15 October 2008
According to a media background brief released by the Attorney-General’s Chambers on 14 Oct, the Attorney-General has applied to court for contempt proceedings to be instituted against Tan Liang Joo John, Isrizal Bin Mohamed Isa and Muhammad Shafi’ie Syahmi Bin Sariman.
John Tan is the assistant secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party while Isrizal and Shafi’ie are citizen activists who have involved themselves in a wide range of social and civil issues and were members of the now-defunct SG Human Rights advocacy group.
What have these three people done to warrant such action by the Attorney-General?
According to the media brief, during the hearing in May this year for the assessment of damages in respect of a defamation suit brought by MM Lee Kuan Yew and PM Lee Hsien Loong against the SDP, these three appeared in the New Supreme Court Building wearing T-shirts bearing a picture of a kangaroo in judge’s robes.
John Tan was also alleged to have said “This is a kangaroo court” to MM Lee when the latter walked past him outside Court No. 4B. The media brief does not state whether there were witnesses to this exclamation or how loudly the exclamation was made.
The media brief goes on to mention that on 27 July 2008, SDP published an article on its website entitled “Police question activists over kangaroo T-shirts” which reproduced a photograph of the three people wearing the T-shirts mentioned above.
The conclusion is then made that through the above-mentioned actions, the three people “have engaged in a deliberate and calculated course of action to impugn the reputation of and undermine public confidence in the Singapore Judiciary, and to lower its authority in the administration of justice in Singapore.”
I do not understand how this conclusion can be so hastily derived.
Firstly, how does the mere act of wearing a T-shirt with a particular animal depicted on it impugn the integrity of the judiciary, even granting that the term “kangaroo court” is commonly used to mean a sham court with unfair proceedings? Kangaroos are commonly depicted on tourist souvenirs from Australia like mugs, hair bands, key chains, and such. Perhaps they should be banned from use in courtrooms as well, given the sensitivity of the Courts to this particular cute animal which I personally adore.
Besides John Tan, did the other two activists raise their voices in public and condemn the judiciary thus, or did they make postings on the Internet to that effect?
Secondly, the article published by SDP (which can be found at this link) is just a factual statement elaborating on what actions have been initiated by the authorities against the 3 activists. The article by SDP does not provide its own opinions on why the activists did what they did, nor does it discuss the merits or lack thereof of the ongoing investigations.
But notwithstanding these facts, the Attorney-General’s Chambers has cited the SDP in this regard, saying that “the article and photograph were meant to give wider publicity to the allegation that the Court was a kangaroo court“?
In fact, the same photograph first appeared in the Straits Times the day after the activists appeared outside the courthouse. The SDP only reported about the police investigation a full two months after the Straits Times story was published. But the Attorney-General’s Chambers’s press release made absolutely no mention of the newspaper and its photograph. If the SDP is cited for this photograph, should not the Straits Times be cited as well, for giving first-hand publicity to the photograph which the AGC alleges as depicting the Court to be a kangaroo Court?
For the reasons given above, I find the AGC’s press release highly unsatisfactory, leaving more questions open than it answers, and creating doubt in ordinary citizens like me who are now left with the impression that a wide range of actions can be potentially punished as long as the authorities choose to interpret them in an unseemly light and deem them worthy of rebuke and censure.
The media release explains the basis for contempt of court provisions in this manner: “Unlike other public figures, judges do not have the liberty of entering into a public debate or defending themselves in a public forum when their integrity is attacked. The administration of justice is a matter of public interest. The Attorney-General as guardian of the public interest therefore has the responsibility to institute contempt proceedings when the integrity and independence of the courts or judges is attacked.”
I believe that it is precisely because the Attorney-General is vested with such sweeping powers, that he should use these powers judiciously and only in circumstances where there is clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties involved had tried to insult the Courts with a malicious intent and without regard to facts.
Finally, the media release took a special effort to assert that “the Attorney-General is not a politician“. I wonder why they were compelled to emphasize this. Does it have bearing on this case? If so, why?
