I say No Case To Answer for WB/IMF Speakers Cornered PS1512 & others

[uncleyap]

http://uncleyap-news.blogspot.com/2009/11/i-say-no-case-to-answer-for-wbimf.html


<!-- Begin .post -->





I say No Case To Answer for WB/IMF Speakers Cornered PS1512 & others









http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ke74GFuXRms/SvJp558r6VI/AAAAAAAACzw/u_vKj8-VkcI/s1600-h/5.png">

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ke74GFuXRms/SvJp558r6VI/AAAAAAAACzw/u_vKj8-VkcI/s400/5.png" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5400495346699462994" border="0" />
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ke74GFuXRms/SvJpspWbcOI/AAAAAAAACzo/XHaZLBFF5Qc/s1600-h/UY_T-shirt_BACK.JPG">

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_Ke74GFuXRms/SvJpspWbcOI/AAAAAAAACzo/XHaZLBFF5Qc/s400/UY_T-shirt_BACK.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5400495118905733346" border="0" />
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ke74GFuXRms/SvJphdqxkcI/AAAAAAAACzg/qbLHyNt9Fb8/s1600-h/UY_speaking_media.JPG">

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Ke74GFuXRms/SvJphdqxkcI/AAAAAAAACzg/qbLHyNt9Fb8/s400/UY_speaking_media.JPG" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5400494926791283138" border="0" />
http://www.blogger.com/uncleyap.name/PS1512_no_case.pdf">My court document PDF file online

For the 3 days of stand off at Speakers Cornered during WB/IMF 2006 which the hearing had went on for over a year from 2008 till today, it is already APEC 2009 already :-), the prosecution has just been able to close their case before yesterday and this morning in court 19, we had just entered our No Case Submissions. I say there is no case to answer, after more than a year fighting it because the prosecution still failed to raise evidence to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

However, the AGC had once and again amended their charges.

In 2008 we were charged initially for holding procession from Speakers Cornered to Parliament, without permit that I/O at that time was DSP William Goh - the same guy then ASP who investigated our CPFB 4 person protest; the same guy who arrested the TBT-18 plus me on 15.March.2008, then he got transferred to another post in 2008, and a new investigator took over the case after the case was already hearing in court.

When the case just began the AGC amended their charges against all 5, from holding procession to ATTEMPT to hold procession, from Speakers Cornered to Parliament. Obviously they could not prove that case, as most persons including myself did not reached Parliament on that day. :-)

Then at the very end of prosecution's case just before yesterday after more than a year of hearing, they had once again amended the charge! This time they realized that they prosecuted the WRONG CHARGE again after doing it for over a year, that the actual boundary of Speakers Cornered does not include those park benches from which Dr CSJ etc were speaking atop of! The amendment became that Attempted Procession from NEAR Speakers Corner instead of Speakers Corner itself! :-)

While this is most unfair because all the cross examinations and defense arguments were made for more than a year to defend a different charge, this should be a Miscarriage of Justice and I thus have the rights to apply or appeal for a re-trial!

Legally speaking, I have ala-by that I wasn't inside the legal boundary of Speakers Corner as stated in the charge, this can be deem very slight difference but for legal boundaries a tiny difference from within to outside of boundaries can be very significant, e.g. smoking within or outside the Yellow Lines defining a Smoking Zone. We are talking about several meters from the actual legal boundary on that day.





<!-- End .post -->

 

[uncleyap]

Any way this is my text:

<style type="text/css"> <!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --> </style> <sdfield type="DATETIME" sdval="40122.5038771991" sdnum="1033;1033;MM/DD/YY"></sdfield>

<sdfield type="DATETIME" sdval="40122.5038771991" sdnum="1033;1033;MM/DD/YY">11/05/09</sdfield>


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">PS1512/2008




ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">No Case To Answer




ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">Preliminary


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">For the charge of attempting to participate a procession on 16.Sept.2006 from Speakers' Corner to Parliament consisting of 7 persons listed on the charge, and ought reasonably to know that it was lacking a permit, it is the prosecution's onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

1. ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">there were 5 or more than 5 persons all sharing the common intention to do the procession
2. ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">that the way they that they had intended to proceed to parliament in a way that constitute to a procession and not just a casual walk
3. ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">that they are all aware that there wasn't a legal permit

ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">It is the submission of Yap Keng Ho the 5^th defendant that:


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">The prosecution had in their case failed to prove point #1 to #3 listed above:




ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">A) It is in the evidence that only Dr Chee had during his speech made on 16.Sept.2006 announced his plan to:

• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">proceed to Parliament and hold a rally from Speakers' Corner
• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">proceed to Suntec City and hold a rally from Parliament
• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">proceed to Istana and hold a rally from Suntec City

ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">B) He had invited people to take part, but he had not indicated weather he hold any permit or not.


