http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg/2015/09/give-j-b-jeyaretnam-posthumous-pardon.html
Come September 30th, we'll mark the 7th anniversary of the passing of that great champion of democracy - Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam or JBJ for short. His place in Singapore history is sealed. The first opposition MP since independence and the man who revived the then moribund Worker's Party. He fought a long often lonely and extremely painful battle to champion the fundamental rights of Singaporeans. I think everyone is aware that he's been sued and bankrupted, twice losing seat in Parliament. But I realise that many of the younger generation aren't aware that he actually spent 1 full month in jail. And the sad part - for an offence that he didn't commit!
J B Jeyaretnam went to jail for an offence he wasn't guilty of. He should be given a posthumous pardon, if Singapore really wants to stand for fairness and rule of law.
As we celebrate 50 years of independence, I think it's proper that we look back to the past and undo the wrongs that may or have been committed. I don't want to politicise this matter - although its inferences to politics are unavoidable given the subject matter. Yet I still think we can skirt the politics and just look at getting justice done, even posthumously. Let us remember what is said in our pledge - to build a a democratic society based on justice and equality. Everyone deserves justice and equality before the law - even a controversial figure like him (if you're a PAP supporter, you might have this view of him). The protagonists in this affair are all dead - JBJ, Lee Kuan Yew, CJ Wee Chong Jin and Justices Lai Kew Chai and LP Thean. The PAP has won a resounding victory. Any fallout from this is not going to be a major issue that could affect the PAP. Rather this is an opportune moment for PM Lee Hsien Loong to rise above the fray and display not only statesman like leadership but show a magnanimous side. That the PAP Govt is not slow to admit its error and will rightly correct any mistakes made in the past.
Let me briefly give you some salient points about this issue and why a pardon although late is still very much justified. But before that let me just explain certain legal procedures:
1) The Legal Process.
When you face charges in the Subordinate (now State) Courts and are convicted, you have only 1 avenue of appeal - The High Court. A single Justice (or Judicial Commissioner) will hear your appeal (if any), and decide on what to do. He has a number of options:
a) Uphold the original verdict and sentence
b) Uphold the verdict but vary the sentence - usually lower (although Yong Pung How had a habit of increasing it, which is allowed as well).
c) Substitute the charges to more appropriate ones and convict of you that instead.
d) Reframe the original charge to better suit the verdict or offense.
e) Order a retrial and of course
f) Allow your appeal and throw out the charges.
The decision of the High Court Judge hearing an appeal from the lower courts (termed Magistrate's Appeals) is final.
When you're originally convicted in the High Court before a single Judge (for the more serious offences), you can appeal to the Court of Appeal. There 3 Judges will hear your appeal and their decision (either unanimous or a majority 2-1 decision) is final. This is the highest court in the land. The only way you can overturn a final verdict is to pray for a judicial review - that is another High Court Judge not involved in the process will determine if there are serious questions of Law that the highest court - the Court of Appeal need to look into in relation to your trial. These are not frivolous matters - you must highlight a serious flaw in the Law, (against the Constitution for example) before he will consider it. If the High Court judge agrees, he will refer it to the Appellate Court to review it. Another 3 senior Judges not connected with the matter will determine it. Only if they find you have a case, can they reverse the whole process and order a retrial or a review of the lower court's verdict.
2) The Legal Process in 1986.
There was a slight difference in the process in 1986 when JBJ faced his troubles. For 1 the Court of Appeal was split into 2 - the Court of Appeal (to hear civil matters) and the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA). However both were not the highest courts in the land - there was another - the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in House of Lords in London. There 5 senior judges with extensive experience and knowledge will hear appeals but only if referred to it by either the Court of Appeal or CCA. These Judges were for brevity known as the Law Lords - as they were made peers (Lords) by the Queen. The Committee was referred to simply as the Privy Council.
However the Law Lords could only hear cases from the upper tier - that is if someone was first convicted in the High Court and then had his appeal heard in the CCA. If you were tried and convicted in the Subordinate Courts then your final court of appeal was still only the High Court. Unless something came before the CCA, your case will never reach the Privy Council.
