Singapore's shameful sham judiciary
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/231437
by Jeffrey Ong
Singapore loves feeling superior to Malaysia in every way. They have plenty of things to boast about: better public transport, less corruption, higher standards of living, and so on.
Here’s one simple question: is the Singapore judiciary any better than Malaysia’s?
That the Malaysian judiciary has had a tarnished reputation cannot be denied - the VK Lingam judge-fixing scandal, a history of sound judgements being overturned by judges promoted to the higher courts, and perhaps most blatant of all, the sodomy trials of Anwar Ibrahim.
Singapore can boast of cleaner streets, but when it comes to the judiciary, theirs is the burning shame of being right down there in the gutter with Malaysia. Now, we have a sham trial of almost Anwar-like proportions to demonstrate it.
A judiciary is far from clean when trials become a farcical mockery of justice, and political agendas and vendettas are the basis for trampling the very principles of due process. Even a first- year law student can recognise the blatant miscarriage of justice and meddling fingers of the government.
The pride and arrogance of the Singapore government, borne of being in power for too long (just like the BN) has blinded it to a distinct reality of contemporary society. To paraphrase Buddha: three things cannot long remain hidden - the sun, the moon and the truth.
They remain stuck in the past, where a nation’s perception of reality has been easy to manipulate by monopolising all print and broadcast media.
Malaysia has led the way in showing that people will not stand for lies and evil deception any more. If Singapore thinks it can hold back this tide of truth, it will go the way of all those who refuse to accept progress and change.
The case that has thrown the shameful failings of a core state institution into relief is that of Professor Tey Tsun Hang (left), who stands accused of accepting sexual favours and gifts from a student in exchange for better grades.
Before we examine the details of the case, who is Tey?
He was born in Segamat, Johor, and went on to study law in King's College and Cambridge in the UK. He rose in the system to become a district judge in the Subordinate Court (equivalent of Malaysia's Sessions Court), and then moved to a career in academia.
His academic work has been very critical of the Singapore government, also focusing in great detail on the failings of the judicial system and highlighting its shameful subservience to the overbearing powers of the Executive.
Tey’s publications are well respected and have found a ready audience internationally, where it is harder to suppress the freedom of academic inquiry, and where ideas require true merit to become popular.
Sex for grades?
Of course, being a crusader for a clean judiciary does not automatically absolve an individual of criminal charges. The question then becomes whether it is true that Tey accepted favours in exchange for giving better grades.
In order to prove their case, the prosecution would have to prove that he had sexual relations with this student, accepted her gifts, and in turn gave her better grades than she deserved.
The defence focused on disproving the last two of these accusations.
Firstly, it relied on evidence in the form of cheques issued in payment of the gifts that were allegedly given by the student. These cheques proved that Tey had himself paid for the items in question.
Secondly, it relied on detailed academic records audited by National University of Singapore (NUS) staff, which clearly indicate that the grades the student received from Tey were completely in accordance with the quality of her work, and were marked according to the exact same standard as that of other students in the class.
These two pieces of evidence should have immediately cleared Tey of any corruption charges. If it can be proven that there were sexual relations between him and the student, then this would constitute a clear and shameful breach of ethics and professionalism.
It would then warrant internal discipline proceedings at the NUS level, without sufficient evidence or cause to institute criminal proceedings.
What happened then in court, when the defence attempted to produce the vindicating evidence?
It was revealed that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had seized evidence of cheque payment records which indicated Tey made payments for the supposed corrupt gifts. Yet, no investigation was pursued.
It was observed that investigators who were questioned in court were evasive, and eventually had to admit that no action was taken to investigate such important evidence.
To salvage the lapse in CPIB investigations, the prosecution objected strongly to the Tey’s application for forensic ink-dating tests and handwriting comparison analysis of the cheque payment records.
This was a make-or-break point, because the test results would prove scientifically that the payment records were made by Tey three years ago in 2010, when the alleged crimes of corruption took place.
The prosecution could not afford for the tests to be carried out, lest its theory be proven wrong on the spot and the case against Tey collapsed on itself.
Taking cue from the prosecution's strong objection, the judge refused Tey’s applications for forensic ink-dating and handwriting tests.
With this victory in hand, the prosecution then turned around and proclaimed that there was no such payments, calling Tey a liar who had fabricated a story about making payments.
Why did the judge refuse Tey's application for the scientific tests? If he was objective as a judge should be, he should have allowed the tests so that this critical evidence could finally be looked into, so that there is no miscarriage of justice.
To seek guidance from the prosecution and then simply brush aside the critical evidence reflects very poorly on his judgment, and indicates a total lack of independence, as well as an intent to convict Tey right from the very beginning.
Evidence rejected
Early on during the trial, the lawyer representing NUS, whose interest was obviously to vindicate itself with a bulletproof grading system, stood up to state that the university was ready to cooperate with providing all the necessary academic records as soon as the court issues the appropriate orders.
The lawyer was instead slapped with an order from the judge not to speak any more in court until he was told to do so.
Subsequently, the defence requests to compel NUS to provide those academic records were mostly disallowed by the judge or objected to by the prosecution, mainly on the grounds of student data confidentiality or completely silent without providing any ground of objection.
It seemed that the judiciary is more interested to maintain data confidentiality for NUS than to uphold truth and justice.
Furthermore, no less than six defence witnesses were censored by the judge. Worst of all, they were censored without providing grounds.
Could there be a more blatant miscarriage of justice? Who were the six witnesses? Why were they censored? What was said that could not have been said in the open? Might this have impacted the trial? Did the censoring of the witnesses prejudice the defence?