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">C) He had not revealed any details nor schedule of plan how he had intended to do so:

• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">either by foot or by vehicle
• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">singly or double or in groups smaller than 5 or more than 5
• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">when he plan to reach each of these locations
• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">what sort of rallies and contents of speeches
• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">who will be speaking in these rallies

ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">D) Dr Chee had not indicated how he was going to know who had accepted his invitation, neither there were any of follow ways that people could indicate that they wish to take part:

• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">enrollment or registration
• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">wear a certain attire such as T-shirt with wordings
• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">hold flag or banner or placard
• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">raise their hands to indicate their interest
• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">voice up to answer to his call
• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">stand behind Dr. Chee or queue up somewhere

ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">E) Police had not announced that they were stopping or preventing any procession, but only had instead told a legally assembled Speakers Corner Audience that they were An Unlawful Assembly without any reasons nor explanations.


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">F) Police did ordered some sort of dispersal for all persons not wanting to take part in unlawful assembly to leave Hong Lim Park, but then they did a self-contradicting actions by force preventing people from leaving Hong Lim Park subsequently and almost immediately.


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">G) The police did so without verifying the intentions of individual at the scene, except for just only NOT MORE THAN 3 PRESONS. They had however blindly assumed that all the rest of people were sharing intention of executing plan mentioned in Dr. Chee's speech.


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">H) Police did not issue any order of reasonable crowd management, that if the members of public want to leave Speakers Corner lawfully via which exits or how they may do so, without being treated as attempting to proceed to Parliament to attend Dr. Chee's proposed rally.

1. ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">Police did not inform members of public that there were no permit for any procession nor rallies at locations proposed by Dr. Chee.

ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">J) In Tan Teck Wee's speech nothing about procession nor rallies had been mentioned.


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">K) In Mr. Gandhi's speech nothing about rallies had been mentioned.

1. ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">Miss Chee Siok Chin & Mr. Teoh & Mr. George did not gave any speech.

1. ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">Police did not speak to myself, nor Mr. Tan Teck Wee, nor Mr. Teoh nor Mr. George

ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">N) I had only brought the unreasonable enforcement acts of police to the attention of members of medias & public. I had not talked nor indicated anything regarding procession nor rallies.


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">O) Even if indeed Dr. Chee & Miss Chee & Mr. Gandhi had in the evidence indicated intention to proceed to parliament from Speakers Corner, there are only 3 of them, still less than 5. Furthermore, there is no evidence on exactly how they had wanted to proceed to Parliament, either by taxi or foot or singly or together with how many other persons.


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">P) There is no evidence raised by the prosecution regarding how the other accused persons had reasonably received information regarding the status of permit application or was there any application, except that the applicant Dr. Chee be the only person who must know.




ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">The prosecution had not proved at all, what would the objective of each accused persons be, even if they might be attempting to leave Speakers Corner. They therefore could be attempting to leave in compliance of the police's dispersal order, or had their own other destinations other than Parliament when attempting to leave Speakers Corner.


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">For 5^th defendant who did not arrived together with Dr. Chee's group and did not wear the same protest T-shirt as that group, and had separately applied for Procession & Assembly Permit apart from Dr. Chee's application, and had separately registered to be a legitimate speaker at police post, even if the 5^th defendant had intended to follow the crowd to the Parliament, he have the rights to do so legitimately as an independent observer just like the press, as long as his movement and gestures is legally and apparently apart from Dr. Chee's proposed action. All the dozens of members of press & media also have this same rights to be observers independent from Dr. Chee's proposed actions. The court should not deem each and every persons to be a part of Dr. Chee's proposed action unless these persons share the same objective and consent with Dr. Chee's proposed action. The prosecution had entirely failed to prove the stands of 5^th defendant that if he had attempted to proceed to parliament, that he was bearing an unlawful intention to participate in any procession without a permit.