However if you're a lawyer and was punished by a Court of 3 Judges, since the 3 are High Court Judges and your matter is before them, you could appeal your disqualification and punishment to the Privy Council. However they would have no power to determine or overrule any criminal conviction, only to judge your disqualification but they would almost certainly examine the charges that led to your disqualification in the first place.
3) Brief Timeline of JBJ's Case.
a) 2 months after winning re-election, JBJ and party chairman, Wong Hong Toy were preferred 4 charges.
1) 1 charge of false accounting/reporting
2) 1 charge in regards a $2000 cheque
3) 1 charge in regards to $200 cheque
4) 1 charge in regards to a $400 cheque.
In March 1984, after a trial in the Subordinate Courts before the chief judge there - Senior District Judge (SDJ) Michael Khoo, they were found not guilty of charges 1-3 and convicted of the 4th charge and duly fined $1000.
b) The prosecution appealed against the decisions 1-3 and JBJ against decision 4. Then Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin heard the appeal in May 1984 and gave his verdict in April 1985. His decision was:
1) Charge 1 - reversed SDJ Khoo's decision and ordered a retrial
2) Charges 2-3 - allowed prosecution's appeal and fined each $1000 per charge
3) Dismissed JBJ's appeal in charge no 4 and upheld SDJ's verdict/decision.
c) In June 1985, JBJ applied leave from CJ Wee to have the matter referred to the CCA for a judicial review on questions of law and public interest pertaining to his decision on the verdicts issued by SDJ Khoo. The CJ rejected the application. Nonetheless they tried to petition the CCA separately.
d) In October 1985, the CCA comprising Justices FA Chua, Lai Kew Chai and LP Thean rejected the application because technically they could not hear it unless the earlier High Court Judge (in this the CJ sitting as an appellate Judge for a Subordinate Court matter) gave leave to refer the matter to them. The CJ did not grant leave.
e) JBJ's next step was to seek to have the retrial of the accounts charge transferred to the High Court. A fresh trial in the High Court would mean an appeal all the way up the Privy Council if need be. An application was made for this to Justice LP Thean, who surprisingly rejected it (I'll explain later). The Judge rejected it and it was sent back to the Subordinate Courts.
f) The retrial was heard by Errol Foenander who had replaced Michael Khoo as SDJ. He found them guilty of the accounts charge which was also the most serious charge. They were sentenced to 3 months jail in April 1986. Both men appealed the sentence and convictions.
g) In November 1986, Justice Lai Kew Chai sitting as the Appellate Judge for a Magistrate's Appeal heard their appeal. He upheld the verdict but then astonishingly varied the sentence. The 3 month jail term was reduced to 1 month and an additional fine of $5000 was imposed. This fine exceeded the amount for anyone sitting or applying to be an MP convicted of a criminal. charge.
h) JBJ was not only then jailed for a month together with Wong, but as a result lost his seat as Member for Anson.
i) Again JBJ made an application for leave to have Justice Lai's decision referred to the CCA (and possibly the Privy Council) as a matter of law and public interest. Again this was rejected and he went to jail to serve that 1 month term.
j) Because he was convicted of a serious crime, the Law Society moved to refer the matter to the Court of 3 Judges (of the High Court) so that he should show cause why he should not be struck off the rolls of lawyers.
k) The matter came before the 3 judges - CJ Wee, Justice FA Chua and Judicial Commissioner Chan Sek Keong. JBJ applied to have the CJ disqualify himself since the Court would inevitably have to look at some of the decisions undertaken by the CJ. He disagreed. The issue was never in any doubt since he was convicted of a serious charge - he was duly struck off although he applied for a stay of execution until the Privy Council heard the appeal. It was denied and he ordered struck off in January 1988. An appeal was made to the Privy Council.
l) 5 Law Lords heard the appeal pertaining to JBJ's disqualification. They were the Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lords Ackner, Oliver, Jauncey and Templeman. In doing so, they had to examine the original charges, the convictions and the legal process. They reached a verdict in October 1988, delivered on 21st November 1988.
m) In doing so, they found the 4 charges totally wrong and unmerited. They expressed shock at some of the decisions taken by the CJ, the CCA and Justice Lai and further found it wrong that the CJ didn't disqualify himself. JBJ and Wong they opined were wrongly convicted and had to serve jail time for offences they were innocent of.
n) Since they could only overturn the disqualification, they did so and had him reinstated. They then expressed a desire that a petition be made to the President to pardon the men and remove the ban on parliamentary disqualification.
