|
|
|
Police
witnesses testify against colleague
Singapore
Democrats
07 Dec 07
Police witnesses, Assistant
Superintendent (ASP) Jeremy Koh and Inspector (Insp) Jason Lim,
gave evidence that contradicted Staff Sgt Lam Tien Chiang
testimony in court.
All the officers are from the Jurong
Police Division. They were testifying in the trial of Dr Chee
Soon Juan and Mr Yap Keng Ho who are charged with speaking
without permit during the election period in 2006.
The
matter involved an error that was made on the time some
photographs were taken by Sgt Lam.
Immediately after the
discrepancy was pointed out by the defendants,
Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Lim Tse Haw approached the
police witnesses out of court to enquire about it.
Both
ASP Koh and Insp Lim testified the day before yesterday that Sgt
Lam was present when DPP Lim broached the subject with the
officers during a break.
ASP Koh said that he had also
asked Sgt Lam about the mistake.
"So Sergeant Lam
should have known about the error, yes or no?" Dr Chee asked
Mr Koh under cross-examination.
"Yes," the
officer the replied.
"And the discussion about this
error had taken place before all of you, that is, Sergeant Lam,
Inspector Jason Lim and yourself, had taken the stand. Is that
correct?" Dr Chee enquired further.
"Yes,"
ASP Koh confirmed.
When
he took the stand last week, however, Sgt Lam told the court that
no one had told him about the error prior to him taking the
stand. He testified under oath that the first time he came to
know about the error was when he was in the witness.
Dr
Chee: Did anyone talk to you about the error here (referring to
the time that the photographs were taken)?
Sgt Lam:
No.
Dr Chee: Did the DPP talk to you about this
error?
Sgt Lam: No.
Dr Chee: Did the DPP mention to
you at all about the error or discrepancy?
Sgt Lam:
No.
Dr Chee: At anytime before you took the stand today
did the DPP mention anything to you at all?
Sgt Lam:
No.
That's three against one. DPP Lim, ASP Koh and
Insp Lim had all said that Sgt Lam was present and had heard the
matter of the error regarding the photographs being discussed.
But if Sgt Lam seems to be in trouble of lying under
oath, DPP Lim did not cover himself with glory either.
First,
why did he approach the police witnesses who were due to take the
stand about evidence that was being canvassed during the trial.
Couldn't he have waited until they came to the witness box?
DPP
Lim evaded answering this question by giving nonsensical answers
(see here).
His
evasive responses continued when he said that he wasn't certain
whether Sgt Lam was present when he asked the officers about the
error. He had forgotten that he had earlier told the judge that
he himself had spoken to Sgt Lam about it.
In addition,
when asked when was it that he had spoken to the police
witnesses, DPP Lim insisted that he could not remember even
though the communication had taken place only one and two days
before (see here).
In contrast, ASP Koh and Insp Lim were both very clear
about the time and days the DPP had spoken to them. This was
despite the fact that more than one week had elapsed, compared to
the DPP's one day!
And what was ASP Jeremy Koh doing
talking to Sgt Lam Lam about evidence that was being presented
during a trial when both witnesses had yet to take the
stand?
All this: Sgt Lam's lies, the contradictions by the
witnesses, the prosecution's discussion of evidence while the
trial was going on, and the DPP's prevarication don't inspire
confidence of the criminal justice system.
And this is
not the first time that such prosecutorial shenanigans have been
uncovered. In the previous case in Nov 06, ASP Jeremy Koh was
caught going in and out of the witness room and communicating
with witnesses who were about to take the stand (see here).
Add
to the fact that the prosecution is against the PAP's opponents,
the picture presented of the rule of law in Singapore is
decidedly wretched.
The hearing has been adjourned till
18 Feb 08.
|
|