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">Submission on case law:


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">I like to cite PS1348/2008 pp vs Yap Keng Ho & others before DJ John Ng at Court 15 in which all 5 accused persons were acquitted based on DJ Ng's decision that action of a casual walk is apart from that of a procession as defined by the meaning of that English word. Defendants were acquitted because a casual walk conveying themselves from Speakers's Corner Parliament to Istana does not require a permit as a procession would.


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">This is applicable in our case PS1512/2008 and others, that there is no evidence how the proposed or intended movements will be conducted, it could be either a lawful casual walk with requires no permit or an unlawful procession. In our case the venues of Speakers Corner & Parliament and Istana are ALL the same as in case PS1348/2008.


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">It is the onus of prosecution to prove that the intended or proposed conveying of persons to the Parliament was not to be in the form of a lawful casual walk which requires no police permit. But in the proceeding during prosecution's case this is not at all proven, there is no evidence raised regarding how Dr. Chee had wanted to convey himself to Parliament.


ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">It was also the onus of enforcement officers at the scene to verify and questions the accused persons weather which the police had failed:

• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">where were their destinations
• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">how would they convey themselves
• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">were they sharing the purpose and objectives with Dr. Chee
• ejaVu Sans Mono,sans-serif;">were they a member of press or media or just independent observers

​

 

[uncleyap]

<sdfield type="DATETIME" sdval="40122.5038771991" sdnum="1033;1033;MM/DD/YY">11/05/09</sdfield>


PS1512/2008




No Case To Answer




Preliminary


For the charge of attempting to participate a procession on 16.Sept.2006 from Speakers' Corner to Parliament consisting of 7 persons listed on the charge, and ought reasonably to know that it was lacking a permit, it is the prosecution's onus to prove beyond reasonable doubt that:

1. there were 5 or more than 5 persons all sharing the common intention to do the procession
2. that the way they that they had intended to proceed to parliament in a way that constitute to a procession and not just a casual walk
3. that they are all aware that there wasn't a legal permit

It is the submission of Yap Keng Ho the 5^th defendant that:


The prosecution had in their case failed to prove point #1 to #3 listed above:




A) It is in the evidence that only Dr Chee had during his speech made on 16.Sept.2006 announced his plan to:

• proceed to Parliament and hold a rally from Speakers' Corner
• proceed to Suntec City and hold a rally from Parliament
• proceed to Istana and hold a rally from Suntec City

B) He had invited people to take part, but he had not indicated weather he hold any permit or not.


C) He had not revealed any details nor schedule of plan how he had intended to do so:

• either by foot or by vehicle
• singly or double or in groups smaller than 5 or more than 5
• when he plan to reach each of these locations
• what sort of rallies and contents of speeches
• who will be speaking in these rallies

D) Dr Chee had not indicated how he was going to know who had accepted his invitation, neither there were any of follow ways that people could indicate that they wish to take part:

• enrollment or registration
• wear a certain attire such as T-shirt with wordings
• hold flag or banner or placard
• raise their hands to indicate their interest
• voice up to answer to his call
• stand behind Dr. Chee or queue up somewhere

E) Police had not announced that they were stopping or preventing any procession, but only had instead told a legally assembled Speakers Corner Audience that they were An Unlawful Assembly without any reasons nor explanations.


F) Police did ordered some sort of dispersal for all persons not wanting to take part in unlawful assembly to leave Hong Lim Park, but then they did a self-contradicting actions by force preventing people from leaving Hong Lim Park subsequently and almost immediately.


G) The police did so without verifying the intentions of individual at the scene, except for just only NOT MORE THAN 3 PRESONS. They had however blindly assumed that all the rest of people were sharing intention of executing plan mentioned in Dr. Chee's speech.


H) Police did not issue any order of reasonable crowd management, that if the members of public want to leave Speakers Corner lawfully via which exits or how they may do so, without being treated as attempting to proceed to Parliament to attend Dr. Chee's proposed rally.

1. Police did not inform members of public that there were no permit for any procession nor rallies at locations proposed by Dr. Chee.

J) In Tan Teck Wee's speech nothing about procession nor rallies had been mentioned.


