“The public should decide at least for once,” said Mr M Ravi, defence lawyer for Mr Alan Shadrake.
Mr Ravi was responding to a question from Justice Quentin Loh about who should decide on whether statements from Shadrake’s book Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Docks are contemptuous.
Photo credit: Reuters.
Mr Ravi said that the Singapore court has now been put in a difficult position, as it must now pass judgement on a case in which it is also an involved party. It is more appropriate that the people of Singapore be allowed to decide for themselves on whether the statements made in Shadrake’s book have scandalised the judiciary.
He explained that Singapore has developed as a society and that its people are now discerning and mature enough to react appropriately to fair criticism. There is no need for constant contempt of court charges to be brought against those who express their views on controversial or political issues such as the Death Penalty in Singapore.
“The Attorney-General Chambers should, for once, stop and just relax,” he said, adding that the concept of fair criticism is one that permeates all democratic societies and should not be suppressed by hypersensitivity.
He highlighted the difference between outspoken criticism and baseless insinuations, saying that “every citizen is entitled to fairly criticise” if there is reasonable apprehension of the judiciary bending backwards to accommodate executive decisions. Legitimate criticism would also help enhance public confidence in the judiciary.
“If Your Honour were to convict my client at the end of the day it would weaken confidence in the judiciary but would not strength confidence in the judiciary,” Mr Ravi said.
The literate and well-educated population of Singapore also makes it more appropriate for the real risk test to be used in this case instead of the inherent tendency test, he said.
The inherent tendency test was first deemed necessary in British colonial law as it was felt that inhabitants of smaller countries were not well-educated enough and therefore more susceptible to believe any criticism of the judiciary.
However, Mr Ravi submitted that the real risk test demands a higher level of proof, and is more suitable for a developed and discerning Singaporean society. “We can trust our population to handle these criticisms,” he said.
Justice Loh pointed out that in the past 12 to 13 contempt of court cases, Singaporean judges had used the inherent tendency test.
“It doesn’t matter. You are the one that makes the difference,” replied Mr Ravi.
He then went on to address the first 6 out of the 14 statements the Attorney-General Chambers had isolated from the book, demonstrating how each constituted fair criticism.
TOC is unable to provide a detailed report on Mr Ravi’s submissions on the statements as any one who publishes or reproduces these 14 allegedly contemptuous statements are liable to be also charged with contempt of court.
Mr Ravi also hit back at DPP Hema Subramaniam’s statements allegations, saying that by presenting the statements out of context, “it is the Attorney-General whose submissions are mean-spirited.” He stated that by cherry-picking certain excerpts instead of viewing the whole work in its entirety, even “biological textbooks would be labelled pornographic.”
The hearing continues tomorrow morning. (See also DDP’s submissions here)
Lawyer Ravi well said and done good luck to you
M Ravi is a smart man. The judiciary’s adverse ruling on this will most definitely set themselves out to look like hardhanded fools who are mere pawns in the hands of greatest power.
Don’t alienate yrself PAP.
jolly good show! the opening score is 1:0 in favour of Ravi vs DPP + one…
and it’s imperative to take note that the latter has home-ground and numerical advantage.
Ravi will become quite famous internationally at this rate. If I am a lawyer, I want to be like him. Nothing beats a good challenge especially against the mighty devil. It is better to lose fighting for the right reason than win fighting for wrong.
Note the replies back to Justice Loh & the DPP (last para). A Class act! I bet it sent shock waves. Keep it up, Ravi.
hahahaha…had a good laugh, what a way to put it…
Ms Hema’s cherry picking is turning biology books into porn…hahaha…
good one Ravi.
I hope people who are following this case, do notice how the A-G chambers is protecting its rice bowl, figthing tooth & nail.
Now for ourselves as ordinary citizens, I hope, we do the same in the coming elections for our rice bowl too and do likewise.
Well reasoned, Ravi!
[Quote]“If Your Honour were to convict my client at the end of the day it would weaken confidence in the judiciary but would not strength confidence in the judiciary,” Mr Ravi said.[Unquote]
This is undeniably true.
The fact that the judge has to accept is that public confidence in the judiciary, even if he wants to dismiss it as only in certain sectors, is already low. Alan Shadrake could not have single-handedly shaken public confidence in the judiciary even if he had wanted to.
If the judge finds Alan Shadrake guilty, then it would only reinforce the low confidence that those certain segments of Singaporeans have in the judiciary. Not only that, more and more Singaporeans will be added to this group.
“Mr Ravi said that the Singapore court has now been put in a difficult position, as it must now pass judgement on a case in which it is also an involved party.”
It might actually be gets worse. I remember this judge’s name in one of the cases involving the SDP. (I tried to do a search for the relevant article on the SDP website, but was unsuccessful. But, I am quite confident that I’m right. Can someone help?)
“TOC is unable to provide a detailed report on Mr Ravi’s submissions on the statements as any one who publishes or reproduces these 14 allegedly contemptuous statements are liable to be also charged with contempt of court.”
I am shocked that the public can’t even find out what Shadrake is accused of. Turn on the lights!
MM LKY may consider Singaporeans to be ‘DAFT’ – surely, he will not hold his global audience in similar contempuous ways – to be similarly ‘DAFT’ ?
Singaporeans are watching, and so is the Global Community.
I salute Ravi……the SIA girls should also engage him to have a class action suite against SIA for dismissing them from flight jobs after they being pregnant…..it’s an act of unfair dismissal based on unreasonable and “cruel” discrimination.
Bravo, I like this part, good reasoning:
///Mr Ravi also hit back at DPP Hema Subramaniam’s statements allegations, saying that by presenting the statements out of context, “it is the Attorney-General whose submissions are mean-spirited.” He stated that by cherry-picking certain excerpts instead of viewing the whole work in its entirety, even “biological textbooks would be labelled pornographic.”///
nicely put.especially the last sentence.
but then again,we all know how the pap and their kangaroo courts like to take things out of context.
abdul malik said burn,he got arrested and charged for inciting public disorder.and till today,i still see no riots,demonstrations or what nots.over-reacting?
and alan’s book?i bet paPIGs are over-reacting again.or did alan point out the skeletons in the closet that needs covering up fast???
sgp judiciary is a joke.a mockery of the english law and justice system.
sgp judges aren’t above law or scrutiny.had they acted with impartiality,then none of this would happened.
now you know why all lawyers go to hell?especially the ones without morals and employed by paPIGs?
The Kangaroo should, by now, admit that is is part of the political agenda and nothing less. This will save all the trouble of arguing. However, if Ravi didn’t point it out clearly to them, many Singaporeans are still asleep thinking we have a fair systems for all. “Thanks” to msm for covering it up so neatly to avoid bringing shame to its master.
I like it when he said `It doesn’t matter. You are the one that makes the difference,”
Sure makes Quentin look and feel soooo small.
Sigh! We all know how this case will end. Which judge would want to risk his/her career/wealth?
These judges are using public tax money and public resources to protect their OWN reputations! And they say they do it in the name of all Singaporeans, basically you and me!!
If only there is ONE judge (just ONE) like Ravi!
It seems now Ravi is the only decent & professional lawyer. We need one judge of such quality too, just one God-send judge.
“It doesn’t matter. You are the one that makes the difference,”
Hope other lawyers listen to this too. If you are in it for the fame & money, this applies to you too. If you don’t do anything different, how are you going to stand out?
Law that is bound by tradition is non-law.
Now WE all can enjoy a JOLLY GOOD “SHOW” for all less educated locals who suppose to lack the intellect to understand a book like this and need COURT to intervene.