4) Key Findings by the Privy Council.
You can and should read the full judgment here. However I'll just mention the key points. First the facts of the case:
Case background.
In 1972, the WP sued PAP MP Tay Boon Too for slander over remarks he made during the general election campaign. They failed and were ordered to pay costs of $17,000 which remained unpaid. In 1980 JBJ stood and lost in the GE. The mother of his election agent (Mdm Chiew) brought an election petition against JBJ's opponent. This was also unsuccessful and she was ordered to pay costs.
JBJ was duly elected in the 1981 Anson by-election. In 1982, MP Tay's debt was still not fully paid up. Meanwhile bankruptcy proceedings were taken against Mdm Chiew. A doctor, Ivy Chew issued the WP a cheque for $2000. Wong wanted this cheque given to Mdm Chiew's lawyers instead to help her out in her bankruptcy matters.
Meanwhile a Mr Ping donated a $200 cheque to the WP, which Wong got him to alter the 'bearer' cancelation. This was then deposited into his own account and the money withdrawn to give to Mdm Chiew. Mdm Chiew later handed monies including the sums from the $2000 and $200 cheques to her lawyers to deal with the bankruptcy. MP Tay's lawyers also made an application to execute re-payment from the WP. On the same day a Willie Lim issued a $400 cheque to the WP. On June 1st the Official Receiver was appointed to receive WP's assets in order to get MP Tay his balance monies. Wong later invited Willie to alter the cheque from crossed to cash.
In July the Official Receiver (OR) requested the WP Treasurer to file his accounts from 1980 to June 1982. He filed but made no references to any of these cheques. Later both JBJ and Wong were given a form by the OR, 'supposedly' a statutory declaration affirming the accounts as correct. However under the Law it was not deemed a statutory declaration since it omitted certain key words. The OR later used these forms to swear an affidavit in court as true and correct statements given to him by JBJ and Wong on the accounts of the WP.
Because of this, they were later charged for 3 offences arising from their conduct vis-à-vis the cheques and a fourth for a false declaration in regards to the party accounts submitted.
Rulings
I'll just touch briefly on the rulings. The Privy Council ruled that SDJ Khoo was correct to throw out the accounts reporting charge because it was not a statutory declaration, even though it was later used as part of 1 by the OR. For the first 2 cheque charges, he deemed that the cheque was not yet material property of the WP. In fact both the doctor and Mr Ping had agreed to let the WP do whatever they wanted with the money, the doctor in fact issued a note to this affect. The party agreed in an Exco meeting to use it to help Mdm Chiew. Furthermore the SDJ noted that the prosecution failed to call these 2 as witnesses to verify this when they had the opportunity to. He found that the prosecution failed to prove that the WP purposely decided to do these to prevent payment to MP Tay.
He only found them guilty of the 4th charge because Willie Lim was asked to change it after the OR upon a request by MP Tay notified the WP of this. The Privy Council then ruled on the matter in relation to the timeline referred above in para 3.
1) The CJ was wrong to determine that this was a statutory declaration. He was also wrong to consider the $2000 and $200 cheques as property of the WP. He was also wrong in suggesting that the onus was on the defence to call the 2 donors to rebut the prosecution's case. It should be the prosecution's.
2) He was wrong in not granting leave for the CCA to hear the merits although it was in the public interest to do so.
3) Justice LP Thean's decision not to allow a review was astonishing. They did not understand that how an MP and party chairman's case would not be in the public interest.