K) In Mr. Gandhi's speech nothing about rallies had been mentioned.

1. Miss Chee Siok Chin & Mr. Teoh & Mr. George did not gave any speech.

1. Police did not speak to myself, nor Mr. Tan Teck Wee, nor Mr. Teoh nor Mr. George

N) I had only brought the unreasonable enforcement acts of police to the attention of members of medias & public. I had not talked nor indicated anything regarding procession nor rallies.


O) Even if indeed Dr. Chee & Miss Chee & Mr. Gandhi had in the evidence indicated intention to proceed to parliament from Speakers Corner, there are only 3 of them, still less than 5. Furthermore, there is no evidence on exactly how they had wanted to proceed to Parliament, either by taxi or foot or singly or together with how many other persons.


P) There is no evidence raised by the prosecution regarding how the other accused persons had reasonably received information regarding the status of permit application or was there any application, except that the applicant Dr. Chee be the only person who must know.




The prosecution had not proved at all, what would the objective of each accused persons be, even if they might be attempting to leave Speakers Corner. They therefore could be attempting to leave in compliance of the police's dispersal order, or had their own other destinations other than Parliament when attempting to leave Speakers Corner.


For 5^th defendant who did not arrived together with Dr. Chee's group and did not wear the same protest T-shirt as that group, and had separately applied for Procession & Assembly Permit apart from Dr. Chee's application, and had separately registered to be a legitimate speaker at police post, even if the 5^th defendant had intended to follow the crowd to the Parliament, he have the rights to do so legitimately as an independent observer just like the press, as long as his movement and gestures is legally and apparently apart from Dr. Chee's proposed action. All the dozens of members of press & media also have this same rights to be observers independent from Dr. Chee's proposed actions. The court should not deem each and every persons to be a part of Dr. Chee's proposed action unless these persons share the same objective and consent with Dr. Chee's proposed action. The prosecution had entirely failed to prove the stands of 5^th defendant that if he had attempted to proceed to parliament, that he was bearing an unlawful intention to participate in any procession without a permit.


Submission on case law:


I like to cite PS1348/2008 pp vs Yap Keng Ho & others before DJ John Ng at Court 15 in which all 5 accused persons were acquitted based on DJ Ng's decision that action of a casual walk is apart from that of a procession as defined by the meaning of that English word. Defendants were acquitted because a casual walk conveying themselves from Speakers's Corner Parliament to Istana does not require a permit as a procession would.


This is applicable in our case PS1512/2008 and others, that there is no evidence how the proposed or intended movements will be conducted, it could be either a lawful casual walk with requires no permit or an unlawful procession. In our case the venues of Speakers Corner & Parliament and Istana are ALL the same as in case PS1348/2008.


It is the onus of prosecution to prove that the intended or proposed conveying of persons to the Parliament was not to be in the form of a lawful casual walk which requires no police permit. But in the proceeding during prosecution's case this is not at all proven, there is no evidence raised regarding how Dr. Chee had wanted to convey himself to Parliament.


It was also the onus of enforcement officers at the scene to verify and questions the accused persons weather which the police had failed:

• where were their destinations
• how would they convey themselves
• were they sharing the purpose and objectives with Dr. Chee
• were they a member of press or media or just independent observers

​

Sammyboy.Com Thread

 

[uncleyap]

My later email to DPP & Judge this afternoon:

Dear DJ Toh,

As the no case submission is from the defense, I think it should be only fair that defense gets the rights to do a final reply?

In essence, my position for the no case argument is that, motives and intention unless proven by prosecution by evidence can not be presumed nor imaginary. There are many elements lacking in the case.

The motive originating from only Dr. Chee is not proven that others had prior knowledge of Dr. Chee's plan in details, not just on weather he had any permits, but weather how he had intended the proposed movements to be carried out.

Even more remote are the motives of the other accused persons, including myself. There is not a single bit of evidence regarding my motive nor consent to participate in anything.

Even if myself or any other defendants were proven to be attempting to leave Speakers' Corner it could be only in compliance with the Police Order to disperse from that area. This again is the onus of prosecution to prove and can not be grossly assumed. There is no evidence on this.

