Putting opposition parties members into jail is not a new issue. It has been used in the early days of PAP already. Many were than said to have been involved with the communist activities and hence jailed.

I guessed the definition of “opposition party” has been widened in today’s context. It looks like is not limited to political parties only. It has extended to cover anyone or any group that is in disagreement with the PAP. This is evident in the peaceful protest put up by Singapoprean who want to fight for Human Rights where all many are charged in court for illegal gathering and procession.

Today, putting opposition parties in jail takes second place. First they have to be made bankrupt and than followed by putting in prison. PAP has learned that crippling the opposition financially is a vital part in putting them out of action for a longer time. At least for the next two general elections. One classic example is out late JBJ.

I do hope that the Human Rights Groups worldwide can educate our Human Rights Group in Singapore.

To what extent can the protestors be regarded as “peaceful”? It was a lot of commotion to me….

Apparently to some people, the right to some peace and quiet is not a human right. Must be a disco thingy….

1) Singlish on October 24th, 2008 11.30 am
PAP has learned that crippling the opposition financially is a vital part in putting them out of action for a longer time. At least for the next two general elections. One classic example is out late JBJ.

Huh! this is illegal, any other country having the same system? just curious!

I think peaceful public protests are a healthy form of political epxression. When the government tries to restrict politcal expression to very few and limited channels, it blocks meaningful civic engagement. Without meaningful civic engagement, our electorate becomes apathetic and dull. Our sense of citizenry and belonging becomes eroded. To have a Singapore Spirit, we need to feel that all our views are treasured, be they upper class, middle class, lower class. Stifling political expression is reactive and unsustainable in the long run, especially in this age of the Internet.

very simply this:
- pap want us to have faith in them when they do not have faith in us.
- people cry the loudest when the suffer the mostest.

- peaceful is the opposite of violence. the protesters were not violent even though they may be loud.

“I think peaceful public protests are a healthy form of political expression.”

I agree excepting the word “political” which needs to be defined.

Playing devil’s advocate here, the govt could probably point to the recent Hong Lim park gathering on the Minibond saga as a successful event in this regard. To what extent the issue would have gotten as much public sympathy without would be an interesting debate for social scientist.

I don’t think Mr Tan would have regarded this as “political” expression but nevertheless, it was a public expression, imho, far more important than politics.

Shop-owners on the other hand will probably regard protests along Orchard road as highly disruptive to their business and anything but “peaceful”. Same thing in Bangkok where the tourism industry has taken a massive hit.

————————————————
“To have a Singapore Spirit, we need to feel that all our views are treasured”

“Treasured” needs to be defined. To many, “treasured” means accepting all suggestions which we know is not possible. Whereas to others, this may mean a public debate or at least an acknowledgement.

Alex (#4):

“To have a Singapore Spirit, we need to feel that all our views are treasured, be they upper class, middle class, lower class.”

agreed. lim (#6) has further commented on “treasured”. there’ll always be contradictory views on issues, but debate will create an platform for exchange of ideas on issues. companies take feedback to understand their consumers, so as to response better to consumers’ demand. i do hope our govt will also acknowledge and listen to our views before any policy changes/making.

gemami (#5):

“peaceful is the opposite of violence. the protesters were not violent even though they may be loud.”

were u at the scene? i’m not sure about the exact situation, but with kids in the scene in the above picture, i’m sure it’s a non-violent protest.

lim (#6):

“I don’t think Mr Tan would have regarded this as “political” expression but nevertheless, it was a public expression, imho, far more important than politics.”

yes lim. i believe our citizens want free expression in all aspects. but how effective is hong lim park in our cause?

They knew that there wasn’t a permit and they still continued. they knew they would be caught, and so they were.

This is my personal opinion, but I feel it is always wise to work within the laws. If you want to break the law, make sure you don’t get caught. Go protest in seng kang or someplace in the suburbs. It will still get residents’ attention. Then don’t cause too much noise and disperse before people start complaining and the police come.

What they have done can be compared to a robber breaking into a bank in broad daylight without a gun or a mask, knowing he will be caught but still committing the crime anyway. The law in my analogy might be different, but in reality, the law which requires permits for public demonstrations is a law as well, despite how unfair it might seem to many.

