Blogger Questions Chia Ti Lik's Legal Analysis!

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Just A Point of Legal Information

September 17, 2008 at 12:15 pm | In But Seriously |

Chia Ti Lik in his post “Revelations from Bukit Merah West NPC” seems to indicate that “the Parliamentary statute of the Miscellaneous Offences Act has been arbitrarily expanded by the Singapore Police Force or the AG-C.”

Mr Chia probably did not have the benefit of Legal Analysis, Writing and Research (LAWR) or Singapore Legal System (SLS) as his first year foundational course. As he himself admitted he “had never been an exceptionally bright student. Many a time legal concepts did escape me for awhile before I finally grasped them.”The thing is that there is legislation on the matter. It is the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) (Assemblies and Processions) Rules (Cap. 184, R.1, 1997 Rev. Ed. Sing.) [reproduced at the end of this post].

It’s a subsidiary legislation (or delegated legislation in the UK). Basically it is a law made by a government body due to the powers ascribed to it from a statute (primary legislation, the one parliament debates about). It is usually done because there are minute details that would take too much time if Parliament were to debate it.

So it is not arbitrary in nature, it is delegated authority. Under Section 5(1) of the Miscellaneous Offences Act “The
Minister may make rules…” So to answer Mr Chia’s question, it probably is the Home Affairs Minister who expanded the legislation, but it was his statutory duty/right.

As a practicing lawyer Mr Chia should have known better and should have checked subsidiary legislation. I find it very irresponsible for a practitioner of the law to make wild accusations about matters of the law. A layperson could make such mistakes as subsidiary legislation is not readily available online, and they probably would not know about them anyway. But lawyers should know. We have access to law libraries and, if not, we would still have an inkling of the fact that there could be subsidiary legislation.

I hope that Mr Chia would clarify his statement made at Sgpolitics.net, so as not to mislead the general public into thinking that our society is one without rules.
Modern Burrow—

MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES (PUBLIC ORDER AND NUISANCE) ACT
(CHAPTER 184, SECTION 5 (1))
MISCELLANEOUS OFFENCES (PUBLIC ORDER AND NUISANCE) (ASSEMBLIES AND PROCESSIONS) RULES

[9th June 1989]

Citation
1. These Rules may be cited as the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) (Assemblies and Processions) Rules.

Application
2. —(1) Subject to paragraph (2), these Rules shall apply to any assembly or procession of 5 or more persons in any public road, public place or place of public resort intended —

(a) to demonstrate support for or opposition to the views or actions of any person;

(b) to publicise a cause or campaign; or

(c) to mark or commemorate any event.

(2) These Rules shall not apply to the following assemblies or processions:

(a) any assembly held in the Botanic Gardens with the consent or written permission of the National Parks Board;

(b) any assembly held in connection with any wedding or funeral —

(i) on any State land;

(ii) in any Housing and Development Board estate; or

(iii) in any public road,

with the consent or written permission of the Commissioner of Lands, the Estates Officer of the Housing and Development Board estate or the Chief Executive of the Land Transport Authority of Singapore, as the case may be;

(c) any sporting event held in any public place designated for use for sporting events;

(d) any assembly in any place of public resort for the purpose for which the place of public resort is licensed under any written law;

(e) any election meeting to which the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) (Election Meetings) Rules (R 2) apply;

(ea) any festival auction assembly to which the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) (Festival Auction Assembly) Rules 2000 (G.N. No. S 303/2000) apply;

(eb) any assembly held in connection with any public entertainment that is licensed under the Public Entertainments Act (Cap. 257);

(f) any assembly or procession held by or under the direction or control of the Government;

(g) any assembly or procession held wholly within the area in Hong Lim Park known as the Speakers’ Corner (more particularly delineated in the Schedule) where —

(i) the promoter or promoters of the assembly or procession are all citizens of Singapore; and

(ii) the participants in the assembly or procession are all citizens or permanent residents of Singapore; and

(h) any assembly held wholly within a building and where —

(i) the promoter or promoters of the assembly are all citizens of Singapore;

(ii) there are only citizens and permanent residents of Singapore participating in the assembly;

(iii) the promoter or promoters, or an authorised agent of the promoter or promoters, is present at all times during the assembly; and

(iv) the assembly does not deal with any matter —

(A) which relates, directly or indirectly, to any religious belief or to religion generally; or

(B) which may cause feelings of enmity, hatred, ill-will or hostility between different racial or religious groups in Singapore.