4) The decisions reached by both SDJ Foenander (re-trial) and Justice Lai (appeal) were wrong. Instead of considering what SDJ Khoo had noted, they took the CJ's long convoluted reasoning.
5) Justice Lai's reasoning for not granting leave was wrong too. He held it was neither a case of law and/or public interest.
6) They also found that the CJ was wrong to sit on the panel on the Court of 3 Judges. The requirement that he preside over such issues is not mandatory. Moreover since it would involve questioning his own decisions, it was wrong for him not to disqualify himself. Simply put, it was asking 2 other junior judges to look into the CJ's own decision making while he was also on the same panel! They found the CJ's refusal to disqualify himself as absurd.
7) They ruled the Law Society's decision not to examine the reasons for conviction was wrong. However the Court of 3 Judges agreed correctly that it should examine them, although they still arrived at the same result - guilty on all counts.
8) They found they whole accounts charge wrong - it was not a statutory declaration, although the information contained therein was later used in 1. Allowing this would mean every time you submit something and if it's later used as part of a declaration by a third party, you could be found guilty of perjury. It makes no difference whether this would be used in court later, the fact remained that it was not an official and legal statutory declaration in the first place when submitted.
9) The arguments on the first 2 cheques were logical but somehow missed but the later judges. A cheque issued is not fully one's property until it is cashed. Supposing you give Y a cheque, he can at any time cancel it. You can also ask him to alter it (back-date - post date etc). If Y withdraws the cheque or cancels it, you cannot sue him for it. It's still negotiable. It was always open for the WP to negotiate with the donors to alter the reasons for granting the cheque or to convert it for something else. Instead of donating to the party, they could ask the donors to make it a donation for Mdm Chiew. The donors were duly briefed of this.
10) They took exception with the CJ's grounds for overruling SDJ Khoo, who had the benefit of testimony and observing the conduct of witnesses. He could only reject SDJ's finding of fact if the SDJ himself found the appellants as not being credible. He wrongly assessed a trial's judge's assessment of facts and further wrongly shifted the onus of proof from prosecution to defence.
11) The 4th charge was so obvious - it was never presented. Mr Lim clearly did not want to donate money only for it to go to MP Tay and that's why he changed it from crossed to cash. This became a personal cheque to whoever in the WP who could use it for whatever purpose.
12) In closing the Law Lords expressed a deep disquiet at a series of misjudgements that made JBJ and Wong suffer a grievous injustice. They were jailed and disgraced for offences they were not guilty of. While they can re-instate JBJ they have no power to right the wrongs he suffered. They hoped that a petition tot the President would rectify this.
Conclusion.
Clearly from reading the facts of the case, a grave injustice was suffered by JBJ and Wong. The judgment of the Privy Council was very sound and in no way biased to him or against the prosecution and the Singapore Govt. The very principles they used are the very same ones that our Supreme Court uses today. Yet shortly thereafter all appeals tot he Privy Council was revoked by a change in Law. The Govt refused to consider the petition made by him and grant a pardon, the term they used then was 'that he was not remorseful.'
Why should he be remorseful for offences he didn't commit? In the last decade, Justice V K Rajah (now the AG) slammed the prosecution for suggesting that a teacher he acquitted of molest was 'technically guilty.' Justice Rajah ruled that once the highest court ruled on a person's innocence, he was innocent before the Law. There's no such thing as 'technically guilty.' Similarly JBJ and Wong were deemed innocent by the highest court in the land then. They are innocent and should be rightly pardoned. They need not be expected to show remorse.
I hope the new Cabinet and PM will consider this and advice the President to issue a pardon. This is not a matter of politics, maybe they are uncomfortable with Kenneth Jeyaretnam as a leader of an opposition party. But JBJ still has another son - Phillip. They can announce to him and not necessarily Kenneth that they will be advising a pardon. An innocent man went to jail, he may have been found wanting by the PAP in other areas, but for this, he did no wrong. His memory should be unblemished and not have a criminal record on it. The correct thing to do on his upcoming death anniversary should be to pardon him, as JBJ said - make it right Singapore.