The protestors might seem brave to proceed in the face of impending arrests, but I feel they were simply stupid, just like the robber in my analogy.

My advice, and what I myself will do, is to work within the laws to change the system. If more people want change, eventually thinggs will change. Don’t do stupid things like obviously breaking the law or defaming anyone and wait to get caught or sued. It is possible, the online citizen being a good example. It might take some time though but patience is, has always been and will always be a prized virtue.

were u at the scene?

unfortunately no; but I have followed CSJ long enough to know, and even vouch for him, that he is loud but never violent. i safely trust that he would have done his homework before the group sets out on their protest mission.

“…………how effective is hong lim park in our cause?”

we’ll never know until we find out. it might be a good idea for the opposition to make good use of HLP now that there is a heightned interest in the activties taking place there. the wheel has been set in motion by TKL and it’s the best of times for anyone with wares to sell to do so. the momentum has to flow from this point on.

You guys thought CSJ and his team were being penalized for protest and illegal gathering? so simple as that? no other reason behind? THINK! unless you guys had just moved in to this tiny island called singapore recently.

“You guys thought CSJ and his team were being penalized for protest and illegal gathering?”

Isn’t that the basis of charge? That the 19 violated sec 141 of the Penal code. If there were other charges, do care to share with us.

This is not the first time CSJ is being penalized, he already had a string of non-stop charges brought against him from who – sure we all know-. Can’t you see that by crippling the entire CSJ-SDP into bankruptcy, will there be anyone left to compete with the ruling party in the next coming GE? THINK!

What the activists did was illegal, but is it wrong?

laws are there to better the society. When the laws are unjust, it is the duty of it’s citizens to change it; by might or by mind.

“This is not the first time CSJ is being penalized, he already had a string of non-stop charges brought against him from who – sure we all know-.”

Yup, and in everyone of those cases, did Chee actually break the law? Its not exactly trumped up charges we’re talking about. 4 million other individuals in Singapore don’t find it difficult to uphold the laws that he breaks.

Whether or not, CSJ thinks himself above the law, or however unfair he might think the law may be, the fact is that CSJ did it knowing full well he was breaking the law.

Its not like he tried to avoid it. Isn’t that part of the civil disobedience preached by him? He asked for it, the authorities gave him exactly what he asked for.

For me to agree that his actions were right is to agree that he is above the law. Sorry, can’t do.

Break the law, suffer the consequences.

is the law fairly constructed and interpreted?

If parliament pass a law that forbids speaking Singlish and it is punishable by death. And if people get hang.

So should we say to the people who got hung “break the law suffer the consequence!”

After all no one should be above the law right?

You just opened a huge area of contention within common law.

For the answer, one has to take into account why the British drafted it the way they drafted it, the various case laws both before and after amendments, whether the Singapore govt accepts article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights or article 21 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

In the English case of Director of Public Prosecution v Jones (Margaret) and Another (1999), the judge highlighted that:

Unless the common law recognises that assembly on xxx may be lawful, the right contained in Article 11(1) of the Convention is denied.

Actually Singapore’s constitution sec 14 is drafted in the same spirit as article 21 of the ICCPR which ironically accepts that restrictions to peaceful assembly may be placed for the purposes of public order.

It is ironic that it was only in 1988 (Plattform “Ärzte fur das Leben” v Austria) that Europe had a case to define what they mean as “peaceful” which they took to mean that it did not include “to annoy or give offence to persons opposed to the ideas or claims that it is seeking to promote”. Its application even to commonwealth countries is not tested and definitely does not constitute common law.

Even in England, cases like Hashman and Harrap v UK suggests that such application may not be accepted. It is even less likely for such a case law to be adopted in Singapore.

So whilst Amnesty, adopting a liberal European perspective might see this as “peaceful”, Singapore is unlikely to adopt the same from a cultural stance and its conservative history.

I have no doubt that the Singapore judges who apply the law in Singapore have interpreted it the way parliament wanted it to be interpreted. Whether parliament’s intention is a reasonable one is another matter entirely.

“If parliament pass a law that forbids speaking Singlish and it is punishable by death. And if people get hang.”

