Activists repeatedly caught famiLEE LEEgime deep in false rule of law
I will from now begin to write out on blog in accordance with Notes Of Evidence recorded by judges in court, the falsehood of famiLEE LEEgime caught out by activists challenging against their authoritarian governance.
First I shell begin with the case of Speakers Cornered, which was @ Hong Lim Park during the WB IMF 2006, which happened on 16.Sept.2006. The High Court just only yesterday began to hear a Criminal Motion filed by myself.
What was not being told before to the public regarding this event, was a surprise that also caught out the famiLEE LEEgime especially Deputy Assistance Commissioner Raymond Yeo who was personally at Speakers Corner commanding the Task Force Unit which cordoned & Cornered the Speakers so to speak.
I had told both District Court & High Court that the police forces commanded by DAC Raymond Yeo had enforced unlawfully at Hong Lim Park, shutting down entire Speakers Corner which is a legitimate place for public assembly & speeches, and I pointed out why & how exactly they lacked the justification and legal basis to Abusively Exceeded Lawful Limits of Police Powers.
Inspector Patrick Lim told subordinate court on the witness stand that he pulled out loudhailer at Speakers Corner and Announced that the crowd at Speakers Corner was and Illegal Assembly, and he ordered the crowd to disperse.
The only reason that the police had done so was ONLY BECAUSE Dr CSJ had during his speech made at Speakers Corner invited people to march to the parliament, which was deemed to be a procession without permit.
WB/IMF event did not change any law in Singapore, and Speakers Corner on 16.Sept.2006 was still a lawful place of Speeches and Assembly, and I had registered myself lawfully to speak there. What the famiLEE LEEgime failed to determine and distinguish and further made completely wrong assumption, which was what I had not revealed online so far, is that I was holding a Completely Independent & Unrelated Activity APART from Dr. CSJ's at Speakers Corner on 16.Sept.2006!
Speakers Corner is a public place, and any Singaporean citizen have the same rights to register and speak independently and apart from each other at Speaker's Corner. The police have no basis nor reason to blindly assume any users or activities at a public place to be all one of the same or all the people there shared the same plan or intention. There is certainly also no legal basis for that.
The task force commanded by DAC Raymond Yeo & his men such as DSP Hassan & Inspector Patrick Lim etc had altogether shared the same big mistake, and enforced law blindly. The Notes Of Evidence recorded clearly, that they had NOT AT ALL done anything to establish this simple fact and made any effort to check on this.
The evidence had been admitted in the Speakers Cornered case includes:
- Both Dr. CSJ & myself testified as defense witness that after GE2006 there is an understanding or verbal agreement between the 2 of us, to hold all our political activities separately & independently apart and unrelated. The reason is that I on longer willing to accept with any moderations or party disciplinary control or policies after the GE was over. In simple terms I want to be free and independent to enjoy political freedom as an individual activist.
- For WB/IMF procession, Dr. CSJ made his own application for police permit, I made not only one but 2 similar but unrelated applications, for Equality Demonstration which scheduled dates and locations and marching routes are all different from Dr CSJ's applications. Our applications had all been rejected. The records of these applications had all been admitted as documentary evidences.
- For Speaking at Speakers Corner, I arrived there alone and registered to speak at the NPC from 16.Sept.2006 TILL 30.Sept.2006 then I started to speak to members of public & WB/IMF reporters even before Dr. CSJ & his group arrived to register. Police Investigation Office DSP William Goh confirmed this as a prosecution witness. Dr CSJ & Mr. Ghandi etc arrived later to register to speak but only for 16.Sept.2006 - just 1 day and not for the rest of the month. This official record of speakers registration was admitted also as documentary evidence.
- For attire, Dr. CSJ & his group put on Free Now & Democracy Now T-shirts, while I was wearing my own dumb down & middle finger to famiLEE LEEgime T-shirt.
- My speeches made was about Progress Package & Corrupted GE & famiLEE LEEgime, completely not the same as Dr. CSJ & his group. I did not indicated any interest to hold any march nor procession, and even after Dr. CSJ invited people to march with him, I did not indicated any interest because I maintained the agreement between us to be independent and free from each others activities. This was proven in court also.
These evidence admitted in the Speakers Cornered case hearing given above are NOT DISPUTED by prosecution at all, but they were obviously caught out and unprepared for these facts of the case.
The legal stand of my defense is very simple:
- Everyone have the same rights to use Speakers Corner, the police is completely wrong to have the only Speaker Corner SHUT DOWN just because only just one speaker - Dr. CSJ had proposed an illegal procession. As the police did nothing at all to determine the intentions of ALL other individuals at Hong Lim Park, how did they come to the entirely wrong conclusion that everyone there was to join Dr. CSJ in his proposed procession?
