Connect with us

Uncategorized

The Tak Boleh Tahan protest case

Ng Yi Sheng gives a summary of the trial so far.

Published

16 years ago

on

Ng Yi Sheng / Guest Writer

Considering the importance of this case, it’s a scandal that almost no reporting has been done on it since it began. 19 people have been charged for illegal gathering – the largest number of people ever in such a trial – over the SDP-led Tak Boleh Tahan protest about poverty and government-initiated price hikes held outside Parliament House on 15 March this year.

Though I’ve zero experience in reporting trial proceedings, I figure the least I can do is give readers a basic update of what’s been happening. More info can be gathered off the SDP website. But here goes:

The trial has labeled as “PP vs. Chee Soon Juan and 18 ors”, and it began on Thursday 23 October, with the defendants charged on two counts:

i. under Section 5(4)(b) Chapter 184 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public and Nuisance Act) for participating in an assembly outside Parliament House on 15 Mar 08,

ii. under Section 5(4)(b) Chapter 184 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public and Nuisance Act) for participating in a procession outside Funan Centre on 15 Mar 08.

The prosecution is represented by Deputy Public Prosecutor Mr Isaac Tan, and the case is presided over by District Judge Chia Wee Kiat. Despite the title of the case, there are at present, only 17 defendants:

1. Mr Gandhi Ambalam
2. Mr Chia Ti Lik
3. Mr Chong Kai Xiong
4. Mrs Jaslyn Go
5. Ms Chee Siok Chin
6. Mr Govindan Rajan
7. Dr Chee Soon Juan
8. Mr Jufrie Mahmood
9. Mr Jufri Salim
10. Mr Seelan Palay
11. Mrs Surayah Akbar
12. Mr Shaffie
13. Mr Carl Lang
14. Mr John Tan
15. Mr Francis Yong
16. Mr Sylvester Lim.
17. Mr Yap Keng Ho

Two defendants, Mr Ng E-Jay and Mr Jeffrey George, pleaded guilty on the first day because of time pressures: being present for the trial would have badly disrupted their work schedules. They were fined $600 and $1,200 respectively.

Proceedings for the case are slow, and are set to last for several weeks, partly because of the large number of defendants (reading the charges alone took half a day). There is still a strong spirit of camaraderie between them: they began the trial wearing red shirts together and now continue to share picnic lunches at Hong Lim Park every day.

The defendants have also raised a number of arguments regarding the charges and the court proceedings, including:

1. That the charges are unconstitutional. The Constitution of Singapore espouses the right to free assembly and speech. Thus, the laws against assembly and procession are invalid, and the Licensing Authority from which SDP sought a permit for the protest has no right to selectively approve and deny licences.

The Constitution also guarantees equality under the law. Given that so many people gather at Parliament House, the choice to prosecute 19 out of the thousands may be viewed as discriminatory. Dr Chee’s full argument may be read here.

The DPP has countered that there are High Court cases where constitutitonality has been ruled out as a factor to be considered in cases. Judge Chia has accordingly dismissed the claims as irrelevant. Dr Chee later brought up Subordinate Courts Act Section 56, which states that a Subordinate Court encountering constitutional issues that it cannot deal with should submit the case to the High Court. Judge Chia says he is not inclined to do this.

2. That the area gazzetted as being off-limits to assemblies is undefinable. The law books state that rallies of more than two people are illegal in the area around Parliament House. However, the terminology defining this area is problematic: one border is Parliament Lane, which no longer exists, and Stamford Road is now known as Raffles Avenue. The Prosecution’s second witness, Licensing Officer Yeo Kok Leong, was unable to draw a complete boundary defining the off-limits area.

More may be read here and here.

There have also been some procedural objections:

1. That the trial has been illegally joined. According to CPC section 168, trials must be carried out separately for individuals unless they have been officially joined. However, the trial began without such one until the late afternoon of the first day. This is especially problematic as by that time one defendant had already pleaded guilty, thus prejudicing the judgment of all the others. This objection, however, was ignored.