Come September 30th, we'll mark the 7th anniversary of the passing of that great champion of democracy - Joshua Benjamin Jeyaretnam or JBJ for short. His place in Singapore history is sealed. The first opposition MP since independence and the man who revived the then moribund Worker's Party. He fought a long often lonely and extremely painful battle to champion the fundamental rights of Singaporeans. I think everyone is aware that he's been sued and bankrupted, twice losing seat in Parliament. But I realise that many of the younger generation aren't aware that he actually spent 1 full month in jail. And the sad part - for an offence that he didn't commit!
J B Jeyaretnam went to jail for an offence he wasn't guilty of. He should be given a posthumous pardon, if Singapore really wants to stand for fairness and rule of law.
As we celebrate 50 years of independence, I think it's proper that we look back to the past and undo the wrongs that may or have been committed. I don't want to politicise this matter - although its inferences to politics are unavoidable given the subject matter. Yet I still think we can skirt the politics and just look at getting justice done, even posthumously. Let us remember what is said in our pledge - to build a a democratic society based on justice and equality. Everyone deserves justice and equality before the law - even a controversial figure like him (if you're a PAP supporter, you might have this view of him). The protagonists in this affair are all dead - JBJ, Lee Kuan Yew, CJ Wee Chong Jin and Justices Lai Kew Chai and LP Thean. The PAP has won a resounding victory. Any fallout from this is not going to be a major issue that could affect the PAP. Rather this is an opportune moment for PM Lee Hsien Loong to rise above the fray and display not only statesman like leadership but show a magnanimous side. That the PAP Govt is not slow to admit its error and will rightly correct any mistakes made in the past.
Let me briefly give you some salient points about this issue and why a pardon although late is still very much justified. But before that let me just explain certain legal procedures:
1) The Legal Process.
When you face charges in the Subordinate (now State) Courts and are convicted, you have only 1 avenue of appeal - The High Court. A single Justice (or Judicial Commissioner) will hear your appeal (if any), and decide on what to do. He has a number of options:
a) Uphold the original verdict and sentence
b) Uphold the verdict but vary the sentence - usually lower (although Yong Pung How had a habit of increasing it, which is allowed as well).
c) Substitute the charges to more appropriate ones and convict of you that instead.
d) Reframe the original charge to better suit the verdict or offense.
e) Order a retrial and of course
f) Allow your appeal and throw out the charges.
The decision of the High Court Judge hearing an appeal from the lower courts (termed Magistrate's Appeals) is final.
When you're originally convicted in the High Court before a single Judge (for the more serious offences), you can appeal to the Court of Appeal. There 3 Judges will hear your appeal and their decision (either unanimous or a majority 2-1 decision) is final. This is the highest court in the land. The only way you can overturn a final verdict is to pray for a judicial review - that is another High Court Judge not involved in the process will determine if there are serious questions of Law that the highest court - the Court of Appeal need to look into in relation to your trial. These are not frivolous matters - you must highlight a serious flaw in the Law, (against the Constitution for example) before he will consider it. If the High Court judge agrees, he will refer it to the Appellate Court to review it. Another 3 senior Judges not connected with the matter will determine it. Only if they find you have a case, can they reverse the whole process and order a retrial or a review of the lower court's verdict.
2) The Legal Process in 1986.
There was a slight difference in the process in 1986 when JBJ faced his troubles. For 1 the Court of Appeal was split into 2 - the Court of Appeal (to hear civil matters) and the Court of Criminal Appeal (CCA). However both were not the highest courts in the land - there was another - the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in House of Lords in London. There 5 senior judges with extensive experience and knowledge will hear appeals but only if referred to it by either the Court of Appeal or CCA. These Judges were for brevity known as the Law Lords - as they were made peers (Lords) by the Queen. The Committee was referred to simply as the Privy Council.
However the Law Lords could only hear cases from the upper tier - that is if someone was first convicted in the High Court and then had his appeal heard in the CCA. If you were tried and convicted in the Subordinate Courts then your final court of appeal was still only the High Court. Unless something came before the CCA, your case will never reach the Privy Council.