- I am registered as a lawful speaker at Speakers Corner, the same crowd including WB/IMF media reporters were part of my fully legitimate activity which began BEFORE Dr. CSJ had arrived at this Public Park, and I had never proposed any illegal procession throughout, there is no reason nor any legal basis that police can shut down my activity, and declared me & my lawful audience as an illegal assembly, just only because one speaker of that day - Dr. CSJ had proposed an illegal procession. Whatever Dr. CSJ or any other speakers can do or say, will NEVER CHANGE the legitimacy of my activity & it's participants, why ordered to disperse them especially when the police had entirely not asked me or my audience any question e.g. weather I am going to take Dr. CSJ's march. How can they blindly assumed and enforced against us?
- The police declared the crowd at Speakers Corner as illegal assembly with binded assumption, and then they had formed 3 layers of human cordons around us and the whole park, and prevented members of public from entering the park, this was proven and in evidence. They are exceeding lawful limits of police powers and I insisted to judges that they had imposed and unlawful curfew and shutdown the legitimate Speakers Corner where peaceful people can assemble and speak.
- Then further then enforcing blindly and abusively, they next assumed anyone who disagreed with the cordoning or intending to leave that cordon to be intending to go on a procession proposed by Dr. CSJ. That is very silly and unreasonable as again such childish assumption was made and enforced WITH NO QUESTIONS ASKED.
How can leaving the cordon and marching to the parliament be assumed to be one of the same with no questions asked?
Senior police officers under my cross examinations, admitted that even after they had announced the dispersal order, the Kerata Ayer NPC remained OPENED for public to register themselves to speak, but they lied to court by arguing that legitimate speakers unrelated to Dr. CSJ's march can approach police and ask for a separated portion of Speakers Corner for their unrelated activities. But I confronted them in cross examination that I had repeatedly tired to reason with more than one officers at the scene including DSP Hassan who appeared to be in-charge, but they ignored me entirely, DSP Hassan testified that he was not quite paying attention to be as he was tasked only to deal with Dr. CSJ.
Therefore my defense based on facts of the case if very simple. Police and enforced blindly and wrongfully on 16. Sept.2006 at Speakers Corner and had made too many wrong assumptions.
The cordoning of activists was excessive and improper use of police forces, blindly applied to citizens without any measure taken to determine weather their intention was lawful or unlawful. Activists were unlawfully detained without any lawful arrests, restriction against personal freedom of movement is violation against Constitutional Articles http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=1999-REVED-CONST&doctitle=CONSTITUTION%20OF%20THE%20REPUBLIC%20OF%20SINGAPORE%0a&date=latest&method=part&sl=1&segid=931158659-000271#931158659-000274">9, http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=1999-REVED-CONST&doctitle=CONSTITUTION%20OF%20THE%20REPUBLIC%20OF%20SINGAPORE%0a&date=latest&method=part&sl=1&segid=931158659-000271#931158659-000341">13 & http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/non_version/cgi-bin/cgi_getdata.pl?actno=1999-REVED-CONST&doctitle=CONSTITUTION%20OF%20THE%20REPUBLIC%20OF%20SINGAPORE%0a&date=latest&method=part&sl=1&segid=931158659-000271#931158659-000350">14 .
Liberty of the person
9. —(1) No person shall be deprived of his life or personal liberty save in accordance with law. (2) Where a complaint is made to the High Court or any Judge thereof that a person is being unlawfully detained, the Court shall inquire into the complaint and, unless satisfied that the detention is lawful, shall order him to be produced before the Court and release him. (3) Where a person is arrested, he shall be informed as soon as may be of the grounds of his arrest and shall be allowed to consult and be defended by a legal practitioner of his choice. (4) Where a person is arrested and not released, he shall, without unreasonable delay, and in any case within 48 hours (excluding the time of any necessary journey), be produced before a Magistrate and shall not be further detained in custody without the Magistrate’s authority. (5) Clauses (3) and (4) shall not apply to an enemy alien or to any person arrested for contempt of Parliament pursuant to a warrant issued under the hand of the Speaker. (6) Nothing in this Article shall invalidate any law —
<dl style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(51, 204, 255); font-style: italic;">(a) in force before the commencement of this Constitution which authorises the arrest and detention of any person in the interests of public safety, peace and good order; or</dl><dl style="text-align: justify; color: rgb(51, 204, 255); font-style: italic;">(b) relating to the misuse of drugs or intoxicating substances which authorises the arrest and detention of any person for the purpose of treatment and rehabilitation,</dl> by reason of such law being inconsistent with clauses (3) and (4), and, in particular, nothing in this Article shall affect the validity or operation of any such law before 10th March 1978.