Exaggerations, exaggerations. Would any elected parliament that passes a law forbidding something as menial on the pain of death be in parliament for long?

Its not going to happen in Singapore so its really a moot point.

Lets not just rely on Int’l to decide the fate of fellow Singaporeans. Let the CITIZENS of Singapore voice out for these people facing trail. Let the PEOPLE decide, either by votes, sentiments, or whatever favorable.

The fate of these 17 Singaporeans will be decided by a Singaporean trial judge. Whatever we say will be irrelevant to their sentencing, if guilty.

Barring a revolution, likely violent, the only way to change this situation is by way of an act of parliament. That means voting in a parliament that shares your sentiments and desires.

Aiyah, I very lazy one – when it comes to any physical exertion in this hot and humid climate, please count me out. If I wish to make a stand about any issue, I would rather use words rather than march around in the heat. It is very sad about Singapore when the political climate appears stifled to international observers and to many of our own. Interesting it is though that the government is trying to make Singapore attractive to the artsy and creative sort by providing any sort of brain dead entertainment they can think of – resorts, clubs, and other forms of amusement. Their attempts may not draw those worthwhile artsy and creative people here because these are also ones who think out of the box and are often very anti-establishment. Their stark humour and that flamboyant ability to call a duck a duck will never sit well in our society. Perhaps there will come a day when there are enough foreigners becoming residents in this country who could appreciate liberal thought and speech, and our future generation of leaders are forced to ‘open up’. I really admire Obama in this regard – that given all that slanderous things said about him, he remains cool and refuses to fight dirty by sinking to McCain and Palin’s level. He shows himself a true gentleman and is secure enough to allow his voters to judge the kind of person he is through his words, deeds and life. Very messy, very loud, quite dangerous kind of political climate in the US – could we live with that?

Exaggerations, exaggerations. Would any elected parliament that passes a law forbidding something as menial on the pain of death be in parliament for long?

Its not going to happen in Singapore so its really a moot point.

So if the law was changed to you will get fine if you speak Singlish it is and OK law?

The “exaggeration” is intended to illustrate a point. That the Law is not some sacrosanct instrument of nature that has been adhere like a religious edict.

It is a human construct. In the Singapore context, it is essentially laws made by the PAP. The question than is has the PAP formulated these law for its own political agenda or for some more noble and higher calling?

That is why when it comes to the Law, lets be circumspec about it.

I have no doubt that the Singapore judges who apply the law in Singapore have interpreted it the way parliament wanted it to be interpreted. Whether parliament’s intention is a reasonable one is another matter entirely.

Really?

Then how come the judges don’t consider whether the Police itself has broken the law (i.e. the constitution)?

Here is the nub. The constitution of Singapore explicitly guarantees the right of people to assemble. It is a statue or law pass by parliament that requires the police to give permission for such an assembly.

Now than here is clearly two potential conflict in Law. Is the police allowed to forbid assembly willy nilly? Is it lawful to forbid willy nilly? Is it lawful for the police to forbid when it has not explain what public disorder might be contravened?

How come Singaporean Judges don’t taken that into consideration, when clearly two sets of laws are in conflict?

When I read the first sentence of the above article entilted Amnesty Int’l calls for support for “peaceful activists” – Once again, trials against dissidents are taking place in Singapore, I really felt like vomitting. Wah! Suddenly this group of troublemakers are being caught by foreigners and quoted as dissidents. Walah! dissidents – what a powerful word to describe a bunch of clowns.

this sucks

An unjust law is no law at all. -St Augustine

Can there be crime to violate that which is no law? Can there be anyone guilty either of violating an unjust law or of violating any law applied unjustly?

15) lim on October 24th, 2008 9.14 pm
Break the law, suffer the consequences.
Agree! but is the law here a justifiable one? everyone of us knows, c’mon don’t tell me you are not?

24#

It is because the judiciary here does not have a history of being activist and reinterpreting the letter of legislation vs parliament’s intent.

At least that is my perception.

Loyola (29) says:

It is because the judiciary here does not have a history of being activist and reinterpreting the letter of legislation vs parliament’s intent.

