Why S'pore must defend its judiciary against attacks

[MarrickG]

IT IS crucial to robustly defend institutions of justice and law enforcement when anyone "maliciously attacks and undermines the public confidence and trust earned over the years", Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Home Affairs, Mr Wong Kan Seng, said yesterday.

He said: "If we do not do so and allow vicious falsehoods to perversely masquerade themselves as truth, we will eventually lose our moral authority and, with it, our effectiveness to achieve our mission to keep Singapore safe and secure."

Mr Wong was speaking at the Home Team National Day observance ceremony at New Phoenix Park in Irrawaddy Road.

The guest of honour presented Public Spiritedness Awards to members of the public, National Day Awards to Home Team officers, and National Day Team Awards to Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) teams, as well as teams from non-MHA agencies.

Mr Wong also emphasised the importance of breaking the cycle of offending and re-offending.

One key measure he highlighted - the setting up of the Central Youth Guidance Office.

Set up by the Ministry of Community Development, Youth and Sports (MCYS) last month, it coordinates inter- agency efforts to tackle at-risk youths aged 13 to 21 years old. Aiming for a central database to facilitate sharing of information across agencies, the coordinating agency will help design intervention programmes and research on offending behaviour and the effectiveness of programmes.

Mr Wong also touched on rehabilitation strategies that involve creating community-support networks for offenders.

He said: "We recognise that, for offenders, the real-life challenges and temptations to re-offend (come) when they are released from the controlled prison environment."

Hence, the aftercare networks for these offenders will be strengthened, with help from volunteer and grassroots organisations.

A befriender programme, to be launched next month, will get volunteers to mentor offenders when they are in prison till after their release.

The prison is also exploring the introduction of compulsory aftercare regimes for inmates assessed to be at higher risk of re-offending.

Lastly, Mr Wong acknowledged: "A trusted partnership between the government and its people is the vital key to finding and achieving...success over society's challenges."

[email protected]

 

[Balls2U]

YAWNNNN.......!!! Same boring crap! What's new?

 

[halsey02]

>Lastly, Mr Wong acknowledged: "A trusted partnership between the government and its people is the vital key to finding and achieving...success over society's challenges."

We trusted him to oversee a ministry that ensure that our lives are safe, and yet there were serious breaches like MSK & spray painting of train carriages.

Our lives were compromised & inconvience with the MSK saga...we understand the trust..but how about the overseer? can we trust?:p

 

[hairylee]

The best defence against any attacks on these institutions is the behaviour and actions of these institutions.

 

[Areopagus]

http://theonlinecitizen.com/2010/07/alan-shadrake’s-crime/


Alan Shadrake’s crime?
Posted by theonlinecitizen on July 19, 2010 61 Comments

Choo Zheng Xi -

Alan Shadrake’s book “Once a Jolly Hangman” makes for uncomfortable reading. One case in particular might have made those in power uncomfortable enough to arrest Mr Shadrake on the rarely used draconian charge of criminal defamation.

A defamation action is usually instituted in civil proceedings by a person or an institution that believes its reputation has been harmed by a statement of the defendant. Even Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew used a civil defamation action in pursuing his detractors in the international press and local opposition.

Criminal defamation brings the resources of the State to bear in what is essentially a question of protecting personal reputations.

In 2009, the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) intervened to discontinue proceedings in a criminal defamation action on the grounds that “the law of criminal defamation is not to be resorted to lightly”. The AGC noted that in a civil action, the possibility that costs may be awarded against an unsuccessful plaintiff acts as a natural barrier to frivolous action. There is no such safeguard in criminal defamation.

The United Kingdom abolished criminal defamation in July 2009.

So what agitated the authorities enough to arrest Alan Shadrake for criminal defamation, amongst other charges?

The Vignes Mourthi case?

One possible contender is his characterization of the trial and execution of Vignes Mourthi as “arguably one of the most appalling miscarriages of justice in Singapore’s history”.

Vignes Mourthi was arrested on 20 September 2001 and convicted of trafficking 27.65 grams of heroin.

Mourthi’s conviction rested largely on the strength of evidence of the officer who arrested him, Sgt S Rajkumar, a senior officer of the Central Narcotics Bureau. Sgt Rajkumar was a key witness in the prosecution’s case, and Mourthi’s defense was that an incriminating piece of evidence collected by Rajkumar had been added at a much later date.

Shadrake reveals that just three days after Mourthi’s arrest, on 23 September 2001, Sgt. Rajkumar was himself arrested for allegedly handcuffing, raping and sodomizing a young woman and for subsequently bribing her to keep silent.

In the judgment convicting Rajkumar of bribery, Judge Sia Ai Kor described his actions as “so obviously corrupt by the ordinary and objective standard that he must know his conduct is corrupt”.

Shadrake points out how the ongoing case against Rajkumar was never revealed to Mourthi’s defense lawyer, and surmises that the prosecutor and other parties must have known about Rajkumar’s case but chose to keep silent.

In his book, Shadrake characterizes Mourthi’s case as groundbreaking enough to resemble the “catastrophic failures of the justice system in Britain” that contributed to the death penalty being abolished there.

If Shadrake is right, then the authorities could very well be stepping up to the criminal defamation plate to contest his version of events.

 

[uncleyap]

He said: "If we do not do so and allow vicious falsehoods to perversely masquerade themselves as truth, we will eventually lose our moral authority and, with it, our effectiveness to achieve our mission to keep Singapore safe and secure."

Singaporeans must not allow vicious (& greedy) falsehoods of famiLEE LEEgime to perversely masquerade themselves as truth, and ensure that they lose TOTALITARIAN AUTHORITY and with it their MADNESS to achieve their aims to PLUNDER Singapore & Secure their own SELF-INTEREST.

my reply.

 

[Ramseth]

if everyone here call up Lau Lee and F him upset down instead of writing your complains here....maybe he will listen and stop persecuting people like him...

Then they'll probably be no more complaining here, with all complainants locked up in some facilities without broadband.

 

[Ramseth]

you try to lock up people like TLH / Francis Seow from overseas?

Oversea, run road, nevermind, no need lockup also same. Can't come back.

 

[peterpan707]

Why must S'pore defend the influx of FT attack?

Look at wat is happen in Singapore. This is the result of without defend the influx of FT attack.

 

[Ramseth]

Why should S'pore is defend influx of FT attack?

Singapore is defending foreign talents against attacks by locals.