According to a media background brief released by the Attorney-General’s Chambers on 14 Oct, the Attorney-General has applied to court for contempt proceedings to be instituted against Tan Liang Joo John, Isrizal Bin Mohamed Isa and Muhammad Shafi’ie Syahmi Bin Sariman.
John Tan is the assistant secretary-general of the Singapore Democratic Party while Isrizal and Shafi’ie are citizen activists who have involved themselves in a wide range of social and civil issues and were members of the now-defunct SG Human Rights advocacy group.
What have these three people done to warrant such action by the Attorney-General?
According to the media brief, during the hearing in May this year for the assessment of damages in respect of a defamation suit brought by MM Lee Kuan Yew and PM Lee Hsien Loong against the SDP, these three appeared in the New Supreme Court Building wearing T-shirts bearing a picture of a kangaroo in judge’s robes.
John Tan was also alleged to have said “This is a kangaroo court” to MM Lee when the latter walked past him outside Court No. 4B. The media brief does not state whether there were witnesses to this exclamation or how loudly the exclamation was made.
The media brief goes on to mention that on 27 July 2008, SDP published an article on its website entitled “Police question activists over kangaroo T-shirts” which reproduced a photograph of the three people wearing the T-shirts mentioned above.
The conclusion is then made that through the above-mentioned actions, the three people “have engaged in a deliberate and calculated course of action to impugn the reputation of and undermine public confidence in the Singapore Judiciary, and to lower its authority in the administration of justice in Singapore.”
I do not understand how this conclusion can be so hastily derived.
Firstly, how does the mere act of wearing a T-shirt with a particular animal depicted on it impugn the integrity of the judiciary, even granting that the term “kangaroo court” is commonly used to mean a sham court with unfair proceedings? Kangaroos are commonly depicted on tourist souvenirs from Australia like mugs, hair bands, key chains, and such. Perhaps they should be banned from use in courtrooms as well, given the sensitivity of the Courts to this particular cute animal which I personally adore.
Besides John Tan, did the other two activists raise their voices in public and condemn the judiciary thus, or did they make postings on the Internet to that effect?
Secondly, the article published by SDP (which can be found at this link) is just a factual statement elaborating on what actions have been initiated by the authorities against the 3 activists. The article by SDP does not provide its own opinions on why the activists did what they did, nor does it discuss the merits or lack thereof of the ongoing investigations.
But notwithstanding these facts, the Attorney-General’s Chambers has cited the SDP in this regard, saying that “the article and photograph were meant to give wider publicity to the allegation that the Court was a kangaroo court“?
In fact, the same photograph first appeared in the Straits Times the day after the activists appeared outside the courthouse. The SDP only reported about the police investigation a full two months after the Straits Times story was published. But the Attorney-General’s Chambers’s press release made absolutely no mention of the newspaper and its photograph. If the SDP is cited for this photograph, should not the Straits Times be cited as well, for giving first-hand publicity to the photograph which the AGC alleges as depicting the Court to be a kangaroo Court?
For the reasons given above, I find the AGC’s press release highly unsatisfactory, leaving more questions open than it answers, and creating doubt in ordinary citizens like me who are now left with the impression that a wide range of actions can be potentially punished as long as the authorities choose to interpret them in an unseemly light and deem them worthy of rebuke and censure.
The media release explains the basis for contempt of court provisions in this manner: “Unlike other public figures, judges do not have the liberty of entering into a public debate or defending themselves in a public forum when their integrity is attacked. The administration of justice is a matter of public interest. The Attorney-General as guardian of the public interest therefore has the responsibility to institute contempt proceedings when the integrity and independence of the courts or judges is attacked.”
I believe that it is precisely because the Attorney-General is vested with such sweeping powers, that he should use these powers judiciously and only in circumstances where there is clear and unmistakable evidence that the parties involved had tried to insult the Courts with a malicious intent and without regard to facts.
Finally, the media release took a special effort to assert that “the Attorney-General is not a politician“. I wonder why they were compelled to emphasize this. Does it have bearing on this case? If so, why?