It is not the job of the judiciary here to be an activist but the fact that you have a separate legislative, judicial and executive institution, it is really the job of the judiciary to not just punish “law” breaker but also protect the rights of people. Otherwise why have judges at all? Why not just have a computer just make the judgement?

The reason for having a “Independent” judiciary is for it to make sure that Parliament (i.e. legislature) don’t make laws (statutes) that conflict with the Constitution. For example in my so call “Exaggerated” illustration (see comment 17), this is where the Judiciary role must guard against.

It is worth noting that often in Singapore, many people including those in the legal profession, for some reason or another, then to see law in very perfunctory terms. In simple term the see law in terms of prohibition of action. Yet, when Singapore adopted the English legal system, they forget that there are two components to the so-call law.

In simple term, there is the Constitution which is a body of law that is there to protect the rights of people (i.e. a set of guarantees that allow you to do things). Then there is the Statute which is a body of law pass by the legislature that generally use to “prohibit” you from doing things. The point is the prohibition should not exceed what is embodied in the Constitution. Of course, when and where a statute exceed the Constitutional right will have to be adjudicated. In a democratic system with a separation of institution, this is where the judge is expected to do his/her job.

Likewise when the executive, through its subordinate agencies like the police, even if they are given the power to make law, must not in exercising its law enforcement action that exceed (a) what is intended in the statute or (b) exceed what is expressively allowed in the constitution.

So you see the job of “reinterpreting the letter of legislation vs parliament’s intent” as you put it is not some extra circular activities of a judge, it is his/her job!

If the job of the judge is simply to tick-box the law, hey, why bother having judges at all?

But this is Singapore, what can one say about the judicial system that has not already been said!

Tan Ah Kow on October 26th, 2008 12.51 am

So you think Singapore’s judicial system should behave like Thailand. No system is perfect. I’m just a layman, your explanation very “chim” but anyway good try. What I know is that every country has it own rule of law to make sure citizens abide to it and everyone is able to live happily side by side. But these 19 clowns thought they are untouchable and above the law which they have their own implementation feeling the existing law is “unjust law”. The story is almost the same as Thailand where certain interest group(s) is trying to shape its own agenda to incite political turmoil in Singapore.

Suppression, oppression and repression will only breed a race of enunchs or a society of morons. The ISA has no place in modern SIN with a superior citizen armed forces, police force and law-abiding well-educated citizens.

I can understand the need for the ISA when SIN went through a period of communist, colonialist and communal upheavals and unrests. Now that SIN has attained a first world nationhood, it becomes more pertinent that the ISA is obsolete and a deterrent to a more cultured civilization.

A classic example nearby is Burma where its citizens are subject to the rule of a despot, a dictator gone mad. The same fate can happen to Burma as it was for Iraq when its citizens could get help from super powers. The same goes with North Korea. SIN is just a more modern version of the renegade nations in Asia.

The test of loyalty and patriotism will be shown when SIN is engaged in defending its country or facing a national disaster like 911 in the US. The breakaway of the Soviet Union Commonwealth of States is another classic example. Maybe, SIN is too small an island to have these unrests happening.

I believe SIN-ans today are more educated and indoctrinated law-abiding citizens and for violence to erupt in peaceful demonstrations is a moot point. Only schizophrenic leaders in the context of SIN and despots in the Burmese junta would not buy my argument.

The present demonstration by a few oppositions is just a droplet in the South China Sea or the Pacific Ocean. Even China’s armed forces could handle the Tiananmen Square non- violent sit-in and the recent Tibet violent uprisings.

I don’t believe for a moment that SIN-ans are that violent, let alone vociferous in their public expression and demonstrations. This is detrimental to the culture of future patriotic knowledgeable SIN-ans. I’ve come across many SIN-ans working, living or immigrating abroad resigned to stabd up and fight for their rights.

I don’t see many assertive characters abroad or in SIN either. Many have turned their involvement in SIN affairs to apathy and complacency for the government knows what’s best for them, then why bother? I’ve cash, car, condo and comfort of living in SIN and that’s enough for myself and my family, why bother?

The increasing number of friends, relatives, students and SIN-ans at large I talked to gave me the same sad pathetic answer, even among the academics and religious leaders. Why bother? In time to come, this spread of “tiada-apa” attitude will be worst than SARS.

