by Deborah Choo/
The Court of Appeal reserved judgment on Monday after the court hearing of British author and investigative journalist Alan Shadrake who was charged for contempt of court last year for certain things in his book, Once a Jolly Hangman: Justice in the Dock.
“Overexuberance of justice can chill public debate,” lawyer of the appellant, Mr M Ravi cautioned.
In November 2010, Justice Quentin Loh found Mr Shadrake guilty of contempt for eleven out of the 14 statements that were the basis for his charge submitted by the Attorney-General Chambers. Mr Shadrake was sentenced to a six weeks imprisonment and a $20,000 fine. An appeal was then submitted by Mr Ravi on behalf of his appellant on three grounds: (1) the judge erred in his statement of the test for liability for contempt of court on the ground of scandalising the judiciary, (2) the judge erred in his interpretation of the passages held to have given rise to the contempt, and (3) the sentence set down by the judge was manifestly excessive.
Presenting his case to Justice Andrew Phang, Justice Lai Siu Chiu and Justice Philip Pillai, Mr Ravi appealed to the courts as per Justice Loh’s previous judgment of “real risk” as merely “something more than a de minimis” and does not constitute grave danger to the public.
Mr Ravi added that his client’s comments should be seen as one’s inherent right to freedom of speech and fair criticism, both of which are given in good faith and with no intent to malign Singapore’s judiciary and courts. He argued that the statements in Mr Shadrake’s book can be seen from the point of a legitimate debate. He also expressed that the Singaporean public is generally well educated and discerning enough to not allow the opinions of an author to undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
However, Deputy Public Prosecutor in the Attorney-General’s Chambers David Chong argued otherwise. Mr Chong said that considering the context of which the 14 statements were made, it poses real and present danger to undermining public confidence in the judiciary. He added that any allegations of partiality and impropriety against the judiciary made by Mr Shadrake falls outside the criteria of fair criticism and therefore Mr Shadrake should be held accountable for his actions.
Countering this argument, Mr Ravi questioned why if the book is found by the authorities to be of danger to society, why the book is not banned.
Referring to Mr Shadrake’s remarks to the British newspaper The Guardian last year and his intentions to publish a second edition of the book, Mr Chong said, “It is reprehensible as the appellant maligned the entire judiciary and is not in the least remorseful but openly defiant.”
Mr Chong pointed out that the rights to freedom of expression on Singapore’s judiciary do not apply to a foreigner.
He also said that there are legitimate ways of appealing through the constitutional enquiry process when it comes to any aggrieved persons who wish to file a complaint against the biasness of a judge in a particular judgment.
Rebutting this argument, Mr Ravi said that “While England has the Judicial Complaint Committee, Singapore uniquely doesn’t. The absence of such a public mechanism results in the Singapore courts being unfavorably placed. It is by no fault of this court but that of the province of parliament.”
All three judges also questioned the AG in the scenario where a judge’s judgment is in fact biased, what are then the rights of a third party to comment and what are his or her channels of complaint.
Advocating that the previous sentence meted out by Justice Loh was “minimal”, Mr Chong asked the courts for Mr Shadrake to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings as well. However, the judges overruled this as no appeal with this regards has been submitted by the AG.
“I feel confident that our judiciary and our courts are able to withstand any criticism,” said Mr Ravi before he rested his case in court. “Singaporean citizens are not gullible. No matter how outrageous or scurrilous any criticism may be, as long as the judges conduct themselves with respect, it’ll speak for itself.”
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
FYI, David Chong isn’t the Attorney-General. He is the Chief Counsel, Civil Division of the Attorney-General’s Chambers.
Mr Chong pointed out that the rights to freedom of expression on Singapore’s judiciary do not apply to a foreigner
………..
ha ha ha ah chpng ole boi..which truebred singapoorium hav that priviledges?
unless you wanna says leekingyou himself?
so what is your official rank in that chamber?
who got charged for wearin a kangooroo t-shirts in belinda ang’s chamber?
The America Declaration of independence says this:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by the creator with certain unalienated right that among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”
Our constitution is seen to be frequently being tweaked due to lack of specifics until people have lost their election right with use of GRCs, to allow back-door entry of many undeserving candidates bypassing people’s scrutiny.
The judicial processes are lacking specifics to prevent politicians from overshadowing their unspoken will over the system with political policies of all kinds. Politicians should stay out of the way of justice over freedoms, rights of citizens.
It is one of the most basic and fundamental issues to be settled for nation building. Yet, it is vague allowing politicians to get mixed up with justice. Defamation suits are too easily taken out over political opponents which in the long run will run down and destabilise society.
