• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Should SDP be happy with this exceptional verdict?

Goh Meng Seng

Alfrescian (InfP) [Comp]
Generous Asset
In a stunning decision, District Judge John Ng acquitted leaders of the Singapore Democrats who were charged with taking part in a procession on 16 Sep 07. Judge Ng said that the walk “did not cause inconvenience to the public, affect traffic flow or make noise which disturbed the public peace.”

Mr Gandhi Ambalam, Mr John Tan, Ms Chee Siok Chin, Mr Charles Tan and Mr Chong Kai Xiong, a human rights activist, were marking the first anniversary of the World Bank-International Monetary Fund (WB-IMF) protest that was held on the same date the year before. Mr Charles Tan is away and was not part of the hearing.

The five who were wearing T-shirts with the words 'Democracy Now' and 'Freedom Now' with a picture of a lighted candle, had walked from the Speakers' Corner along North Bridge Road to Parliament House and then along Bras Basah Road to the Istana and then along Orchard Road to the Queenstown Remand Prison on 16 Sep 07.

They were also conducting a vigil for Dr Chee Soon Juan who was in prison at that time for speaking in public.

The group was charged with conducting a procession without a permit under Rule 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Orcder & Nuisance)(assemblies & Processions) Rules.

Judge Ng wrote in his judgment that in the absence of the definition of what constituted a “procession” under the law, it was important to consider the “natural and ordinary” meaning of the word.

Citing definitions in the Oxford and Collins English dictionaries, the Judge said that he could not accept the Prosecution's “simplistic” interpretation that “so long as a group of 5 or more people walk[ing] from one point to another point in a public place to commemorate an event” constitutes a procession.

He noted that the group had walked mainly on the pedestrian pathways, using the pavements and sidewalks. They had walked casually and stops were made for pamphlet distribution and toilet breaks.

He concluded: "I am fortified in my views when I consider that the principal [Miscellaneous Offences] Act and the Rules were meant to relate to offences against public order, nuisance and property. The walk which had taken place did not impede or cause any disruption to the flow of vehicular traffic or the movement of pedestrians."

The defendants maintain that taking part in processions and assemblies in Singapore is part of the fundamental rights of citizens provided for in the Constitution as well as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

It is unclear if the Deputy Public Prosecutor Mr John Liu will appeal the decision.
 

jim007jimmyboy

Alfrescian
Loyal
This Judge just sealed his career in Pulau Ubin.

Will be like history repeating itself...as in the case of JBJ a Judge acquitted him, subsequently he was demoted and disappeared from Court scene....KNN

U all dont know the POWER of the Evil old man


FUCK PAP!!!!!!!
 

scroobal

Alfrescian
Loyal
Not only SDP but people of Singapore should be happy. Interpreting things to the extreme is now lokking very silly and ridiculous. This ruling also shows the level of pettiness that this govt and its bureaucracts are prepared to indulge in.

Its is also slap to the face of AG who has always been strong in interpreting the spirit of the law. In such events, the AG does not provide individual case directions or the approval to prosecute but as a result of the ruling he now has to send directions and guidelines. If Walter has the balls, he would now push for AG sanction to be applied for before prosecution can commence.

The written judgement is telling.
 

hairylee

Alfrescian
Loyal
Nothing have changed in the courts of Hakka regime it is the wind of change blowing around the world and LKY does not want to be blown away.
 

soIsee

Alfrescian
Loyal
good i can finally stop spamming the AG office now..


You can stop spamming the AG office for now but can you please, give some of your time to provide basic English lessons to the Singapore Police force?

Seems like they ( the police force) are really a difficult time to even understand simple words like a ..procession and what does it mean!
:biggrin:
 

uncleyap

Alfrescian
Loyal
I was not very surprised, since I defended vigorously against the charge for about 1 year.:rolleyes::smile:

The 5 SDP persons (include Charles Tan mentioned in charge but he is not in SG now) put on Commemoration T-shirts but others did not - including me. Mr Ng E-Jay & Mr Andrew Loh was also there. & a bunch of reporters from everywhere also were there. The mata could see a procession because they read SDP's website announcment for the WB-IMF walk therefore they were looking out for the activist along the route.

