Rachel Zeng
Two plead guilty while rest claim trial
Subordinate Court 5 was packed with familiar faces from the civil society yesterday.
19 activists and members of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) began their trial at the Subordinate Courts on Thursday at about 9.30 am. They are being charged for staging an illegal assembly and an illegal procession on the 15 of March this year outside Parliament House. They were protesting the high cost of living in Singapore.
All but one of the defendants are facing two charges each, one for illegal assembly and the other for carrying out an illegal procession. Francis Yong, Vice Chairman of the SDP, was the only defendant facing one charge of illegal assembly. The trial was heard before District Judge Chia Wee Kiat and only four of the accused are being represented by legal counsels.
Shortly after the Court was called to rise and the Deputy Public Prosecutor Mr Isaac Tan made the necessary announcements, he informed the court that one of the defendant, Mr Ng E- Jay, who blogs at sgpolitics and was a member of the now defunct SG Human Rights group, had decided to plead guilty for the first charge involving illegal assembly. Court was adjourned thereafter till 11.00 am so that matters regarding Mr Ng’s plea could be discussed.
When Court resumed at 11.00am, several applications and questions were raised. One of the questions raised was regarding a video clip of the event made by the police on 15 March 2008. Some of the defendants informed the judge that they have yet been shown the video. Mr Chia Ti Lik also applied to the court that a copy of the video be made available to all of the accused regardless of whether they are being represented by legal counsels or otherwise. In the middle of all the questions and applications regarding the video, the DPP informed the judge and the defendants that the video is no different from the ones available on the internet. Mr Jufrie Mahmood questioned the court about which version of the video the court is relying on since the DPP insisted that the one taken by the police was no different from the ones available on the internet. Mr Jufrie said he could save time and watch it via the internet instead of waiting for the DPP to make a copy available to the defendants.
“I still need a copy of the video though” he ended saying, inviting much chuckle around the courtroom.
To conclude the issue of the video, the DPP stated that he will make the copies available for all the defendants if the prosecution decides and intends to use the video as court evidence.
Court was later adjourned so that Mr Ng could be tried in a separate courtroom. He was later slapped with a fine of $600 for being part of an illegal assembly outside Parliament House on 15 March 2008.
When the Court resumed at 3.30 pm, the charges were read out to each of the 18 remaining defendants individually. Mr Yap Keng Ho questioned the Court about the charges that he faces as he was neither part of the alleged assembly nor the alleged procession. Instead, argued Mr Yap, he was there along with the crowd of spectators and police officers, taking footages of the behaviour of the police officers. Hence he applied to the Court that he be tried separately from the rest. All the other defendants agreed with his stand but the application was dismissed by the judge.
Just before the trial ended for the day, Mr Jeffrey George also made a separate application for his trial to be adjourned to a further date as he has to be out stationed for a month starting from tomorrow but his application was also rejected by the judge. He pleaded guilty in the end so that he can get back to his work. He was fined $1200 altogether for illegal assembly outside Parliament House and for illegal procession.
The hearing will continue for the remaining 17 defendants on Friday in Subordinate Court 5 at 9.30am.
Read also: Amnesty Int’l calls for support for “peaceful activists”.
———-
In this time of recession, I like to thank this group of people (excepting those who are bankrupt) for the contribution in fines they will be making to Singapore’s reserves.
I can understand that this group face a high cost of living (which is the subject of the protest). My suggestion is if one doesn’t have to pay fines, then cost of living (excluding those bankrupt) is less high.
For those “white eat” who choose to go to jail, don’t forget hard-earned taxpayer money is being used to house and feed you. It is already hard enough to raise a family without having to support “white eats” too.
any gethering that is more than 4 persons is consider illegal in singapore and punishable by law? I still don’t believe this thing, are we living in north korea or what? how do you explain illegal in what sanes if 5 persons are having coffee chats and wearing the same T-shirts (maybe football jerseys)? or what if a family of 4+1 maid who wants to go for a weekend picnic at the east coast? also illegal?
5 people having coffee chats and wearing same T-shirts don’t get arrested in Singapore.
Same thing with family of 4+1 going on picnic outing. Same thing with 10 people playing a basketball game.
