandez is scheduled to travel to China in January to discuss bilateral trade and business. Fernandez has pushed for human rights trials in Argentina against former military officers accused of abuses during the 1976-1983 "dirty war" against leftists.

A decade-long government crackdown drove Falun Gong underground in China but it has flourished abroad, where it has moved from a spiritual movement into a vehicle against Chinese Communist Party rule.

Thousands have been jailed since China declared Falun Gong a cult in 1999.

The Falun Dafa Information Center, which documents suspected abuses against practitioners in China, says 104 Falun Gong adherents died of abuse or neglect in custody last year, bringing to 3,242 the number of deaths documented over 10 years.

"I think this lawsuit is such great news because if (people in China) see that somebody is saying that this is wrong, even here in Argentina, they will be able to think that maybe what the government is telling them is not right," said Liwie Fu, president of the Falun Gong Group in Argentina, who brought the lawsuit.

(Reporting by Luis Andres Henao; editing by Fiona Ortiz and Mohammad Zargham)