 

[myjohnson]

In other words, nothing is allowed unless they say yes? Wonder if there's any sub clauses dealing with my having a conversation about politics while taking a dump at the same time. The law is the law. But what about unjust laws. Will we see 'lee majeste' laws in our lifetime?

Found source of above thread in http://modernburrow.lah.cc/2008/09/17/just-a-point-of-legal-information/

Two comments featured.

 

[Darkcloud]

Chia Ti Lik is another IMH case, sooner or later. LOL.

 

[methink]

So every lawyer who questioned the PAP is a nut case?

 

[lockeliberal]

Dear Porifirio

Ouch :_)) But I guess we are talking about a three hundred dollar an hour rate billable lawyer with a 2/2 from NUS. But heck in a land where WKS still gets his million dollar salary for letting MSK escape, No heads are rolling at Temasek for our bad initial investments, I guess a three hundred dollar an hour 2/2 lawyer that does not really understand law, or makes basic mistakes in law is forgivable :_))

Two options really, either he knew and he deliberately left it out a sin of omission or he really did not know a sin of errr slight incompetence. Anyways I wonder what that Kim Jong Ill look alike will say about this "mistake".

Thus far I have seen and read in his blogging, complained about the Police retaining his handphone when he got arrested. defended G Nair sough donations for him for his personal account, then dropped his case complaining about to much work. This however really is the icing on the cake. Anyways some will say that because he goes/ cries etc to jail. he walks and talks the talk, a fine upstanding member of opposition and civil society and a fine family man. All the above is forgiven :_))




Locke

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Yes but this appears to be different from the Blogger's issue with Chia Ti Lik's legal analysis

. The law is the law. But what about unjust laws. .

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Locke,

Unlike you I do not have the pleasure or otherwise of knowing Chia Ti Lik on a personal basis. I am only making observations from what I read in the media and on the net including Chia Ti Lik's own personal views.

Like his friend Ng E-Jay, I think his heart appears to be in the right place and his passion is commendable. However with due respect, I think like Ng E-Jay perhaps Chia Ti Lik should learn to walk first before running or to quote Goh Meng Seng who notwithstanding his flaws does make sense at times "do not wear a hat that is too big", as sometimes Chia Ti Lik's passionate zeal may cast doubts on his CREDIBILITY, something that takes a lifetime to build and can be destroyed in a flash. Also beware of HUBRIS.

Cheers

Dear Porifirio

Ouch :_)) But I guess we are talking about a three hundred dollar an hour rate billable lawyer with a 2/2 from NUS. But heck in a land where WKS still gets his million dollar salary for letting MSK escape, No heads are rolling at Temasek for our bad initial investments, I guess a three hundred dollar an hour 2/2 lawyer that does not really understand law, or makes basic mistakes in law is forgivable :_))

Two options really, either he knew and he deliberately left it out a sin of omission or he really did not know a sin of errr slight incompetence. Anyways I wonder what that Kim Jong Ill look alike will say about this "mistake".

Thus far I have seen and read in his blogging, complained about the Police retaining his handphone when he got arrested. defended G Nair sough donations for him for his personal account, then dropped his case complaining about to much work. This however really is the icing on the cake. Anyways some will say that because he goes/ cries etc to jail. he walks and talks the talk, a fine upstanding member of opposition and civil society and a fine family man. All the above is forgiven :_))




Locke

 

[Teetdiro]

Shave head

bump then lurk as soon as possibleRecently, a man walked into my barbershop asking how much for a haircut. "Eight dollars," I answered. "And for a shave?" "Five dollars." "All right," he said, settling into the barber chair. "Shave my head." ------------The WOW gold Online Store, Open 24/7 Looking to buy wow gold, Items or Accounts? You would find the cheapest gold here. We always online 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, any questions regarding world of warcraft gold, powerleveling,wow leveling ,warcraft gold, just talk to our representatives using our 24/7 live chat service.world of warcraft gold,wow leveling,

 

[leetahbar]

Locke,

Unlike you I do not have the pleasure or otherwise of knowing Chia Ti Lik on a personal basis. I am only making observations from what I read in the media and on the net including Chia Ti Lik's own personal views.