However if you're a lawyer and was punished by a Court of 3 Judges, since the 3 are High Court Judges and your matter is before them, you could appeal your disqualification and punishment to the Privy Council. However they would have no power to determine or overrule any criminal conviction, only to judge your disqualification but they would almost certainly examine the charges that led to your disqualification in the first place.
3) Brief Timeline of JBJ's Case.
a) 2 months after winning re-election, JBJ and party chairman, Wong Hong Toy were preferred 4 charges.
1) 1 charge of false accounting/reporting
2) 1 charge in regards a $2000 cheque
3) 1 charge in regards to $200 cheque
4) 1 charge in regards to a $400 cheque.
In March 1984, after a trial in the Subordinate Courts before the chief judge there - Senior District Judge (SDJ) Michael Khoo, they were found not guilty of charges 1-3 and convicted of the 4th charge and duly fined $1000.
b) The prosecution appealed against the decisions 1-3 and JBJ against decision 4. Then Chief Justice Wee Chong Jin heard the appeal in May 1984 and gave his verdict in April 1985. His decision was:
1) Charge 1 - reversed SDJ Khoo's decision and ordered a retrial
2) Charges 2-3 - allowed prosecution's appeal and fined each $1000 per charge
3) Dismissed JBJ's appeal in charge no 4 and upheld SDJ's verdict/decision.
c) In June 1985, JBJ applied leave from CJ Wee to have the matter referred to the CCA for a judicial review on questions of law and public interest pertaining to his decision on the verdicts issued by SDJ Khoo. The CJ rejected the application. Nonetheless they tried to petition the CCA separately.
d) In October 1985, the CCA comprising Justices FA Chua, Lai Kew Chai and LP Thean rejected the application because technically they could not hear it unless the earlier High Court Judge (in this the CJ sitting as an appellate Judge for a Subordinate Court matter) gave leave to refer the matter to them. The CJ did not grant leave.
e) JBJ's next step was to seek to have the retrial of the accounts charge transferred to the High Court. A fresh trial in the High Court would mean an appeal all the way up the Privy Council if need be. An application was made for this to Justice LP Thean, who surprisingly rejected it (I'll explain later). The Judge rejected it and it was sent back to the Subordinate Courts.
f) The retrial was heard by Errol Foenander who had replaced Michael Khoo as SDJ. He found them guilty of the accounts charge which was also the most serious charge. They were sentenced to 3 months jail in April 1986. Both men appealed the sentence and convictions.
g) In November 1986, Justice Lai Kew Chai sitting as the Appellate Judge for a Magistrate's Appeal heard their appeal. He upheld the verdict but then astonishingly varied the sentence. The 3 month jail term was reduced to 1 month and an additional fine of $5000 was imposed. This fine exceeded the amount for anyone sitting or applying to be an MP convicted of a criminal. charge.
h) JBJ was not only then jailed for a month together with Wong, but as a result lost his seat as Member for Anson.
i) Again JBJ made an application for leave to have Justice Lai's decision referred to the CCA (and possibly the Privy Council) as a matter of law and public interest. Again this was rejected and he went to jail to serve that 1 month term.
j) Because he was convicted of a serious crime, the Law Society moved to refer the matter to the Court of 3 Judges (of the High Court) so that he should show cause why he should not be struck off the rolls of lawyers.
k) The matter came before the 3 judges - CJ Wee, Justice FA Chua and Judicial Commissioner Chan Sek Keong. JBJ applied to have the CJ disqualify himself since the Court would inevitably have to look at some of the decisions undertaken by the CJ. He disagreed. The issue was never in any doubt since he was convicted of a serious charge - he was duly struck off although he applied for a stay of execution until the Privy Council heard the appeal. It was denied and he ordered struck off in January 1988. An appeal was made to the Privy Council.
l) 5 Law Lords heard the appeal pertaining to JBJ's disqualification. They were the Lord Bridge of Harwich, Lords Ackner, Oliver, Jauncey and Templeman. In doing so, they had to examine the original charges, the convictions and the legal process. They reached a verdict in October 1988, delivered on 21st November 1988.
m) In doing so, they found the 4 charges totally wrong and unmerited. They expressed shock at some of the decisions taken by the CJ, the CCA and Justice Lai and further found it wrong that the CJ didn't disqualify himself. JBJ and Wong they opined were wrongly convicted and had to serve jail time for offences they were innocent of.
n) Since they could only overturn the disqualification, they did so and had him reinstated. They then expressed a desire that a petition be made to the President to pardon the men and remove the ban on parliamentary disqualification.