When does it become illegal in Singapore? Sec 141 of the penal code states:
if the common object of the persons composing that assembly is —
(a) to overawe by criminal force, or show of criminal force, the Legislative or Executive Government, or any public servant in the exercise of the lawful power of such public servant;
(b) to resist the execution of any law, or of any legal process;
(c) to commit any offence;
(d) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to any person, to take or obtain possession of any property, or to deprive any person of the enjoyment of a right of way, or of the use of water or other incorporeal right of which he is in possession or enjoyment, or to enforce any right or supposed right; or
(e) by means of criminal force, or show of criminal force, to compel any person to do what he is not legally bound to do, or to omit to do what he is legally entitled to do.
———————————————-
Quod erat demonstrandum.
A free people claim their rights as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate. -Thomas Jefferson
Peaceful assembly is people natural rights. It seems that the assembly laws or judges in Singapore have gone extreme by persecuting the people of these innocent acts.
so I am assuming there isn’t any ‘criminal force’ involved.
So it can only be b or c.
c is a circular argument coz it is an offence because there is a gathering of more than 5 people, and ….
So left with b.
What execution of law was exercised? (since i do not that it is a legal process to increase price, which was the aim of the ‘gathering’)
There are conspirarcy theories about Chi and his storys.
Can anyone clarify for the public the Reality of Chi ?
Otherwise, its silly to make any comment about Chi and SDP.
Someone in Singapore knows the TRUTH.
I hope the Truth will be out soon.
I feel that the ppl participating in the protests and all have nothing better to do. All they want is attention. Talk about these.. that… trying to influence others with their idealogies. The way I look at it, Singapore IS a democratic country. The majority voted for the party to govern this country… not SDP. So just take it and live with it la! Why not do something good instead like be a volunteer in some charitable organisations.
And worst still is; they turn to the international community complaining about their own country just so they can get support as the majority here dont. They tell slanted stories as if Singapore is like the Afgan or Iraq. Look around guys… are you all blind or what? Ya Singapore’s geovernance may not be perfect but to me it is almost.
As for the international community (These outsiders) who preaches “human rights”. They talk of human rights but forgot about ppl like us who have the right to live in a peaceful country. They should protect our rights instead!! sheezzz.
Quote:
“Dont see too far, see what you have and be happy. A simple man”
(no one famous just me)
7) Demo keras …see? on October 24th, 2008 5.23 pm
Tell the people you do not support the investor protest at HL Park.
YES / NO.
Ah, relooked at the legislation and found that the penal code may not have been applied in this case (which would be good for the defendants as there is no limit on penalty under penal code).
Instead, if the defendants were charged under the sec 3 of the Misc offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act or sec 5 of the Public Order (preservation) Act, then this is basically not following stated regulations which covers any public road, public place or place of public resort .
Basically, picnics are ok under the Misc Offences rules under reg 2(d);
The kopi drinkers are ok under reg 2(eb);
The protestors at Hong Lim under reg 2(g).
Max fine is $5k per offence or 3 months jail.
“7) Demo keras …see? on October 24th, 2008 5.23 pm
They talk of human rights but forgot about ppl like us who have the right to live in a peaceful country.”
Ppl like you have the right to live in a peaceful country. Other people also have the right to live in a peaceful country and at the same time disagree with people like you on the shades of peace that you are referring to.
“The majority voted for the party to govern this country… not SDP.”
The funny thing is that with such clear cut and credible & don’t-play-play majority, certain “international community & even certain local community are still complaining. Probably their sense of logic has to be re-examined or alternatively probably your sense of logic should be re-looked.
7) Demo keras …see? on October 24th, 2008 5.23 pm
“Look around guys… are you all blind or what? Ya Singapore’s geovernance may not be perfect but to me it is almost.
Quote:
“Dont see too far, see what you have and be happy. A simple man”
(no one famous just me)”
Yeah, are you blind or what? Even your quote suits your philosophy of selective blindness. Don’t even have to talk about human rights or all the rest of it. Just one very basic point of with inflation rising faster than your pay, how much do you think your real salary will fall in 20 years time? If you’re barely making ends make now, you’ll be out begging for help then… assuming anyone has any money to spare to help you. Or maybe you’re just rich hmm? PAP is good to the rich after all.
An individual’s right to a peaceful society ends at the point where this peace (and the means to secure this peace) oppresses the beliefs of others. That is another point of view many are unable to comprehend.
It may be a theoretical exercise but it shows the need for a balanced structure that respects both societal and individual rights.
Not a zero-sum, winner takes all game.
Now, I’m not criticising peace. Peace is the best thing to achieve, but there’s always nuances in how peace is perceived by others.
Peace here is guaranteed, we all enjoy it.
But, is there a need to oppress the beliefs of others to the extent that there is a problem with the fair exercise of democratic rights without too much hassle?
This is Singapore a tiny nation that has grown up in a unique way. Protests by means of demostrations displaying banners and so on…..is not Singporean at all.Please don’t copy the ‘human-right’,'freedom of this or that’…into our soil in a long run turns bloodly. Look at our neigbours,does this form of protests triump without any one being hurt.Protests in this form bring miserables affecting everyone,even the country well-bring to the delights of other nations.It divide a nation with groups stabbing one another.If anyone is a born leader he nor she will sooner or later lead in a way the nation has grown.No street-demo please it harmful to our tiny nation to afford this form of behaviour not our style,it is bravely, got guts,freedom fighters….may I summed it up—use your BRAINS.
Protests in this form bring miserables affecting everyone,even the country well-bring to the delights of other nations.It divide a nation with groups stabbing one another. – Singpore Is Singpore (#14)
If the above statement is true, Europe and the United States would be anarchy today. So while it is okay for governments and corporations to impose unfair rule on ordinary citizens, is it not okay for citizens to respond back against such harsh and unjust treatment? If you find a revolution and civil war too much for your taste, then you must accept protest. A protest as highlighted by the TBT 18 group, is not necessary violent.
Look at our neigbours,does this form of protests triump without any one being hurt. – Singpore Is Singpore (#14),
That is how protest works. Unless it undermines the bottom-line of the organisation the protest targets, the organisation will never give in. By rejecting this logic, you completely reject protest. Would you accept a revolution or civilian war instead?
Let me end this post with a timeless quote:
Those who trade liberty for security deserve neither – Benjamin Franklin
Hello kids. You’ve all made no sense. :)
Empty criticisms and shooting air.
The above isn’t even a violent protest to begin with.
We have flash crowds / mobs every now and then too. Even the great singapore sale or zoukout is more hazardous.
the main motive behind all this is not even about protest or violent, its about total clean up of the entire SDP party who has been gaining more popularity in singapore and this is becoming a real thread to the ruling party of course, simple as that. The law here is no different from any other country, the problem here is who changed it to a one sided one , THINK! head I win, tail ! you lose!
“SDP party who has been gaining more popularity”
Wow. I didn’t know SDP membership has reachieved the numbers as in the heydays of the 90s…. Spectacular (ly wrong)….
Break the law, expect preferential treatment?
Break the law, suffer the consequence.
“Break the law, expect preferential treatment?”
Sprit of the law must be applied for a rightful purpose perceived by the people at large. Orelse, you may win legally but the moral ground is lost.
#19,
Lim, perhaps you fail to understand the logic behind non-violent civil disobedience to a law that is duplicated and needlessly archaic.
The SDP operates under a different mindset from the average Joe Conservative.
It would be nice for someone to describe what is the logic behind SDP’s non-violent civil disobedience. Its not the first time I am asking this.
The average Joe Conservative is a misused term in this case. Aren’t laws meant to apply not just to Joe Conservative but also Joe Liberal, Joe Authoritarian, Joe Libertarian and everyone else for that matter. The fact that SDP is not representative of Lim, Tan, Ali or Mani Conservative is irrelevant. If SDP is a Singapore entity, then Singapore laws applies.
To apply a Singapore law to everyone else in Singapore but the SDP would be inconsistent.
The application of Thoreau to Singapore must suffer a thorough justification process in order for it to be justified. Gandhi did it. So did Martin Luther King. To do otherwise is merely to undertake a trumpeting musical that is lost on a tone-deaf public. But yet despite such calls for justification, all I’m getting thus far is another bleat of “4 legs good, 2 legs bad and then better”.