Three members of Singaporeans For Democracy (SFD) are being investigated by the police over the sale of 12 copies of the book Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock at a film screening at the Substation on 14 November 2010.
Mr Seelan Palay 27, Mr Jarrod Luo 27 and Miss Rachel Zeng 28 have been summoned to appear at the Major Crime Division of the Criminal Investigations Department (CID) at 1130am on 27 January 2011.
The police summons were individually delivered from 7am-8am on 19 January 2011 by hand to the trio at their homes by investigating officer ASP Roy Lim from the Special Investigation Section, Major Crime Division, Criminal Investigation Department. Internet research shows that ASP Lim, who has previously investigated murder cases for the Singapore Police Force, has now been tasked to investigate the SFD trio.
According to the summons, the SFD trio is being investigated under section 502 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010). The said section relates to the “Sale of printed or engraved substance containing defamatory matter, knowing it to contain such matter, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine, or with both”.
The said book was the subject of a contempt of court case brought upon by the Government against its author Alan Shadrake. On 3rd November last year, the High Court found the British author guilty of scandalizing the judiciary. Two weeks later, he was sentenced to six weeks jail and S$20,000 (US$15,375) fine, with an additional order to pay the prosecution’s expenses of S$55,000 (US$42,300).
Shadrake is currently awaiting the outcome of the appeal against the sentencing, and is currently compelled to remain in the country. Pending police investigations, an additional charge of criminal defamation also awaits him. Despite the prosecution of Shadrake for contempt of court, presently the book is not banned in Singapore.
On 14 November, two days before Shadrake’s sentencing, SFD held a film festival at the Substation Arts Centre under the charge of its Festival Director, Mr Martyn See. Entitled Freedom Film Fest (FFF), the 4 hour screening had featured Media Development Authority cleared documentaries on Malaysia’s human rights issues.
12 copies of Shadrake’s book at $25 each were put on sale at the door during the event, and were all sold out. After the event an article was written up for the SFD website and photos from the event were uploaded onto the SFD Facebook page and SFD member Jacob George’s blog.
The trio, are not the first to be called up for investigation into this matter. ASP Lim, accompanied by another police officer went to the Substation to meet with its Artistic Director, Mr. Noor Effendy Ibrahim on the week of 13 December 2010.
They presented Mr. Ibrahim with a letter informing him that the police are investigating the sale of “contraband items” at the Substation. The police officers showed him photos of the death penalty book being displayed on sale at the SFD hosted Freedom Film Fest. Mr. Ibrahim, then on the very same day went to the Cantonment Police Complex to record a statement with ASP Roy Lim.
SFD’s Dr James Gomez, Executive Director and Mr Martyn See, Executive Secretary will be accompanying the trio to the Police Cantonment Complex at 391 New Bridge Road on 27 January 2010 and will stay at the complex until the three SFD members are released from their questioning.
The SFD Trio:
Mr Seelan Palay 27, is SFD`s Communications Director & a film maker
Mr Jarrod Luo 27 is an ordinary member of SFD & member of the Young Democrats, SDP
Miss Rachel Zeng 28 is an ordinary member of SFD & a social activist
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
I thought this book wasnt banned, so why is it now deemed contraband goods. So confusing !
PAP has started doing its agressive campaigning, to indimidate.
On the other hand, they have started talking to friendly taxi drivers to promote its party to passengers.
Sometimes, TR seems to be doing the right thing, incognito.
Its a tough battle, this is politics after all.
I am just waiting to see a citizens campaign, people taking it upon themselves to promote the opposition in everyway possible.
It will be fun to watch how the police react to such cases.
Legally, if the book was not banned and the case is still pending, then what charges are there.
Makes no sense.
Usual intimidation tactics. A misuse of state funds.
only 12 books sold and yet PAP is afraid.
this is a paranoid regime.
It is just a case of selling an alleged defamatory book.Does it require CID to investigate?
the police force has nothing better to do, no wonder street gangs are arupting all over.
Wow an officer in charge of investigating MURDER cases is in charge of this? Nowadays police bo liao is it?
It is sad to see such things happening in Singapore. Why can’t the UN condemn this PAP govt and tell the world about this utterly disgraceful and shameful govt.
I am all for the UN to impose economic sanctions on Singapore so that Singaporeans will vote this party out.
Without UN help, I do not see how this dictatorial govt can lose its seats.
Our country is being run by a group of mafia-type thugs and gangsters. A civilised society has no place for them.
If it is indeed banned, then ASP Roy Lim must investigate National Library Board for publishing information about a banned book in their online catalogue. It also implies that NLB has the book in its possession and thus is guilty of possessing a contraband item though it has not put it up for loan yet!
See below:
Title Once a jolly hangman : Singapore justice in the dock / Alan Shadrake.
