|
|
SNIPPETS
Familee
giggles
In his submissions at the close of the
Prosecution's case, Mr Yap Keng Ho pointed out that "famiLee
Leegime's ministers and MPs" are exempt from applying for
permits to speak in public.
"What's that?" the
puzzled Judge asked.
"It's the term referring to the
Lee family spelt f-a-m-i-l-e-e," Mr Yap explained.
"Oh,
you mean the Lees," Judge Kaur clarified.
The two
prosecutors let out audible chuckles. The court bailiffs couldn't
suppress their sniggers either. And when the DPP stole a quick
glance at the Judge, he found her trying to stifle a giggle
herself.
Dr Chee calling the police?
When
Dr Chee took the witness box, he testified that he had seen
hawkers selling their wares without licences.
"Did
you ask them whether they had permits?" DPP Lim Tse Haw
asked.
"Yes, I asked some of the them," Dr Chee
replied, adding that they did not have permits.
"And
did you call the police to report them?" the DPP
pushed.
"And make their lives more miserable than
they already are?" Dr Chee responded.
That's
what we want to know too
DPP Lim continued his line of
questioning: "So how do you know if these hawkers were not
prosecuted for speaking without a permit?" He was obviously
trying to corner the defendant.
"That's why we have
been asking the police to produce the records, haven't we?"
Dr Chee replied. "If you show us the records, we will be
able to ascertain once and for all whether the police have been
acting in a discriminatory manner against the SDP."
Silence.
"In fact," Dr Chee continued,
"that is what we have been asking ASP Sim (head of the
Public Entertainment Licensing Unit) to show us the records of
how many times the police have approved applications by the
opposition for public speeches. But this was refused by the
judges both in this trial as well as the previous one."
"Her
Honour didn't say no," DPP Lim jumped to Ms Kaur's
defence.
The Judge thought for a while and said: "Yes,
I did say that there was no need for ASP Sim to provide the
information."
So without the information, how can it
be determined that there was no discrimination on the part of the
police?
The questioned was left unanswered.
|
Discriminatory
enforcement of law is "not irrelevant": Judge
Singapore
Democrats
20 Feb 08
District Court Judge Jasvender Kaur
ruled that discriminatory enforcement of the Public Entertainment
and Meetings Act is not irrelevant. She said this in the on-going
trial of Dr Chee Soon Juan and Mr Yap Keng Ho who are charged
with speaking in public without a permit on 8 Apr 06.
Both
defendants have been making the case that the police have acted
in a politically discriminatory manner in their prosecution of
the case.
This is most clearly demonstrated when hawkers,
big and small, openly promote their wares on the streets and talk
to their potential buyers using loud speakers. Some even play
loud music or have performances to attract customers.
Yet
when Dr Chee and Mr Yap interacts with people in the course of
selling The New Democrat, the SDP's newspaper, they are
prosecuted.
Mr Yap emphasized this point when he made
submissions at the close of the Prosecution's case. He said: "The
legislation made all sorts of exemptions and exceptions...that
such an act is only for the abusive purpose against opposition
politics. License will never be issue to opposition in particular
such as SDP. The only meaningful purpose of making any
application as such is only to prove that the licenses will never
be approved." (Full transcript of Mr Yap's submissions found
at
http://uncleyap-news.blogspot.com/2008/02/submission-for...)
"This
is irrelevant," DPP Lee Tse Haw rebutted.
"No it
is not," Judge Kaur shot back. "Discriminatory
enforcement of the Act is not irrelevant." Nonetheless, she
decided that the defendants had a case to answer.
When Dr
Chee Soon Juan took the stand he recounted how he had seen street
vendors selling all manner of goods from pots and pans to
cleaning detergents to medicinal herbs.
These sellers
very often use loud speakers to communicate with on-lookers. Is
this speech? Major corporations are seen throughout Singapore
touting the products and services, often using state-of-the-art
sound systems to attract passers-by with offers and incentives.
Mr Yap Keng Ho had video-taped some of these hawkers in
action and wanted to play it in court as part of the evidence.
The Judge refused to allow this.
Dr Chee then added that
the police were singling out the SDP. He illustrated this by
pointing to the fact that under the law, five or more persons
gathered in a public area is considered illegal. This means that
every political party and every politician, both ruling and
opposition, are committing an offence every time they go for
their Sunday walk-about. But the police have singled out the SDP
and investigating it for illegal assembly when party members were
selling books along Orchard Road last year.
In addition
applications for public events by the opposition are invariably
turned down. Dr Chee pointed out the most glaring example: While
the police allowed the Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE)
to conduct a public rally outside Parliament House in Mar 07,
they rejected the SDP's application for a similar event this
year.
"Your Honour, political discrimination by the
PAP in Singapore is not a new thing," the SDP leader said.
"Singaporeans know this. It is dishonest for any one not to
acknowledge this fact.
"We appeal to our country's
judges to right this wrong for this is precisely what you have
sworn to do – to ensure the fair application of laws and to
uphold justice if this is not done."
Judge Kaur then
asked if Dr Chee had sought remedy for this by way of appeals to
the Minister or through administrative law such as Judicial
Review.
Dr Chee said that he has appealed, in vain, to the
Home Affairs Minister on previous occasions when applications
were turned down by the police and is considering taking the
matter before the courts.
"In fact," he added,
"it was Minister Wong Kan Seng who said that the Government
would not authorise protests of any kind."
"When
did he say that?" the Judge enquired.
"I can't
remember the exact date but it was reported in the Straits
Times," Dr Chee said. "I can get you the reference if
you want."
The Judge then wondered aloud in what
context the Mr Wong's comments were made.
Why don't we
find out by calling Mr Wong to the stand, Dr Chee said in making
the application for the Minister to testify in court..
"But
why do you want to do this when you have not applied for a permit
in this present case?" Judge Kaur said.
"Isn't
it disingenuous for the Government to prosecute us for not having
a permit or not applying for one when it will not grant us
permits in the first place?" Dr Chee replied.
Ms Kaur
rejected the application for Mr Wong Kan Seng to take the
stand.
At
the end of the defence presenting its case, the Judge directed
parties to exchange written submissions by 7 Mar 08, and exchange
replies to each other's submissions by 18 Mar. The Judge will
give her decision on 26 Mar.
|
|