The thing is a dozen of matas also walked the same route tailing & filming us, and did not have any permit for procession either. Why don't charge themselves? :biggrin::wink:

I blogged it in Chinese & Ang Moh.

http://uncleyap-kh.blogspot.com/2009/10/5.html

http://uncleyap-news.blogspot.com/2009/10/5-activists-acquitted-of-procession.html
 

uncleyap

Alfrescian
Loyal
<!-- Begin #content --> <!-- Begin #main --> Wednesday, October 07, 2009

<!-- Begin .post --> :-) 造反有理!革命无罪!5活跃分子被控告游行抗辩成功

判决书:



2007年9月16日WB-IMF周年纪念活动:
(也是老狗贼李光耀的生日,由芳林公园步行经国会;总统府;到女皇镇监狱-当时徐顺全博士在被李家王朝监禁)
下图为助理警监(白衣人站照片右边)在现场拦路发警告



法官判决:这样走只算是步行而不算是游行!

总统府:







昨日下午大概3点钟,地方法庭第19庭宣判:5名被告全部无罪!判决书我发布在网上了,链接请点击这里

我就是第五被告! :-) 以上的照片都是我所拍摄的,所以我是藏镜人。

我的抗辩书答辩书也都发布在网络上了。链接请点击这行的左边。

其实控状里面还有第六被告,但是他因为目前在国外所以没有受审。

法 官采纳了我的抗辩,我是唯一供证的被告,也是唯一申请庭令传招证人来抗辩的被告。其他所有的被告都选择不上证人席。我的证人是海峡时报的政治新闻记者欧阳 先生,他当天和其他的记者与博客作者到场采访活动的新闻。我也是以博客作者的身份到场去派照片的,可是混帐的李家王朝却故意单独控告我参加游行。其他的记 者和博客作者都一起随活动步行了,都没有被控告!

第一;二;三;四和第六被告才是组织WB-IMF周年纪念活动的人,他们都穿上纪念活动的衣服。我没有穿上,但是搞这些WB-IM周年纪念活动的主意是我在2006在我的博客和网络论坛上所提出来的。这点在我的证词里面也透露。

第 一;二;三;四被告基本上都陈词抗辩说他们在宪法下有权利合法的游行。这个抗辩立场我本身也采纳,但是唯一我另外加上其他两个抗辩的立场。就是(1)我只 是去采访活动的其中一名博客作者,我的角色跟到场采访的记者同样。(2)我也是见证人,我的证词证明了其他的被告人当天只是举行了步行而已,并非控状所指的无准证非法游行

我 辩驳道,游行和步行是有所分别的。这个抗辩立场使主控官无法击破。所有的证人包括李家王朝的几个警察的证词也都同样反映了,当天其实没有条件构成游行的行 列。可是所有的警察都硬咬说是无准证的非法游行。其中在现场指挥的高级警监的证词居然咬说连所有在场的记者和博客作者都算是参加了无准证的非法游行。非常 混帐!

法官最后采纳了我的抗辩立场,就是游行和步行是有所分别的。当天的步行是毫无固定的队形;缺乏游行的序列性质;随处停留休息;完全 合法的在行人道上走;没有阻碍/干扰到交通或其他行人;没有举旗帜/布条/标语;没有游行的乐队/乐曲/吵闹;没有闯交通灯;所有的活动形式和普通的行人 同样。所以虽然是WB-IMF周年纪念的性质,但是这只能构成一般的步行而不算是游行,所以是无罪的。

警 察是在阅读新加坡民主党的网页通告之後,认为WB-IMF周年纪念活动一定是要搞游行。而且错误的认为是要根据2006年9月16日所拟定的游行路线。但 是我供证指出这是李家王朝警察无能失职的错误:因为2006年9月16日的WB-IMF拟定的游行路线只有大概3到4公里而已,而2007年9月16日的 步行路线大概有12公里。差别非常大。李家王朝警察无能地搞不清楚,随便乱供证;检察官也胡乱指控!全部失职妨碍司法公正。

2006年9月16日所拟定的游行路线:
芳林公园-》国会-》新达城WB-IMF会场-》总统府-》回返芳林公园结束。(大约3公里)

2007年9月16日所拟定的步行路线:

芳林公园-》国会-》总统府-》乌节路全段-》东棱路-》女皇镇监狱结束。(大约12公里)


其中的理由是非常明显的,因为2006年的时候新达城在举行WB-IMF会议,2007年9月16日的时候徐顺全被李家王朝关在女皇镇监狱。这是两个不同年的明显不同实况。虽然同月同日但是差别很大。路线长短差别达4倍左右。居然也可以混为一谈胡乱指控?