See here.

2. That the Attorney-General’s Chambers has been tardy and inconsistent in making video evidence available to the defendants. This is further explained here.

I haven’t been to every day of the proceedings, so most of this information comes from the defendants’ accounts and thus may be biased. I requested to interview the DPP, but was declined.

One thing I have noticed, however, is the extreme difficulty that a witness may have saying something favourable to the defendants’ case, as in a recent cross-examination of Licensing Officer Yeo Kok Leong by Dr Chee. Mr Yeo was presented with two contrasting print-outs of the licence application, one from his own side and one from the defendants’ side. When asked if they were the same, Mr Yeo found it impossible to simply answer, “No”, replying instead that they were substantially the same, even after repeated questioning for a yes-no answer.

The trial has stood down since last Friday so that two of the defendants, Mr Shaffie and Mr John Tan, may be tried in a separate case. Together with Mr Isrizal bin Mohamed, the three are being charged for contempt of court for wearing kangaroo T-shirts at a defamation trial. (There’s an article on the background of this here. Theirs is a three-day trial, from Tuesday to Thursday, at High Court 6B.

The trial for the Tak Boleh Tahan protest will resume on Friday at Subordinate Court 25. Proceedings are held during office hours. I encourage readers to attend if they can.

————–

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Indonesia

Miss Universe cuts ties with Indonesia chapter after harassment allegations

The Miss Universe Organization severs ties with Indonesia franchise due to harassment claims. Malaysia edition canceled.

Women allege body checks before pageant. Investigation launched. Safety prioritized.

Indonesia winner to compete in November finale. Height requirement controversy.

Published

1 year ago

on

14 August 2023

By

WASHINGTON, UNITED STATES — The Miss Universe Organization has cut ties with its Indonesia franchise, it announced days after allegations of sexual harassment, and will cancel an upcoming Malaysia edition.

In the complaint, more than a half dozen women said all 30 finalists for Miss Universe Indonesia were unexpectedly asked to strip for a supposed body check for scars and cellulite two days before the pageant’s crowning ceremony in Jakarta.

Their lawyer said Tuesday that five of the women had their pictures taken.

“In light of what we have learned took place at Miss Universe Indonesia, it has become clear that this franchise has not lived up to our brand standards, ethics, or expectations,” the US-based Miss Universe Organization posted Saturday night on social media site X, formerly known as Twitter.

It said that it had “decided to terminate the relationship with its current franchise in Indonesia, PT Capella Swastika Karya, and its National Director, Poppy Capella.”

It thanked the contestants for their bravery in coming forward and added that “providing a safe place for women” was the organization’s priority.

Jakarta police spokesman Trunoyudo Wisnu Andiko said Tuesday that an investigation into the women’s complaint has been launched.

The Indonesia franchise also holds the license for Miss Universe Malaysia, where there will no longer be a competition this year, according to the New York-based parent organizer.

In a lengthy statement posted to Instagram, Indonesia franchise director Capella denied involvement in any body checks.

“I, as the National Director and as the owner of the Miss Universe Indonesia license, was not involved at all and have never known, ordered, requested or allowed anyone who played a role and participated in the process of organizing Miss Universe Indonesia 2023 to commit violence or sexual harassment through body checking,” she wrote.

She added that she is against “any form of violence or sexual harassment.”

The Jakarta competition was held from 29 July to 3 August to choose Indonesia’s representative to the 2023 Miss Universe contest, and was won by Fabienne Nicole Groeneveld.

Miss Universe said it would make arrangements for her to compete in the finale, scheduled for November in El Salvador.

This year’s Indonesia pageant also came under fire for announcing a “significant change in this (year’s) competition guidelines” with the elimination of its minimum height requirement after it had crowned a winner.

In its statement, the Miss Universe Organization said it wanted to “make it extremely clear that there are no measurements such as height, weight, or body dimensions required to join a Miss Universe pageant worldwide.”