4) Key Findings by the Privy Council.
You can and should read the full judgment here. However I'll just mention the key points. First the facts of the case:
Case background.
In 1972, the WP sued PAP MP Tay Boon Too for slander over remarks he made during the general election campaign. They failed and were ordered to pay costs of $17,000 which remained unpaid. In 1980 JBJ stood and lost in the GE. The mother of his election agent (Mdm Chiew) brought an election petition against JBJ's opponent. This was also unsuccessful and she was ordered to pay costs.
JBJ was duly elected in the 1981 Anson by-election. In 1982, MP Tay's debt was still not fully paid up. Meanwhile bankruptcy proceedings were taken against Mdm Chiew. A doctor, Ivy Chew issued the WP a cheque for $2000. Wong wanted this cheque given to Mdm Chiew's lawyers instead to help her out in her bankruptcy matters.
Meanwhile a Mr Ping donated a $200 cheque to the WP, which Wong got him to alter the 'bearer' cancelation. This was then deposited into his own account and the money withdrawn to give to Mdm Chiew. Mdm Chiew later handed monies including the sums from the $2000 and $200 cheques to her lawyers to deal with the bankruptcy. MP Tay's lawyers also made an application to execute re-payment from the WP. On the same day a Willie Lim issued a $400 cheque to the WP. On June 1st the Official Receiver was appointed to receive WP's assets in order to get MP Tay his balance monies. Wong later invited Willie to alter the cheque from crossed to cash.
In July the Official Receiver (OR) requested the WP Treasurer to file his accounts from 1980 to June 1982. He filed but made no references to any of these cheques. Later both JBJ and Wong were given a form by the OR, 'supposedly' a statutory declaration affirming the accounts as correct. However under the Law it was not deemed a statutory declaration since it omitted certain key words. The OR later used these forms to swear an affidavit in court as true and correct statements given to him by JBJ and Wong on the accounts of the WP.
Because of this, they were later charged for 3 offences arising from their conduct vis-à-vis the cheques and a fourth for a false declaration in regards to the party accounts submitted.
Rulings
I'll just touch briefly on the rulings. The Privy Council ruled that SDJ Khoo was correct to throw out the accounts reporting charge because it was not a statutory declaration, even though it was later used as part of 1 by the OR. For the first 2 cheque charges, he deemed that the cheque was not yet material property of the WP. In fact both the doctor and Mr Ping had agreed to let the WP do whatever they wanted with the money, the doctor in fact issued a note to this affect. The party agreed in an Exco meeting to use it to help Mdm Chiew. Furthermore the SDJ noted that the prosecution failed to call these 2 as witnesses to verify this when they had the opportunity to. He found that the prosecution failed to prove that the WP purposely decided to do these to prevent payment to MP Tay.
He only found them guilty of the 4th charge because Willie Lim was asked to change it after the OR upon a request by MP Tay notified the WP of this. The Privy Council then ruled on the matter in relation to the timeline referred above in para 3.
1) The CJ was wrong to determine that this was a statutory declaration. He was also wrong to consider the $2000 and $200 cheques as property of the WP. He was also wrong in suggesting that the onus was on the defence to call the 2 donors to rebut the prosecution's case. It should be the prosecution's.
2) He was wrong in not granting leave for the CCA to hear the merits although it was in the public interest to do so.
3) Justice LP Thean's decision not to allow a review was astonishing. They did not understand that how an MP and party chairman's case would not be in the public interest.