现在判决无罪,我感谢海峡时报的政治新闻记者欧阳先生诚实供证,黄法官耐心听审长达1年,并且有胆识公正判决。我们都不怕坐牢不愿意缴罚款,我早已经准备坐牢绝食抗议了。现在不必坐牢但是推翻李家王朝的决心不变。

:-)

英语博客发布
英语论坛发布
 

uncleyap

Alfrescian
Loyal
Tuesday, October 06, 2009

<!-- Begin .post --> 5 Activists ACQUITTED of Procession Charge for WB-IMF Anniversary Walk 2007




Related Blog Post

JUDGMENT PDF FILE

This afternoon at court 19, at about 2:45pm 5 activists including Mr. Gandhi Ambalam; Miss Chee Siok Chin; Mr. John Tan; Mr. Chong Kai Siong & myself were found not guilty for procession without a permit from WB-IMF Annivesary Walk Event dated 16.Sept.2007 (LKy old dog thief's birthday), by district judge John Ng.

This is the first breakthrough in our 3 year plus of non-stop litigations with famiLEE LEEgime involving more than a dozen cases.

I already posted my defense submissions & replies in PDF file format online. Basically I came out with defense arguments that the event was a Walk instead of a Procession and everyone have the rights to use road to convey themselves from a place to another lawfully, a permit is not required as the walk is different from a procession in that walk is casual and without fixed formation & sequence & order etc. It was evidential that the activists and reporters and bloggers etc were just walking on the sidewalks in very normal ways not different from the common users of road (pedestrians). Therefore I argued that a procession was not formed up, nor had been identified nor noticed by members of public. :-)

For the very 1st time in opposition history under famiLEE LEEgime such acquittals had been seen, and all the 5 defendants were found not guilty. I am not sure however if famiLEE LEEgime's AGC will appeal against this acquittal no not. :-)

I was prepared this afternoon to return to my Changi Hotel / Resort to have a few days of vacation. Now however I am back to work... :-( so boring...

Sammyboy.Com Thread

Chinese Blog Post on this



posted by uncleyap at 4:07 PM
 

LaMei

Alfrescian
Loyal
answer to the thread starter question...

http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/pe...nothing-to-be-elated-about-nothing-to-despair

<table class="contentpaneopen"><tbody><tr><td class="contentheading" width="100%">Judge's decision: Nothing to be elated about, nothing to despair </td> <td class="buttonheading" align="right" width="100%"> </td> <td class="buttonheading" align="right" width="100%"> </td> </tr> </tbody></table> <table class="contentpaneopen"> <tbody><tr> <td class="createdate" valign="top"> Wednesday, 07 October 2009 </td> </tr> <tr> <td valign="top"> Chee Soon Juan
dj-john-ng-1.jpg
DJ John Ng

Before we pop the bubbly and celebrate the acquittal of my colleagues by District Judge John Ng over the protest walk on 16 Sep 07, it is important to examine the Judge's reasoning behind his decision (read the full Judgement here).

Judge Ng had ruled that the Miscellaneous Offences Act (MOA) under which the defendants had been charged was not unconstitutional. He wrote that "There was no basis for the defendants to attack the constitutionality of the legislation."

Perhaps. But Mr Ng misses the bigger point which is that the police will not approve any application for outdoor political activity. The defendants made this point their main contention.

Put simply: the MOA requires groups of 5 or more to apply for permits. Nothing unconstitutional about this, one might argue. After all the Constitution does provide for certain conditions under which the Government can deny such activity. Applications for permits will allow the police to assess each case on its merits.