<dl>Prohibition of banishment and freedom of movement
13. —(1) No citizen of Singapore shall be banished or excluded from Singapore. (2) Subject to any law relating to the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order, public health or the punishment of offenders, every citizen of Singapore has the right to move freely throughout Singapore and to reside in any part thereof. </dl> <dl>Freedom of speech, assembly and association
14. —(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —<dl>(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;</dl><dl>(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and</dl><dl>(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.</dl> (2) Parliament may by law impose —<dl>(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1) (a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;</dl><dl>(b) on the right conferred by clause (1) (b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and</dl><dl>(c) on the right conferred by clause (1) (c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.</dl> (3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1) (c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.</dl>
<dl></dl><dl></dl>13. —(1) No citizen of Singapore shall be banished or excluded from Singapore. (2) Subject to any law relating to the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order, public health or the punishment of offenders, every citizen of Singapore has the right to move freely throughout Singapore and to reside in any part thereof. </dl> <dl>Freedom of speech, assembly and association
14. —(1) Subject to clauses (2) and (3) —<dl>(a) every citizen of Singapore has the right to freedom of speech and expression;</dl><dl>(b) all citizens of Singapore have the right to assemble peaceably and without arms; and</dl><dl>(c) all citizens of Singapore have the right to form associations.</dl> (2) Parliament may by law impose —<dl>(a) on the rights conferred by clause (1) (a), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, friendly relations with other countries, public order or morality and restrictions designed to protect the privileges of Parliament or to provide against contempt of court, defamation or incitement to any offence;</dl><dl>(b) on the right conferred by clause (1) (b), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof or public order; and</dl><dl>(c) on the right conferred by clause (1) (c), such restrictions as it considers necessary or expedient in the interest of the security of Singapore or any part thereof, public order or morality.</dl> (3) Restrictions on the right to form associations conferred by clause (1) (c) may also be imposed by any law relating to labour or education.</dl>
What sort of rule of law is this when just merely one individual proposed to break the law can cause the entire collection of members of public to be deemed as unlawful, and face brute-force enforcement without question? Is that no difference from North Korea or Myanmar or Zimbabwe?
The trial at district court heard that Dr. CSJ had not told the crowd how they may enroll or indicate their interest to take part in this proposed march. There is no dispute regarding this fact. Therefore, by only listening to Dr. CSJ's speech regardless what law his speech had proposed to break, it does not at all incriminate the audience in any way, and there is no legal basis for the police to over react and without taking any measures to determine, blindly assumed that all the audience at Speakers Corner had intended to break the law, and enforced against these members of public.
The court further can not equate those who wanted to leave Speakers Corner or leave the police cordon to be same as intending to proceed to Parliament House with Dr. CSJ on a march without permit. The members of public have the rights to leave police cordon unless they were placed under arrest. I testifier and showed evidence that police placed Dr CSJ & Miss CSC under cordon even when they went to the toilets. In this case the prosecution could only proved that I did not cooperate with the police to stay within the cordon, I insist that I am not a part of the proposed procession, I had registered to speak lawfully, I had not asked people to march nor had indicated any intention to march, I had not been place under arrest, I have rights to leave cordon, how can they convict me for attempting to march with Dr. CSJ to Parliament House? I told District Court that I didn't even believe that Dr. CSJ was really intending to march to Parliament & Suntec City because Suntec was fortified by metal barriers and heavily defended. At that time I assumed that Dr. CSJ in his speech was only saying that to cause the Singapore Police Force to do something VERY STUPID BEFORE THE WB/IMF MEDIA, and if that was his intention then it worked out perfectly.:p
I showed the court a WB/IMF meeting delegate's security pass, issued to me with my name & photo, and this was admitted as evidence. I registered with the World Bank online to be an accredited participant to the Annual Meetings for Civil Society Organizations - SCO (the foreign protesters) and I had been issued with that pass to enter Suntec City. My intention was too meet with foreign protesters and invite them to Speakers Corner where I can register to speak lawfully where they can be my audience and protest together (for this reason I had registered to speak until 30.Sept.2006). Among the 5 defendants I was the only one who could goto Suntec City without intruding security because I held that pass. The famiLEE LEEgime later interfered with the World Bank & objected to my accreditation into the SCO annual meetings, the court was also told when I testified. My security pass was also admitted as case evidence. Logically I was a part of the WB/IMF delegates who the Singapore police were supposed to protect and treat me with courtesy, however the surrounded me with human cordons and push against me, then charged me wrongfully to be attempting to march to Suntec City where I am entitled to gain lawful entry. I am SG citizen and had lawfully registered to speak at Hong Lim Park, is this how you treat HONORABLE WB/IMF delegate you stupid matas? :-):p
posted by uncleyap at http://uncleyap.blogspot.com/2010/07/activists-repeatedly-caught-familee.html" title="permanent link">1:11 AM
<!-- End .post -->
Last edited:
