Alan Shadrake with defence counsel M Ravi outside the Supreme Court
by theonlinecitizen
‘Once A Jolly Hangman – Singapore Justice in the Dock’ is “a broadbased attack on the entire judiciary system that can never be justified,” said Deputy Public Prosecutor Hema Subramaniam on the first day of Alan Shadrake’s trial this morning. The British journalist was arrested on 18th July when he came to Singapore to promote his book, which touched on the death penalty here. He was charged with contempt of court.
DPP Subramaniam said that Shadrake’s case was not about his views on the death penalty, nor was it about fair criticism of court judgements.
“These proceedings are brought because of the rule of law,” she said. “Public confidence should not be shaken by attacks on the rule of law.”
The prosecution isolated 14 statements from the book, which they claim are contemptuous of Singapore’s judiciary.
The DPP also summarized the 5 main insinuations that Shadrake had made in his book:
- that the courts hang offenders at the request of the government
- that the courts favour the rich and are biased against the less educated
- that the courts suppress political dissent
- that the court has abdicated its constitutional responsibility.
“The insinuations and imputations contained in these 14 statements constitute an attack to the entire judicial system in Singapore,” said the DPP.
The prosecution paid particular attention to the title of Shadrake’s book: “The underlying insinuation is that Singapore judges have been guilty of misconduct and deserve to be judged.”
The DPP also referred to a caption below a photo of Shadrake standing outside the Supreme Court. Presiding Judge Justice Quentin Loh suggested that the caption could have been written by the publisher, but the DPP asserted that Shadrake is nonetheless responsible for the caption.
She also pointed out that if the book was meant to be a critique of the Death Penalty, it would not have mentioned the defamation suits against political opponents of the ruling party. It shows that the ‘respondent’s real motive was to attack the Singapore judiciary.”
Justice Loh asked DPP for a definition of the word ‘system’ and whether the legal system means the judiciary, to which the DPP responded that the legal system does not exclude the judiciary. Furthermore, she asserted that court is the only institution that can send someone to the gallows; however the Judge pointed out that the court has no discretion in Mandatory Death Penalty cases.
“The court still has a role to play. To contend otherwise is to say that courts have abdicated constitutional responsibility,” replied DPP.
On the issue of fair criticism, she said that ‘criticism has to be fair, temperate and in good faith.” The 14 statements could not be construed as fair criticism because there wasn’t “an iota of truth in any of the statements or allegation’s in the respondent’s book”.
The hearing continues this afternoon.
TOC will provide a report on the Defense’s submissions later today.
HELP keep the voice of TOC alive!
If you like this article, please consider a small donation to help theonlinecitizen.com stay alive. Please note that we can only accept donations from Singaporeans. Thank you for your assistance.Do you have a flair for writing? Volunteer with us. Email us your full name and contact details to theonlinecitizen@gmail.com
All wayang. We all know the final judgement at the FamiLee court
People often says the truth hurts.
If there is really not an iota of truth in the book, then treat it as such as if it is a fictional book. Then so serious & need to arrest the writer ?
If going by the logic of the DPP’s argument, our judges must be saints who can do no wrong while a lot of forum contributors or bloggers should have been locked up long ago based on what they have contributed in the past.
Maybe our DPP can enlighten us some exact examples of what constitute fair comment if that is not fair comment.
Frequently we find the DPPs, indeed the SG and the AG, are the ones who suggest the insinuations (i.e. false charge). If Sheldrake makes an allegation, then charge him for that statement if it is untrue. The truth is the best and absolute defense. There is no need to make an oblique reference to any insinuation, unless they have no other way to get Sheldrake.
Be that as it may, among Sheldrake’s alleged “insinuations”, one concerns that the court has abdicated its constitutional responsibility. I have news for the DPP and the court. This is a FACT.
1. Where was the judiciary when the PAP government abused the ISA to suppress political dissent, obliterated the constitutional safeguards in the process? In one instance, the late CJ Wee ordered the release of some detainees, only to have the then PM Goh Chok Tong, re-arrest the same people under fresh ISA orders. CJ Wee was not re-appointed again after that incident.
2. Where was the judiciary when the PAP government enacted the unconstitutional Land Acquisition Act (LAA) and forcibly transferred much land in private hands to the state without adequate compensation? The LAA was only amended in 2007 to allow market compensation.
3. Where was the judiciary when the PAP government enacted the Public Order Act and other unconstitutional laws?
4. Where was the judiciary when the PM violated the Constitution by calling for by-election clearly demanded by the Constitution. It was not within his authority to do so, notwithstanding the Parliamentary Elections Act, which is subordinate to the Constitution.
5. Where was the judiciary when the leading candidates from the PAP (including Lee Hsien Loong) clearly violated the PEA by being in the polling station when they had no business there? If charged and fined, they might have lost their eligibility to be MPs and office holders. The then AG Chan Sek Keong had to write a nonsensical letter to explain why the law was not broken. Chan Sek Keong is the CJ today. This is a serious case of executive interference.