I trust the present new A1 leadership with a first-class Israeli trained citizen armed forces and indoctrinated NS police force will be more than adequate to handle any eventuality expeditiously and efficiently. Give it a test if SIN’s proud of having one of the finest and most modern fighting forces in the world with AWACs, F16/17/18 and a superior naval force.

Tan Ah Kow,

You’re right. I was merely outlining the current state of things.

If you put it on a scale, we’re on one end of the spectrum, and the other end of this spectrum would probably be any Justices appointed by the Democrat Congress in USA.

Sue them , ask them pay damages, made them bankrupt, send them to behind bar, this is only what they can do………….. this is disgusting. Again and again……..

chobolang (31) says:

So you think Singapore’s judicial system should behave like Thailand.

The system we got here in Singapore already behaves like the one in Thailand.

So what are you talking about?

Tan Ah Kow on October 26th, 2008 7.56 pm
To make it simple you must well say the judges in Singapore should have the courage to “free” those law breakers.

Ah Kow, you are wrong – the system in Singapore will never behave like the one in Thailand. Unlike the opposition in Thailand, this opposition “The Singapore Desperate Party” here is managed by a bunch of opportunist clowns hoping to please the foreigners and not for the sake of Singaporeans.

chobolang (36)

Ah Kow, you are wrong – the system in Singapore will never behave like the one in Thailand. Unlike the opposition in Thailand, this opposition “The Singapore Desperate Party” here is managed by a bunch of opportunist clowns hoping to please the foreigners and not for the sake of Singaporeans.

First you talk about judiciary now you talk about oppositions. Which is which?

You seemed to have a habit to twisting what people is trying to say and then say they are wrong. In that case, maybe you should tell me what I should say so you can then disagree with me for not saying what you want me to say.

Now that you want to twist the topic, let’s do so.

On the point about pleasing foreigners. Now here you have a government, and may be you too, who don’t believe in the concept of separation of power, between the executive, judiciary and legislature. Now why don’t you proposed that we do away with the Constitution on freedom of assembly. Why keep it there? Why not just write a Constitution that says “you are not allow to assembly under all conditions unless I (the government) or you chobolan say so”?

If all judges can do is, let’s use the current case as an example, and have the judge just do this:

If Chee and gang consist of more than 5 then
if Chee and gang make noise then
if Chee and gang not ask for permission then
if Chee and gang say nasty things then go to jail
else set them free
else set them free.

So simple right? In that case, why have a judge at all. Why not get a computer programmer write a program and save all the million of dollars. Hey not have it web-base and we don’t even need lawyers, thus saving more money?

Why not do that? Why this pretence of having a western style judiciary when one don’t believe in it?

Now let’s see, has it something to do with not wanting to scare Foreign investor away?

Lim,

I know you personally hated CSJ, but I find their protests non violent and productive. It is so damaging to the pap they felt they had to do some thing to them. To prevent people joining them the next time, make a strong case with as much media brainwashing as possible. I am glad that Singapore still has CSJ to fight for decent human rights. Look at the electricity hikes of 22% and the numerous price increases from food to transportation. And 3 pay increases for ministers within 14 months. Singaporeans are truly short changed, yet you are still talking about affecting businesses in orchard road and tourism. Don’t link the mess in Thailand with the peaceful non violent anti price hike protests together, they are totally different theme.

Please show some support for those who have been punished by the draconian laws.

FGy

Actually, if you read my post, you’d realise that I don’t hate CSJ. I don’t know him personally. What I do disagree with are his actions.

Brain washed would be to say everything he did was right without any justification for saying so.

“Please show some support for those who have been punished by the draconian laws.”

For me to show support, I’d need a justification beyond just agreeing with everything that is said. If laws are so draconian, why is it I personally find no trouble abiding by it? Neither do my family or relatives.

Instead, having individuals individually decide when laws are “draconian” or not just on the basis to justify discriminate law-breaking is an exercise towards chaos.

That’s my tenet.

#23 “That is why when it comes to the Law, lets be circumspec about it.” – meritocracy

Agreed. But who is responsible for determining if a law is a law that should be abided? If a murderer thinks a law against murder is unjust, does it mean he or she is right?