Even if myself or any other defendants were intended to proceed to Parliament, it is again the onus on prosecution to prove that the intention were to be participating in anything illegal or as proposed by Dr. Chee. Any member of public have the lawful rights to proceed to parliament from Speakers Corner for objective of observation or reporting for journalism or for their own purposes unrelated to Dr. Chee's proposal or invitation. There is no evidence to prove this either.

In the very first place, what is in the evidence as Dr. Chee's plan reveal by none other than that speech, is very fuzzy and unconvincing. It is not at all logical for audience who were already lawfully assembled for a rally at Speakers Corner to follow the speaker to proceed to a number of places in order to hold a number of rallies. It is not reasonable nor logical that Dr. Chee can really expect any person to follow him, nor believe that was what he was really going to do.

There is no such kind of activity in common knowledge as a multi-staged-mobile-rallies. Dr. Chee had held so many rallies in his political life, and we had not seen such kind of complicated and almost meaningless exercise. Therefore on the ground of motive, I don't think what is mentioned in the prosecution's case can make logical sense that such a strange invitation would had convinced persons such as myself to participate in.

In the aboves I am just summarizing what I had said in court today, as well as had written in the PDF file attached.

I had at about 3PM today finally managed to locate Court Officer Jason and past him a printed copy of this PDF file for the court's record.


Thanks & regards
k.h.yap
​

 

[uncleyap]

<!-- Begin #content --> <!-- Begin #main --> Thursday, November 05, 2009

<!-- Begin .post --> I say No Case To Answer for WB/IMF Speakers Cornered PS1512 & others




My court document PDF file online

 

[uncleyap]

I am posting a portion of my rebuttal arguments here:

47. The demonstration of opposition to the actions of the government is NOT a simple monolatic subject and is indeed very complicated since the govenment does tremendous number of actions and it is not possible for every indivdual to share the oppositon in exactly the same actions of the government. The complication is the individuals will each have a different combinations of agreeing and opposing towards different actions of the government, it is not something that can be mixed or confused or generalized at all. Unless the prosecution can prove that there is an agreement within a group of individuals to demonstrate in common on a specific set of actions of the government which they opposed together, it is not possible to allege in vaguely blanket and generalized way to simply assume that individuals had no dispute among themselves regarding which actions of the goverment to oppose together as a group or procession. There is no evidence showing that there is a case to answer in this aspect.

48. There is no evidence that accused person had all seen the web pages on SDP's website. This can not be simply assumed or claimed by the prosecution, it is the onus on prosecution's part to prove, but they had failed to do so. The court can not make this assumption that letter on SDP's website is read by every accused persons. The prosecution is making a baseless wild claim.

49. There is absolutely no evidence that the proposal by Dr. Chee was not a casual walk during 16.Sept.2006 WB/IMF, while in the anniversay of WB/IMF on 16.Sept.2007 5 asscused persons consisting of same 3 defendants in PS1522-08 were all acquitted in PS1348/08 for the reason that it was a Casual Walk along the exact same strech of route between Speakers Corner & Parliament. The prosection failed to prove this point, thus there is no case to answer.

50. This paragraph of DPP ignored many aspects of Yaps' arguments. The police did nothing to establish the objectives & intentions of each individuals at the scene. The police essentially speaks only to Dr.Chee and none of the others. There is no evidence at all that police had spoken or warned any other defendants, nor had they informed the other defendant on the fact of permit not issued for procession. The prosecution can not simply assume that all defendants are aware of what DSP Hassan had told Dr. Chee. There is not even any evidence that Hassan's numerous conversaions were overherd by other defendents. The entire enforcement and prosecution had blindly based on too many such assumptions. There is no case to answer since these elements are not proven.

51. The Ng Chye Huay's case was of an assembly which is irrelevant since assembly is a static stituation while in procession people have to move from a place to another, in this case it was public roads which is shared by a members of public, and each member will be all doing their own different things. How can any law just unreasonably lump these road users together and consider them to be a procession? The ruling regarding "It is not necessary for every member of the assembly to be engaged in the exact same activity in order for the assembly to create trouble" can never apply to any procession appropreitly, otherwise any number of individual persons each proceeding to their own individual destinations for their independent purposes can be considered as an illegal procession, this is applicable to any road at anywhere.