Author Shadrake, Alan.
Publisher Petaling Jaya, Selangor : Strategic Information and Research Development Centre, 2010.
Physical Description xvi, 219 p., [12] p. of plates : ill. ; 23 cm.
Other Contributors Strategic Info Research Development.
Search by Subjects Justice, Administration of Singapore.
Law Political aspects Singapore.
Singapore Politics and government.
Item not available for loan yet.
If “Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock” is not banned in Singapore, how can they be charged uder section 502 of the Penal Code?
SPF SHOULD GO MALAYSIA N BRING CHARGES AGAINST THE PRINTER OF THE BOOK
This PAP regime is destroying Singapore. VOTE THEM OUT.
The police justification for this investigation is very dubious. The action amounts to harassment and the police has abused its authority for the following reasons in this instance.
Firstly, Alan Shadrake’s book has not been banned by MDA or other agencies. The book is reportedly available at the National Library. See http://kentridgecommon.com/?p=8376 . So there is no case for trading in a contraband. In any case, based on the police summons, the SFD members were not investigated for this.
Secondly, Shadrake was convicted of the charge of contempt of court and he is appealing against his sentence. He has NOT been tried for criminal defamation and the material, in particular, has not been determined to be defamatory. In any case, the police does not have the authority to make this determination since that is the domain of the judiciary.
Thirdly, it is unbecoming of the police to be harassing ordinary citizens under s502 of the Penal Code (Cap 224) based on ALLEGED defamation. Shanmugam, being the Home Affairs as well as the Law minister, should provide an account to the People why this episode was allowed to happen. How is it consistent with the rule of law in Singapore?
Another joke!! oh my! When will this nonsense end? Not banned but cannot sell. Hey ! u know why. Cause govt didn’t get any money from the sales of the book lah. This govy is like that. if anybody earn a profit, govt also must get a share of the profit.
This is the chronology of events:
1. Alan Shadrake is found guilty of scandalizing the judiciary on 3rd November 2010.
However, he appealed the decision and he is still awaiting the outcome of that appeal.
In other words, there is still NO final ruling – THE LAW as determined by the judge presiding over his appeal – as of now on whether he has ‘scandalized the judiciary’ or if his book contains anything defamatory.
2. The trio under investigation sold 12 copies of Alan Shadrake’s book at a film screening at the Substation on 14 November 2010 at a time when there still didn’t exist a judicial ruling on whether Alan Shadrake had ‘scandalized the judiciary’ or if his book contained anything defamatory.
If the trio are charged for their actions on 14 November 2010 under section 502 of the Penal Code, Chapter 224 under the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010), AND even if the courts overrule Shadrake’s appeal anytime after today, the AGC would be contravening Article 11(1) of the Constitution (Protection against retrospective criminal laws and repeated trials) which states:
“No person shall be punished for an act or omission which was not punishable by law when it was done or made, and no person shall suffer greater punishment for an offence than was prescribed by law at the time it was committed.”
Any charge against the trio under any Act would be illegal.
They presented Mr. Ibrahim with a letter informing him that the police are investigating the sale of “contraband items” at the Substation.
======
contraband, is that what they said, some sicko is at work, wasting tax payers money.
they get gst from it too and that bulk of gst goes into someone’s FAT pocket, but a single one cent to the people.
this is some big gov we have been voting in, again, and again, and again, locals are daft….serving serfs……..
There is some confusion over what I wrote above in light of this clarification:
http://www.todayonline.com/Singapore/EDC110126-0000220/Three-face-investigation-for-selling-British-authors-book
[Quote]
“Lawyer Chia Boon Teck told MediaCorp the book will be deemed contemptuous unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise…”The court ruling stands until it is reversed,” he said.”
[Endquote]
If he is correct, I would have to stand corrected on my earlier statement that, “…there is still NO final ruling – THE LAW as determined by the judge presiding over his appeal – as of now on whether he has ‘scandalized the judiciary’ or if his book contains anything defamatory”.
Apologies.
Asuming that Chia Boon Teck is correct, as the events unfold, this is one possible eventuality:
1. Even before Alan Shadrake’s appeal has been heard, the police proceed to charge Seelan Palay, Rachel Zeng and Jarrod Luo. They are sentenced to a fine but opt for a jail term instead.
2. The judge in Shadrake’s appeal overturns the earlier ruling: Alan Shadrake is found not guilty.
What then becomes of the trio who were charged, went to jail, but were later found to have been unjustly prosecuted and sentenced because of the verdict at the appeal?
Anyone knows? I would have thought that any good – i.e. “sound” – legal system would have taken all eventualities into consideration before laying down a principle or convention.
P.S. I am still investigating if what Chia Boon Teck is correct under the common law system.