4) The decisions reached by both SDJ Foenander (re-trial) and Justice Lai (appeal) were wrong. Instead of considering what SDJ Khoo had noted, they took the CJ's long convoluted reasoning.
5) Justice Lai's reasoning for not granting leave was wrong too. He held it was neither a case of law and/or public interest.
6) They also found that the CJ was wrong to sit on the panel on the Court of 3 Judges. The requirement that he preside over such issues is not mandatory. Moreover since it would involve questioning his own decisions, it was wrong for him not to disqualify himself. Simply put, it was asking 2 other junior judges to look into the CJ's own decision making while he was also on the same panel! They found the CJ's refusal to disqualify himself as absurd.
7) They ruled the Law Society's decision not to examine the reasons for conviction was wrong. However the Court of 3 Judges agreed correctly that it should examine them, although they still arrived at the same result - guilty on all counts.
8) They found they whole accounts charge wrong - it was not a statutory declaration, although the information contained therein was later used in 1. Allowing this would mean every time you submit something and if it's later used as part of a declaration by a third party, you could be found guilty of perjury. It makes no difference whether this would be used in court later, the fact remained that it was not an official and legal statutory declaration in the first place when submitted.
9) The arguments on the first 2 cheques were logical but somehow missed but the later judges. A cheque issued is not fully one's property until it is cashed. Supposing you give Y a cheque, he can at any time cancel it. You can also ask him to alter it (back-date - post date etc). If Y withdraws the cheque or cancels it, you cannot sue him for it. It's still negotiable. It was always open for the WP to negotiate with the donors to alter the reasons for granting the cheque or to convert it for something else. Instead of donating to the party, they could ask the donors to make it a donation for Mdm Chiew. The donors were duly briefed of this.
10) They took exception with the CJ's grounds for overruling SDJ Khoo, who had the benefit of testimony and observing the conduct of witnesses. He could only reject SDJ's finding of fact if the SDJ himself found the appellants as not being credible. He wrongly assessed a trial's judge's assessment of facts and further wrongly shifted the onus of proof from prosecution to defence.
11) The 4th charge was so obvious - it was never presented. Mr Lim clearly did not want to donate money only for it to go to MP Tay and that's why he changed it from crossed to cash. This became a personal cheque to whoever in the WP who could use it for whatever purpose.
12) In closing the Law Lords expressed a deep disquiet at a series of misjudgements that made JBJ and Wong suffer a grievous injustice. They were jailed and disgraced for offences they were not guilty of. While they can re-instate JBJ they have no power to right the wrongs he suffered. They hoped that a petition tot the President would rectify this.
Conclusion.
Clearly from reading the facts of the case, a grave injustice was suffered by JBJ and Wong. The judgment of the Privy Council was very sound and in no way biased to him or against the prosecution and the Singapore Govt. The very principles they used are the very same ones that our Supreme Court uses today. Yet shortly thereafter all appeals tot he Privy Council was revoked by a change in Law. The Govt refused to consider the petition made by him and grant a pardon, the term they used then was 'that he was not remorseful.'
Why should he be remorseful for offences he didn't commit? In the last decade, Justice V K Rajah (now the AG) slammed the prosecution for suggesting that a teacher he acquitted of molest was 'technically guilty.' Justice Rajah ruled that once the highest court ruled on a person's innocence, he was innocent before the Law. There's no such thing as 'technically guilty.' Similarly JBJ and Wong were deemed innocent by the highest court in the land then. They are innocent and should be rightly pardoned. They need not be expected to show remorse.
I hope the new Cabinet and PM will consider this and advice the President to issue a pardon. This is not a matter of politics, maybe they are uncomfortable with Kenneth Jeyaretnam as a leader of an opposition party. But JBJ still has another son - Phillip. They can announce to him and not necessarily Kenneth that they will be advising a pardon. An innocent man went to jail, he may have been found wanting by the PAP in other areas, but for this, he did no wrong. His memory should be unblemished and not have a criminal record on it. The correct thing to do on his upcoming death anniversary should be to pardon him, as JBJ said - make it right Singapore.