Bl**&y he**. I think in civilised countries its called FAIR COMMENT! The trouble is those employed by PAP have never left this country to see how an open society functions. Just parrot what your master wants? Even China is reforming, LKY’s most favoured nation and Lee a China-man wannabe but sorry he is Harry Lee-lah.
Well said Steve Wu !
I hope counsel for Alan Shadrake take note of what you have said.
More importantly, so do the international media and justice system in all civilised countries.
Time for the international community to pay close attention and respond.
I’m totally impressed with wat steve wu had said ! *clap clap clap clap..
Steve Wu, you are totally spot on. I wonder why the judiciary conveniently forgets that. The judiciary aside Singaporeans don’t even say anything. Sad
System….’is the judiciary part of the system’.
Isn’t the judiciary a control instead of being part of the system.
mmmmm, lets see where this goes.
I’m following what Steve Wu said every closely to make sure what he said is true.
How can insinuation be worse than LIES by the PAP, Mis-Information, Hidding the Truth?
PAP are HYPOCRITES. The Judicial System is a JOKE. And the AG/DPP is nothing but a Clown. These are Not INSINUATION. Just FACTS.
Justice must not only be done but must be seen to be done. Did we all see justice being done fairly when Chia Tai Poh was locked up for 32 years without trial? Where was Justice then? Did it turn its head the other way and pretend nothing happened? The mind boggles.
Bravo Steve Wu! You said it sir.
why doesn’t the PAP realise that it is in it’s favour to have a fair and balanced court? instead of having a circus act like this?
it is this kind of justice that people like mas selamat and other so called “self-radicalised” come about. It is because, there is no justice to speak of, that darker means are the only option.
As the man says.. its all wayang.
whether true or not. the fact that many people think so says enough. And if one says so, it should be taken by the responsible people/politicians as a sign
Another waste of taxpayers money
DPP will win BECAUSE you talk the newspaper will report but MR Ravi talk they will report less
I am surprised the judge pointed out that the court has no discretion in Mandatory Death Penalty cases.i hope the judge will last longer
ill second steve wu. PAP needs to understand that it is setting itself further and further away from the more critical and vocal citizens of Sg. Suppressing facts by subordinating them with Lee truth is an old trick.
Stop being a flake PAP.
What happened to NMP Viswa’s question?
What happened to 1 billion dollars worth of squandered tax money under bad investments?
What happened to the tripled expenditure of YOG?
Why is PAP non-accountable for their own misdeeds?
Why do sensitive news that highlight the shortfalls of PAP always fade out of the news in their height?
*The prosecution paid particular attention to the title of Shadrake’s book: “The underlying insinuation is that Singapore judges have been guilty of misconduct and deserve to be judged.”*
Surely when your are “in the dock” you are only there to be judged as you have been accused, but you have not been found guilty yet. If you have been found guilty then you are “in the can.”
Here is an appropriate reflection of the Singapore system
[Quote]“These proceedings are brought because of the rule of law,” [Deputy Public Prosecutor Hema Subramaniam] said. “Public confidence should not be shaken by attacks on the rule of law.”[Unquote]
Yes, and the onus for the rule of law is squarely the government and its agencies, including the judiciary.
If Alan Shadrake, in his book, has shown that the full scope of rule of law, which would include the rule of constitutional law, has not been adhered to then the prosecution’s case stands on shaky grounds, and public confidence in the judiciary should rightly erode even further.
The problem here is that in his book Alan Shadrake has very ably shown that the rule of law has not been adhered to, even, or maybe especially, in the poltically motivated cases mentioned by the prosecution. If the PAP government has not had a direct hand in this, why is SPF taking umbrage to Alan Shadrake’s staements on the PAP’s behalf?.
Ravi is correct: this is yet another knee jerk reaction by the PAP and stems from their hypersensitivity.
“On the issue of fair criticism, she said that ‘criticism has to be fair, temperate and in good faith.” The 14 statements could not be construed as fair criticism because there wasn’t “an iota of truth in any of the statements or allegation’s in the respondent’s book”.”
So the facts in Vignes Mourthy’s case and the revelations of a grave miscarriage of justice are not facts? Was the key witness for the prosecution charged for rape and corruption or not?
“These proceedings are brought because of the rule of law. Public confidence should not be shaken by attacks on the rule of law.” – DPP
Someone please tell the DPP that the public confidence has not been shaken by the book. So AG has no case.
With ot without this book, public already has its opinion. Bringing on this case only serve to remove all doubts!
if this book by Alan Shadrake can shake public’s confidence in our judicial system, then this system got serious flaws.
if this turns out to be nothing but a witch-hunt, i think S’pore’s reputation very hard to repair. hosting mega-events at the cost of millions if not billions also cannot save its branding or image…
I would be really interested in the 14 statements. Don’t they have to make the statements public in the proceeding? To be fair, we will also need the context of these statements.