People are now too afraid to air their views over political influences over judiciary in public.
Isn’t it time to discuss this topic like adults in election and go for change?
Let us look at the big picture from the constitutional point of view and not politicians’ overhanging influences over judges – appointed by and naturally beholden to politicians.
Issues of personal freedoms, election right and separation of judiciary from politicians are at stake. If we do not settle such basics of nation building we will live to regret this. The voters must speak out on such issues with appointing the right people to be their MPs without fear or favor.
Mr Chong said, “It is reprehensible as the appellant maligned the entire judiciary and is not in the least remorseful but openly defiant.”
– sounds like MM Lee on Charlie Rose regarding Singapore Muslim – Stand corrected, not remorseful, still belive he is right, the public is wrong…
“Mr Chong pointed out that the rights to freedom of expression on Singapore’s judiciary do not apply to a foreigner.”
What bullshit!
Shouldn’t all laws apply equally to anyone within Singapore’s jurisdiction, foreigner or otherwise?
Do we now have yet another breach of Article 12?
“Mr Chong said that considering the context of which the 14 statements were made, it poses real and present danger to undermining public confidence in the judiciary”.
On the contrary, if the Appeal fails, that will further undermine the public’s already weak confidence in the judiciary. Alas, they will never learn.
nowadays people in ah chong chambers seem to be the master PIMP…
hangin case..a chong chamber in charged
alan case..ah chong chamber again
might as well RETIRED all the judges..send the kangaroos to mandai reserves as target practise
cheaper/faster/betterest…
MUDTOWTUCK…
iama
Who are you? I just love you!
I ave been following yr posts since seeing the 1st one. Its addictive!
“All three judges also questioned the AG in the scenario where a judge’s judgment is in fact biased, what are then the rights of a third party to comment and what are his or her channels of complaint.”
So what what his answer? How come you report an interesting question but never report on the reply.
The ideals of the Bill of Rights enshrined within the US Constitution were not supposed to specifically apply only to citizens, PRs, immigrants or illegal immigrants. The Bill of Rights was supposed to tell the federal government what it cannot do to ANYBODY, regardless of whether it’s within the borders of the US, or outside of it.
That makes Guantanamo unconstitutional, but then again governments all over the world are really good at bending their constitutions for its own advantage anyhow.
I wonder where all these judges came from. Were they marsupial wildlife imported from Australia?
alan shadrake should go back home to malaysia, which has the mandatory death penalty for drug offences.
dear pm,
the most important assessment question i want to ask is,
why is an unemployed person at 55 and above with 117k or less in his cpf not allowed to draw on this sum.
as this sum do not come from any gov, or so called welfare fund, but, belonging to that unemployed “rightful” person/owner, why is the cpf and gov withholding this money from the rightful owner.
are we in a welfare state that the gov has no money, to “rightfully” disburse this CPF sum back to the rightful OWNER.
does the cpf money in “rightful” owner’s name/nric number, belong to the “rightful” owner or the gov.
pls note your answer will be scrutinise under microscope and weighted heavily and should the answer be half truths, you can kiss my vote, “goodbye”
Siao Tin Tong 12 April 2011
iama
Who are you? I just love you!
I ave been following yr posts since seeing the 1st one. Its addictive!
…………
who am me? well
yoda is me…me on the bright side..next to brightheel temple..tried to enrol in the temple..instead me was directed to the temple of the king in lincoln inn
that is me lark…
eaglefly 12 April 2011
dear pm,
the most important assessment question i want to ask is,
why is an unemployed person at 55 and above with 117k or less in his cpf not allowed to draw on this sum.
as this sum do not come from any gov, or so called welfare fund, but, belonging to that unemployed “rightful” person/owner, why is the cpf and gov withholding this money from the rightful owner.
are we in a welfare state that the gov has no money, to “rightfully” disburse this CPF sum back to the rightful OWNER.
does the cpf money in “rightful” owner’s name/nric number, belong to the “rightful” owner or the gov.
your answer is assess very carefully and may translate into votes for gov or an “opposition” vote.
===========
The trouble is, when during a recession, the gov can “DRAW DOWN” on the nation’s reserves, why can’t the poor and unemployed, “DRAW DOWN” on their RIGHTFUL CPF savings.
EVERYBODY, BUSINESS, GOV, MNC, HAS CASH FLOW PROBLEMS. THE UNEMPLOYED WAS DENIED A PLACE DUE TO IMPORTS OF CHEAP LABOR.
What happens if these poor people cannot come to terms on medical, food, rental and commit suicide, all of his money in CPF will do him no good.