Like his friend Ng E-Jay, I think his heart appears to be in the right place and his passion is commendable. However with due respect, I think like Ng E-Jay perhaps Chia Ti Lik should learn to walk first before running or to quote Goh Meng Seng who notwithstanding his flaws does make sense at times "do not wear a hat that is too big", as sometimes Chia Ti Lik's passionate zeal may cast doubts on his CREDIBILITY, something that takes a lifetime to build and can be destroyed in a flash. Also beware of HUBRIS.

Cheers

gohmengseng though after switching political party does not flame his old party. chia on the other hand instigates other to do all the dirty flaming.

WHY?

u mentioned PASSIONATE. passionate about self-servicing or more for self-centredness? they have never made clear about their agendas especially the hidden ones.

why support SDP instead of registering themselves as their MEMBER? what is the crux here?

 

[leetahbar]

there is no answer u will ever get from them. they only demand answers from you...but not the reverse.

 

[myjohnson]

Yes but this appears to be different from the Blogger's issue with Chia Ti Lik's legal analysis

Credibility the issue here? I can hardly see any signs of it in the present landscape from both sides of the political divide. With regard to whether it will return to haunt him in the future, the typical short memory of S'poreons will make it non pertinent.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

Perhaps, but Chia Ti Lik and his SDP friends appear to be trying to leverage on the alternative internet media to gain credibility and trust. And the informed rational mature non partisan net crowd are nobody's fools (neither PAP nor the opposition).

Credibility the issue here? I can hardly see any signs of it in the present landscape from both sides of the political divide. With regard to whether it will return to haunt him in the future, the typical short memory of S'poreons will make it non pertinent.

 

[leetahbar]

chao ah quah want to be GMS spokes(man)bapok but only know how to tell lies!

gohmengseng was sacked! he's dying hoping and praying he can re-joint them! so how to flame? stupid retard bapok you're exposed again .... hahaha

chia instigates what flaming? you fucking liar!

why u think you are being sent here to attack me - a nobody? my posting is just like another other. why does it seem to ANTAGONIZE u and your bunch of clones from the nefarious hypocritical FANTASICK 4?

 

[leetahbar]

i'm a swine hunter.

how many person's spokeman as u acting for huh? like very kaypoh leh. u spoke for ejay. now u spoke for chia. u spoke for all those linked to the FANTASICK FOUR. u one of the snakey shapeshifters is it?

 

[LaMei]

Hi Porfirio Rubirosa,

Thanks for taking interest in this issue which in fact, has open a can of worms..

Allowed me to say something (not in defense of CTL)..

The police inspector which was in-charge of the case, he himself does not want to clearly explain to me what offense have I committed this time round.

He expected me to go to AGC website to do a search myself..(which I did) or to ask a lawyer about it..

After speaking to some friends from the legal sector, I was told by them that;

1) subsidiary legislation is not made freely available unlike primary legislation.

2) it is meant for practitioners and govt departments to use in administering the law

3) since it is not meant to be public knowledge..(how the hell does this inspector expect me to know and find out myself from the AGC's website?)

4) therefore why should definitions and restrictions be made in subsidiary and not primary legislation? (is the intention to keep the actual scope of the law from the people and to use it only to trap certain groups?)

With all due respect, if even the police cannot / don't want / afraid to tell me what exactly is the offense I have committed, how do they expect the one being questioned to know?

My point to make is, the MHA are obviously bending all their laws just to "do us in"..

 

[leetahbar]

ya..like illegal parking is "leegal" to some.:p

 

[BobKHSim]

ya..like illegal parking is "leegal" to some.:p

talking about illegal here's a timely reminder for the chao ah kwa:

Gay indecent acts:

Penal Code Section 377A states, “Any male person who, in public or private, commits, or abets the commission of, or procures or attempts to procure the commission by any male person of, any act of gross indecency with another male person, shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years.”

Cheating:

Whoever, by deceiving any person, fraudulently or dishonestly induces the person so deceived to deliver any property to any person, or to consent that any person shall retain any property, or intentionally induces the person so deceived to do or omit to do anything which he or she would not do or omit if he or she were not so deceived, and which act or omission causes or is likely to cause damage or harm to that person in body, mind, reputation or property, is said to "cheat". For example, A cheats if he intentionally deceives Z into a belief that A means to repay any money that Z may lend to him when A does not intend to repay it, and thereby dishonestly induces Z to lend him money. Cheating is punished with imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine, or both.