But the PAP goes to the other extreme where it determines that no outdoor political activity is allowed under any condition. The Judge acknowledges this: "The defendants were able to show by their cross-examinations of the prosecution witnesses that there was a policy not to grant any permit for political events to be held outdoors."

Such a policy or administrative act is not backed up by any law and runs contrary to Article 12 of the Constitution.
16sep07_03.jpg

So while the legislation (MOA) may not be unconstitutional, the administrative act of denying all applications is. This is the nub of our contention: The Government's decision to ban all political activity in public areas is ultra vires the Constitution.

Defendants had submitted on the case of Boddington v PP in which the UK House of Lords unequivocally and emphatically ruled that if an "administrative act undertaken pursuant to [the parent law] is ultra vires and unlawful and that if he establishes that he has committed no crime."

Unfortunately, Judge Ng ignored this point and simply said that "whether a permit could or could not be obtained is not an issue and would not be relevant." He failed to explain why this point is not an issue or how it is irrelevant.

So the main contention of the defence case was not addressed by the Judge. Does this mean that the case is completely unhelpful to the bigger goal of clawing back our fundamental rights as citizens?

No. As my colleague and defendant John Tan said: "This is the first time a judge in Singapore has conceded that not all political activities (in this instance a protest procession) in public places equals public disorder."

It is a small yet significant concession. Judge Ng acknowledges that the reason why the procession (or walk) did not contravene the MOA and its Rules is because it "did not cause inconvenience to the public, affect traffic flow or make noise which disturbed the public peace."

Call this judgement a judicial baby-step if you will. But isn't it true that all things great always first happen with baby-steps?

So what happens next? The Prosecution may appeal, the High Court may overturn Judge Ng's decision, other judge's may re-look at the cases that are on-going - who knows? In other words, what will come from this one single judgment is unclear. It may or may not lead to bigger things.

What is absolutely clear, however, is that without challenge, the status quo will remain. I am reminded that failure does not come when we fall short, it comes when we don't try - a subject I will talk more about in a subsequent piece.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
 

Internet Brigade

Alfrescian
Loyal
Not only SDP but people of Singapore should be happy. Interpreting things to the extreme is now lokking very silly and ridiculous. This ruling also shows the level of pettiness that this govt and its bureaucracts are prepared to indulge in.

Its is also slap to the face of AG who has always been strong in interpreting the spirit of the law. In such events, the AG does not provide individual case directions or the approval to prosecute but as a result of the ruling he now has to send directions and guidelines. If Walter has the balls, he would now push for AG sanction to be applied for before prosecution can commence.

The written judgement is telling.

The kangeroo has left the court!
 

Internet Brigade

Alfrescian
Loyal
I was not very surprised, since I defended vigorously against the charge for about 1 year.:rolleyes::smile:

The 5 SDP persons (include Charles Tan mentioned in charge but he is not in SG now) put on Commemoration T-shirts but others did not - including me. Mr Ng E-Jay & Mr Andrew Loh was also there. & a bunch of reporters from everywhere also were there. The mata could see a procession because they read SDP's website announcment for the WB-IMF walk therefore they were looking out for the activist along the route.

The thing is a dozen of matas also walked the same route tailing & filming us, and did not have any permit for procession either. Why don't charge themselves? :biggrin::wink:

I blogged it in Chinese & Ang Moh.

http://uncleyap-kh.blogspot.com/2009/10/5.html

http://uncleyap-news.blogspot.com/2009/10/5-activists-acquitted-of-procession.html

Oi Mad Man Yap.... now you want to pretend to be a JAG lawyer ar? Bloody hell, see you cry in court now so tough!
 

TeeKee

Alfrescian
Loyal
A country will only make progress when the people fear God more than they fear men.

I wonder if the judges felt the earthquake tremors recently and finally woke up!

I hope this is not an one off thingie!
 

TeeKee

Alfrescian
Loyal
You can stop spamming the AG office for now but can you please, give some of your time to provide basic English lessons to the Singapore Police force?

Seems like they ( the police force) are really a difficult time to even understand simple words like a ..procession and what does it mean!
:biggrin:

Why bother if the law is bullshit in the first place?
 
Top