What does the minister have to say to unemployed members with HUGE CPF savings, BUT, living, camping, homeless, trying to make home on CHANGI BEACH, IN AND AROUND HOUSING ESTATES VOID DECKS AND IN CHINATOWN.
Is the gov responsible for them, no, that is why the nation has some people on such predicament, simply because the gov,
DOES NOT CARE !
The gov does not spend a few millions or thousands of millions on these people, BUT ON THEMSELVES !!
The America Declaration of independence says this:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal that they are endowed by the creator with certain unalienated right that among these are life, liberty and pursuit of happiness”
” If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. ” – George Orwell
“Mr Chong pointed out that the rights to freedom of expression on Singapore’s judiciary do not apply to a foreigner.”
Likewise, the death penalty also should not apply to foreigners?
Laws and rights in a country apply to every resident, citizens or not.
Which law school did he graduate from?
Singaporeans don’t even have any right of
freedom of expression on the judiciary or otherwise, so its deceiving to talk about foreigners’ rights to the same freedom
Goh,
Liberty does not include committing crimes or breaking of laws.
In the light of our evolvement as a democracy, it is important to adopt personal liberty as basics and fundamentals of nation building.
However, we can see that such personal libety has been trodden by politicians here. There is an open comtempt for freedoms, rights and liberty. There is a constant use of libel suits to weed out potential threats. Election candidates were sued for the slightest negative remarks like making of a police report against ministers for some alleged irregularities by ministers.
In hearing such libel suits, there is a certain conflict of constitutional mandate or role by the politicians who should never have undue influence over the judges. How do we ensure such basics and fundamentals of nation building are not eroded for rule of law governing of this place.
Send him to jail. But that is a waste of taxpayers’ money. Deport him, and let him never to return.
Dear citizen
What CRIME has this man done?
Why is the case of the reckless Romanian diplomat driver who killed couple of people not mentioned but this? Where is the sense of proportion?
i just dont understand some foreigners coming to singapore, making noises, criticising, but yet taking jobs from our PMET. Yet we have Singaporeans here supporting them wholeheartedly? Know what you want and support the right cause. dont waste your time on these foreigners. just let these unhappy ones leave the country, sooner better.
@Robert Teh: I had mentioned in Temasek Review & my facebook. The live forum is an election tool to make Hsien Loong look good on National TV. The 12 Singaporeans were hand-picked (like how his father hand-picked him to the PM) so that they will not ask questions that Hsien Loong has no answers to it. He’s just a coward like father like son! Either on dies sooner or later, I will have a swing singapore party to celebrate their death. ISD Dogs & PAP MPs are invited.
MdAlias
We will reason with establishment. That is about the only way. Internet is wonderful.
As sure as the sun rises at each daybreak, Alan Shadrake will be nailed by the Court, no matter how well his counsel defends him. This will be the result as long as the forum of his case is confined within Singapore. Alan you should do something before the inevitable happens, unless you are going through the motions in order to gather material for yet another book.
Would the rich want to live under this type of Govt, forever in submission to them? Sad thing is, they still dont know, still think that SG got money, so much money, why are people going away to what they call, loser countries in the West. If they still don’t get it now, they won’t get it ever.
Just watched the Serial on channel 8 : “Justice Pao”
Perhaps, Singapore needs a justice system like that practised by Justice Pao who will resign if the emperor does not follow the soveigh laws of state.
For example, when Justice Pao discovered that The Dowager of emperor had “Swapped baby prince” born of another concubine, with a cat baby committing murder in the process of the said concubine, to assert her empressship, Justice Pao went ahead to administer the laws of the laand and refused to buckle under pressure from the dowager.
Can we have such an independent justice sustem which is one truly conducted for the benefits of all without fear or favor?
It may be taboo. It may be a deep seated avoidance of a terrifying question. Has the PAP committed crimes against the Singapore citizenry over a period of 50 years? against individuals whom they locked up without trial on some unheard pretext and others whom they destroyed and wasted by libel Laws wielded by compliant judges.
Has the PAP done the above crimes so as to be the sole effective power in the country, so as to arrogate to themselves and their connected persons the beneficence of managing the countrys’ wealth and works at mind blowing fees, so that the Ministers here receive salaries as if they are on another planet?
If the answers to the above are Yes, then I suggest you make a complaint to the UN Human Rights Council. You can Google it, and follow the instructions to make your complaint. When there is a critical mass of the citizenry complaining then the UN may be persuaded to get the PAP to speak up on our accusations. Fifty years of criminal activities will be difficult to explain away in the face of the largesse they brought to an almost unchanging select group of elites.