It is disingenious for the DPP to be so economical in its charges – by trimming all the “fat” in that surrounded the meat of Alan Shadrake’s work, as the “fat” will burn brighter to reveal the true state of affairs in Singapore.
Why will the DPP fight shy to have such pathetic “lean” meat for his diet to pin Alan Shadrake down ?
Clearly, by reinterpreting the works that had been carefully researched by Alan Shadrake, and not include the huge abundance of case materials written in Alan’s book – the DPP has been dishonest when presenting his charges with such economy of words.
Is the DPP afraid of his losing own shadow when a strong light is turned on ?
Please TOC, can you do a on-line study to see if “Public confidence should not be shaken by attacks on the rule of law by the book.
or People have no confidence in our legal system when it comes to politically motivated cases.
I must admit we are recognised for commercial law.
Does the jury suppress political dissent?How about putting it to a vote?
Thanks to all for the kind words. Let’s try to right the injustice together, sooner rather than later. My apology to Alan Shadrake for mis-spelling his name. The comment was indeed written in a rush. I would like to append some footnotes to the earlier points which DANG!!! and others may appreciate. I shall refer to the Constitution of Singapore throughout.
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_retrieve.pl?actno=REVED-CONST&doctitle=CONSTITUTION%20OF%20THE%20REPUBLIC%20OF%20SINGAPORE&date=latest&method=part&sl=1
1. The ISA must be consistent with Article 149 “Legislation against subversion” which lists the subversive situations. It certainly did not include the “fixing” of the opposition politicians. According to declassified British records, there was no evidence for subversion by the victims of Operation Coldstore. Similarly, there was no evidence of a Marxist conspiracy to overthrow the government yet it led to Operation Spectrum.
Among many others, Chia Thye Poh was detained without trial under the ISA for a record 32 years. According to Article 151 “Restrictions on preventive detention”, no citizen of Singapore shall be detained (under the ISA) for more than 3 months unless a properly constituted advisory board recommends otherwise. If we were to follow this Article strictly, we should have the recommendations from at least 128 advisory boards for Chia to ensure his continued detention. Were they all based on non-existent evidence?
2. The Land Acquisition Act (LAA) was enacted in 1966, in violation of Article 12 “Equal protection”. In this case, Art 12 must protect the legal rights of property owners, especially against the government which legislated much less than market rate compensation up to 2007. The Land Strata Titles (Amendment) Act (LSTA) which regulates the enbloc processes, also suffers from the same constitutional violation.
3. The Public Order Act (2009) specifically violates Article 14 “Freedom of speech, assembly and association”. The Newspapers and Printing Presses Act and the Films Act also violates Article 14.
4. I meant to say that the PM violated the Constitution by NOT calling for the by-elections, possibly by invoking section 24(2A) of the Parliamentary Elections Act (PEA), in clear violation of Article 49 “Filling of vacancies”. Furthermore, the solution of having another MP to cover for the MP who vacated his seat is inconsistent with Article 47 “Provision against double membership”.
5. I refer to the letter written by then AG Chan Sek Keong.
http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm .
Pay attention to the awkwardness of clause 9 leading to the conclusion in clause 19.
This list is certainly not exhaustive, but I will leave other examples for another time. In case of doubt, the members of the judiciary took the oath of office as required by Article 97 “Oath of Office of Judges and Judicial Commissioners of Supreme Court” to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.
Finally, it may be worthwhile to be reminded the Constitution IS THE SUPREME LAW in Singapore (see Article 4). The entire government, including the president, the prime minister, the cabinet, the parliament, the judiciary and other organs of state, derives its legal authority from this Constitution. Therefore, any violation of the Constitution is much more serious than the violation of ordinary subordinate laws like the Penal Code and any violators must be dealt with to the full extent of the law.
it would be nice if Channel News Asia have one such poll.
to pre-empt critics of TOC saying here not neutral.
remember there was 1 about YOG.
^.^
“On the issue of fair criticism, [Deputy Public Prosecutor Hema Subramaniam] said that ‘criticism has to be fair, temperate and in good faith’.”
Only the truly inane would see Shadrake’s critique as something other than one made ‘in good faith’.
Wouldn’t the “identification of a systemic problem” in the legal system, the solutions for which should already be well known to the same legal system, constitute criticism that is ‘in good faith’?
Why would Shadrake write his book out of concern for the injustices that some death row inmates have been dealt with if it is not for the purposes of making corrections to a problem?
Who else, but all Singaporeans, will benefit as a result of a better legal system?
Has the prosecution begun on the assumption that Singapore’s legal system has attained perfection so that no further improvements are ever necessary?
the I-Robot movie aired recently is a spoiler for this trial lah.
there are the “3 Laws of Robotics” & “VIKI”. just Wiki for info… :)
Shadrake was ‘set up’ and lured to enter Singapore for a book-signing!