52. At that time police had ordered people to leave, and the speeches were already delivered. The accused persons can have all sorts of reasons to want to leave Speakers Corner lawfully, neither the police nor the prosecutor nor the court should assume what each of these accused persons intentions were when they wanted to leave and police had stopped them without asking EACH of them about their destinations and objectives. They could be comlying with police order to leave, they could be proceeding to ANY places for each's own lawful purposes. Even if they were leaving at the same time and from the same place, it can not be assumed that they were executing Dr. Chee's proposal together, the prosecution's case failed to prove this on each individual defendants. The law can not simply deem some individuals to be sharing purpose & intention or have common destinations. There is no evidence on this aspect.

53. It is shown in the exhibit photo, that Yap sqeezed past Patrick Lim on his left side, that's when he saw Yap and heard Yap demanding to pass through. He let Yap past through and Yap had been shown in exhibit to had remained behind Patrick Lim for some time even after removing the cap which was used initially when Yap was passing Patrick Lim. Patrick Lim's evidence was not given in the verbertim or exact words used by Yap who was voicing out against the blockage and unlawful enforcement, every officer had avoided Yap's effort to of reasoning out their actions. Patrick Lim were unable to be certian that the word us was use or what was it reffering to. It is very unusual for police to cordon the crowd lawfully assembled at Speaker Corner, any civic minded citizen will tend to reason it with the officers regarding blocking free movement of lawful members of public.

54. It is very wild and naive assumption on the part of prosecutor to assume that Dr Chee's dialog with officers had been noticed by all other accused persons, or had been deemed to be directed at them instead of just Dr. Chee. If police were enforcing against each and every one of the individuals then officers have to identify themselves to each and every individuals and state their official messages clearly and make sure that each person had received and understood. This must not and can not be based on assumption. This had been a very serious ommision on the part of officers at scene. This is further worsen by prosecutor making wild and naive assumption in the court regarding the completely lacked dialogs between accused persons and officers except for just Dr. Chee.

55. The Different T-shirt is only a further evidence that Yap does not share the same kind of opposition to the actions of the government as stated in the charge. This is yet another element that the prosecution's case failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that Dr Chee's idea of opposing the government is agreed and shared in common by any other persons. It is in the evidence that in speeches made by Mr. Tan Teck Wee & Mr. Gandhi they did not indicated that they had concurred or agreed with Dr. Chee's speech nor had they indicated that they are taking part, nor had they invited others to take part in Dr. Chee's proposal. The prosecution's case fail to prove that all the defendent share the same stands in opposing the government. Yap's T-shirt speaks loudly and clearly for the difference, and showed that prosecution's alligation is wrong, thus there is no case to answer.

56. It is in the Notes of Evidene of PS1348-08 which was the anniversary of the event in case PS1522-08 that casual walks were embarked by 3 of the same accused persons. This show the likelyhood of the event a year before it could be an intended casual walk just like it's anniversary. In Dr Chee's speech there was no indication nor evidence that it wasn't a casual walk. Where is the basis to assume that it was all intended to be unlawful? When Dr. Chee as the proposer made no indication, the individual accused persons could only each made their own guesses, and court can not simply assumed that their mindset were all for breaking laws, unless the prosecution could raise evidence to prove. There is no evidence and can not be simply assumed.

There is another layer of defense in Yap's no case submission which prosecution have nothing to counter so far:

That is even when all the accused persons were proceeding to parliament from Hong Lim Park, they may not be forming a procession to share the objective of Dr. Chee. There were dozens of members of media following Dr Chee to just make observation and perform journalistic or other functions. They have the rights like any persons to freely and lawfully se the public roads. It is the onus of prosecution to prove beyond doubt that any group of person intending to use public road from Hong Lim Park to Parliament were in mutual consent with Dr. Chee to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the goverment. It the first place it is unclear in the charge as well as in the prosecutor's submission on weather the alleged demonstration was for Dr. Chee's personal opposition against government' action or for the other defendents' own opposition against government's action. It is very naive to assume that all the accused persons will be able to share the same oppositions against the complex actions of a huge body such as the government.



It is my position that there are too many lacking factors in the prosecutions' case and they had relied too much no baseless assumptions, and had failed to prove their case beyond the necessary level for a prima facie case stand. Therefore there is no case to answer.