Since when did Singaporeans appoint CSJ or the SDP to be the party to determine which Singapore laws apply? Is he the appropriate party to determine?

Would a murderer found guilty by a judge think the judge is fair? That’s the case here, isn’t it….

It would be interesting to have a truly objective discussion about when assemblies should be legal or not, but judging by the level of discussion, that’s not going to happen on this forum.

We hold these truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Of liberty I would say that, in the whole plenitude of its extent, it is unobstructed action according to our will. But rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law,’ because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the right of an individual. -Thomas jefferson

Hoping this help you to better understand more about law.

Citing the American Declaration of Independence is certainly unhelpful to say the least.

The American declaration of independence was to overthrow a colonial government. May I ask are you declaring war on the Government of Singapore?

P.s. It was interesting that the words in his original draft was “sacred and undeniable” but was amended to “self-evident cos it wasn’t really undeniable. The British did deny them (and then attempted to uphold the denial and failed).

More importantly, you fail to note the most important lines which are next 2 sentences which you did not quote, the dictate of which you misunderstand.
——————————————
On the second quote, you fail to understand the full import of what Thomas Jefferson desired (as per his 4 April 1819 response letter which the quote was contained to provide a definition of liberty, et al) vs his realism. Ironic too that in the letter which the quote on liberty is set, Jefferson himself apologises for going into political speculation.

Perhaps the following quote might serve you better…

“The constitution, on this hypothesis, is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary, which they may twist and shape into any form they please. It should be remembered, as an axiom of eternal truth in politics, that whatever power in any government is independent, is absolute also; in theory only, at first, while the spirit of the people is up, but in practice, as fast as that relaxes. Independence can be trusted nowhere but with the people in mass.” – Thomas Jefferson in another 1819 letter.

Only the people “in mass” can one trust your independence. An individual who determines his own interpretation of the law without the will of the masses will never be upheld.

chewing gum is a crime.
petrol tank not filled up when crossing the causeway is a crime.
smoking at non-designated places is a crime.
watching videos with fiends in private is a crime.
standing around with friends is a crime.
wearing kangaroo tee shirts is a crime.

…….so many more …………

how to see anything right in these?

Let’s look at it from a different perspective

chewing gum is a crime. <- those who kena chewing gum on their pants and shoes will understand. In reality, not chewing gum. Selling/importing chewing gum is a crime.

petrol tank not filled up when crossing the causeway is a crime. <- Its 3/4 tank. No need to be 100% filled up. The government actually allows 0% also.

smoking at non-designated places is a crime. <- It would indeed be a crime not to put smokers in the same room enjoying all that second hand smoke which smokers find so attractive.

watching videos with fiends in private is a crime. <- Uh, not sure what you’re referring to…. is it some sort of a fetish?

standing around with friends is a crime. <- I’d like to support guys standing around lady friends in ladies toilet but I really got to draw a line here.

wearing kangaroo tee shirts is a crime. <- Its like a friend of mine who used his middle finger to dig his itchy nose in public and kena smacked by a total stranger. The rest of us didn’t really have much sympathy even though we were fervent anti-violence campaigners……

“The American declaration of independence was to overthrow a colonial government. May I ask are you declaring war on the Government of Singapore?” -Lim

Singapore is neither a British empire nor colonial government after it gained her independence. Where to declare war to begin with?

Then citing the US declaration of independence is irrelevant (which is my point). How can something which applied to the british empire (colonial govt) as a war document apply to a govt that is elected by its own people?

How can something which applied to the british empire (colonial govt) as a war document apply to a govt that is elected by its own people? – lim (#46)

To count walkover results as votes for PAP is questionable too.

47) Donaldson Tan on October 30th, 2008 12.00 pm
To count walkover results as votes for PAP is questionable too.

STEPPING ON ALL YOU PEOPLE OVER better still, what is walkover?

Then citing the US declaration of independence is irrelevant (which is my point). How can something which applied to the british empire (colonial govt) as a war document apply to a govt that is elected by its own people?

If it’s irrelevant like you said, why do the people still uphold it today? You are telling me you don’t deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?