— AFP

Continue Reading

Malaysia

A Perodua service centre in Kuantan, Malaysia went viral for its strict dress code, Perodua responds

A dress code for vehicle servicing? A Malaysian car brand’s service centre dress code signage has puzzled netizens, raising queries about the need for attire rules during a routine service.

The manufacturer responded with an official statement after a flurry of comments, seeking to clarify and apologize.

Published

1 year ago

on

10 August 2023

By

MALAYSIA: A dress code signage positioned at a service centre belonging to a prominent Malaysian car brand has sparked bewilderment among Malaysian netizens, who question the necessity of adhering to attire guidelines for a simple vehicle servicing.

The signage explicitly delineates clothing items that are deemed unsuitable, including sleeveless tops, short skirts, abbreviated pants, and distressed jeans.

The car manufacturer swiftly found itself flooded with comments from both inquisitive and irked Malaysian netizens. This surge in online activity prompted the company to issue an official statement aimed at clarifying the situation and extending an apology.

In a post that gained significant traction on the social media platform, politician Quek Tai Seong of Pahang State, Malaysia, shared an image to Facebook on Monday (7 Aug).

The image showcased a dress code sign prominently displayed at a Perodua Service Centre in Kuantan. Within the post, Quek posed the question: “Is this dress code applicable nationwide, or is it specific to this branch?”

The signage reads, “All customers dealing with Perodua Service Kuantan 1, Semambu, are requested to dress modestly and appropriately.”

Adding visual clarity to these guidelines, the sign features illustrative graphics that explicitly outline clothing items deemed unacceptable, including sleeveless tops, short skirts, short pants, and ripped jeans.

Delineating the specifics of the dress code, the signage stipulates that male visitors are expected to don shirts accompanied by neckties, opt for long pants, and wear closed shoes.

Conversely, female visitors are advised to don long-sleeved shirts, full-length skirts, and closed-toe footwear.

Perodua’s dress code sparks online uproar

Following the rapid spread of the post, Perodua’s official Facebook page found itself inundated with comments from both intrigued and frustrated Malaysian netizens, all seeking clarifications about the newly surfaced dress code policy.

Amidst the flurry of comments, numerous incensed netizens posed pointed questions such as, “What is the rationale behind the introduction of such regulations by the management? We demand an explanation.”

Another netizen expressed their dissatisfaction, arguing against the necessity of the rule and urging Perodua to take inspiration from the practices of other 4S (Sales, Service, Spare Parts, and Survey) automotive dealerships.

A concerned Facebook user chimed in, advocating for a more lenient stance, asserting that attempting to dictate customers’ clothing choices might not be in the company’s best interest.

Someone also commented in an angry tone, “Oi what is this? Going there for car service, not interview or working, right.”

As the discourse unfolded, it became evident that while some inquiries carried genuine weight, others chose to inject humor into the situation, playfully remarking, “If I wanted to buy a Myvi, I should buy or rent a formal attire first.”

“I sell economy rice at a hawker centre, I have never worn a long sleeve shirt and a tie… I guess I will not buy a Perodua car then.”

“I guess they will not serve those who wear short pants.”

Perodua addresses dress code controversy

As reported by Chinese media outlet Sin Chew Daily News, the manager of Kuantan’s Perodua Service Centre had acknowledged that the images on the dress code signage were misleading.

In response, the manager divulged that discussions had transpired with the head office, leading to the prompt removal of the signage to prevent any further misconceptions.

The manager clarifies, “We do encourage visitors to adhere to the dress etiquette, but we won’t go to the extent of restricting their choice of attire.”

He also revealed that currently, no complaints have been directly received from the public.

However, feedback from certain customers was relayed through Perodua’s agents.

Perodua also released an official statement by chief operating officer JK Rozman Jaffar on Wednesday (9 Aug) regarding the dress code on their official Facebook page.

The statement stated the dress code etiquette is not aligned with their official guidelines and they are currently conducting an official investigation on the matter followed by corrective measures to avoid the same incident from happening.

Perodua also extends its apologies for any inconvenience caused.

 

Continue Reading

Trending