Father bashing:

Voluntarily causing hurt – A person causes hurt when he or she causes bodily pain, disease or infirmity to any person. Whoever does any act with the intention of causing hurt to any person, or with the knowledge that he is likely to cause hurt to any person, and does cause hurt to any person, voluntarily causes hurt. The penalty for voluntarily causing hurt is imprisonment of up to one year, or a fine of up to S$1,000, or both.

Theft of Temple Funds:

Theft is committed when a person, intending to take dishonestly any movable property out of the possession of any person without that person’s consent, moves that property in order to effect the taking. The penalty for theft is imprisonment of up to three years, or a fine, or both. It is more common, however, for offenders to be charged with committing theft in a building, tent or vessel, which is used as a human dwelling, or for the custody of property. The penalty for this more serious offense is imprisonment of up to seven years, and also a fine.

 

[Porfirio Rubirosa]

La Mei,

Appreciate the reply.

Well I guess you shall find out the purported "offence" if and when you are charged in court. We shall then also be able to examine whether "MHA are obviously bending all their laws just to "do us in"..

Now as for your question/statement

1) subsidiary legislation is not made freely available unlike primary legislation.

2) it is meant for practitioners and govt departments to use in administering the law

3) since it is not meant to be public knowledge..(how the hell does this inspector expect me to know and find out myself from the AGC's website?)

"4) therefore why should definitions and restrictions be made in subsidiary and not primary legislation? (is the intention to keep the actual scope of the law from the people and to use it only to trap certain groups?)"

I suggest you once again check with your legal eagle friends on the purpose and nature behind Subsidiary Legislation before making the same because it appears that you maybe under a misconception on this issue.

Oh and I believe the public can freely access Subsidiary Legislation at Supreme Court and Subordinate Court libraries, also at NLB, the University Libraries and Temasek Poly Library etc, not sure of free online access though.

Finally let me say this, the reason I started this thread was not to attack you or Chia Ti Lik (so sorry that your apparent nemisis and your apparent supporters had to be drawn into the fray, what to do can't be helped in an open forum like this) but to try and get an informed balanced view on whether Chia Ti Lik's legal analysis on this issue does indeed pass muster or is Chia Ti Lik being disingenuous? In this regard I wonder whether Chia Ti Lik himself would oblige with a reply if and when he has the time? No obligations though

Cheers

Hi Porfirio Rubirosa,

Thanks for taking interest in this issue which in fact, has open a can of worms..

Allowed me to say something (not in defense of CTL)..

The police inspector which was in-charge of the case, he himself does not want to clearly explain to me what offense have I committed this time round.

He expected me to go to AGC website to do a search myself..(which I did) or to ask a lawyer about it..

After speaking to some friends from the legal sector, I was told by them that;

1) subsidiary legislation is not made freely available unlike primary legislation.

2) it is meant for practitioners and govt departments to use in administering the law

3) since it is not meant to be public knowledge..(how the hell does this inspector expect me to know and find out myself from the AGC's website?)

4) therefore why should definitions and restrictions be made in subsidiary and not primary legislation? (is the intention to keep the actual scope of the law from the people and to use it only to trap certain groups?)

With all due respect, if even the police cannot / don't want / afraid to tell me what exactly is the offense I have committed, how do they expect the one being questioned to know?

My point to make is, the MHA are obviously bending all their laws just to "do us in"..

 

[myjohnson]

All in all, this would just be a tear in the knickers for some. Much more for some others whose genitalia are exposed for all to see.

 

[LaMei]

Hi P.R...

My friends are no legal eagle, just ordinary lawyers trying to make a living in SG..so perhaps they might be the 2/2 type who might not make it to DPP level.. :-)

You see, even the police Inspector was unsure about telling me the offence I have commited, if he truly knows exactly what offence, he would have quoted me the law there and then.

I am more forgiving about such analysis and i understand where CTL is coming from.

Being in the forum long enough, I only engage in discussion and would not have engage you if I think your intention is to attack..

Thanks once again for taking the time to reply to me..

cheers..