There are a number of other extremely disturbing aspects of Malaysian professor Tey Tsun Hang's trial in Singapore.
Firstly, the chief judge personally oversaw the entire trial at Court No 1. This is extremely irregular for what should have been a normal corruption trial.
The last time a full trial took place at Court No 1 (under Judge Michael Khoo) was in 1986, over the politically-motivated trial of JB Jeyaretnam, then a newly-elected member of parliament from the opposition Workers' Party (a trial which, as it happens, Tey had written about extensively).
In that case, when Chief Judge Michael Khoo acquitted Jeyaretnam, the former soon found himself booted out of court. After the acquittal, a retrial was ordered and Jeyaretnam was found guilty.
Dissatisfied with the way things were done, Jeyaretnam eventually was vindicated at London's Privy Council. After that, the Singapore government swiftly abolished the appeal recourse to the Privy Council.
After 27 years, while skyscrapers and iPhones have run rampant in the island republic, it seems that Singapore has made absolutely zero progress towards an independent judiciary.
The prosecution has also pumped a lot of resources into the Tey trial.
At the initial stage, it was reported in the newspapers that a team of 10 prosecutors from the Attorney-General's Chambers sat in to support and advise the lead prosecutor.
There was also ‘live' transcription of the court proceedings which the prosecution paid for, using Singapore taxpayers' money, costing S$5,000 a day. For a 30-day trial, that amounts to S$150,000 for the transcription alone. The transcription, although using public funds, was given to the judge, but not to the defence.
The Attorney-General's Chambers stationed a public affairs officer (who used to be a journalist under the Singapore Press Holdings, which controls all print media in Singapore) in the courtroom every day throughout the trial.
She briefed the media on what to report and the angle to take. She was overheard by a few people to have leaked to the media personal information about Tey that was not mentioned in court, and also distorted details from unknown sources to fuel negative publicity and scandalise Tey's image.
The public got one version of details about the case while the court had another one. The character assassination of Tey has run rampant without bothering the presiding judge a bit. A trial by media has been done way before the trial proper was even concluded.
With a 30-day trial at Court No 1, a 10-person prosecution team, S$150,000 live transcriptions and a dedicated PR manager to sit in the court every day, we are left asking: how much taxpayers' money is the Singapore government spending on this one case, involving corruption charges for an amount less than S$2,500?
Abuse and persecution
The compromise of Tey's health has also been central to this case.
During investigations, he was hospitalised after 12 hours of interrogation at the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). It packed him off in an ambulance, and he was rushed to Alexandra Hospital.
He was kept there for over three days and diagnosed with various physical conditions such as acute kidney injury and mental conditions including acute stress disorder and altered mental status.
Immediately upon discharge, he was forced to sign two confessions when he was still under psychiatric medication. Four more confessions were taken from him, while he continued to receive treatment and medication.
It is widely reported in the local newspapers in Singapore that, even now, Tey continues to see his doctors and has to take several psychoactive medications daily.
What did Tey confess to, immediately after hospitalisation and while under medication?
It is observed that the judge repeatedly blocked questions about many issues and so-called corrupt items that were investigated by CPIB. What is beneath the surface of these topics that were censored in court the very minute they were mentioned?
Putting aside sensitive topics, why did the judge disallow Tey's questions about false confessions, i.e. wrongful confessions or confessions to non-existing crimes? Under what circumstances did these false confessions come about? What investigation methods were used that resulted in a man confessing to crimes he did not commit?
Were there mistakes or wrongful deeds committed by CPIB investigators, in the process of forcing the professor to confess to supposed crimes?
The truth may never be known, for the judge chose not to allow the airing of any false confessions, repeatedly shutting down questions by the defence.
Medical evidence ignored
The judge also ignored all medical evidence of Tey's physical and mental conditions. The medical evidence is from government hospital doctors, and is proof of the brutal treatment and sufferings Tey endured at the hand of CPIB investigators.
The prosecution did not call in any expert witnesses to disprove the medical evidence and findings. Instead, it took the line that Tey had lied to all the doctors that he was unwell, when in fact he was in perfect health.
Anyone with any common sense would know that only those who are ill have to see their doctors regularly and take medication every day, for a year and more. Would a whole group of doctors be foolish enough to be lied to over such an extended period of time? Do a person's physical symptoms lie about his conditions? The judiciary's action in effect makes a mockery of Singapore's own medical profession.
In yet another show of how the judge very willingly cooperated with the prosecution, the chief judge sang exactly the same tune as the prosecutor - he called the professor a liar and said he in fact was in good health all this time.
The judge should have ruled that all the medication and hospital sessions be stopped the very moment he decided that all the medical evidence be ignored because Tey was lying.
A person who is well will not require all these long-term medical attention and drugs. Such a ruling will very clearly show the judge to be correct - or totally biased.
The time has come for the people of Singapore to decide whether they are willing to live in a world-class economy with a gutter-class judiciary.
The Singapore government can continue to live like a frog beneath a shell, and attempt to ignore the worldwide trend towards greater transparency and integrity in government institutions. It does so at their own peril.
Already, Singaporeans are voting against the government in greater numbers than ever before. Will the authorities recognise that this is a clear objection to their pitbull, tyrannical persecution of anyone who dares question the government? Nothing would more quickly effect a change in government than their failure to do so.
Its only hope of survival is to recognise that dissidence is a healthy, integral part of democracy. It can bend to accommodate this or, sure as the sun rising in the east, it will break trying to crush it.
* The Singapore court found Tey guilty of all six corruption charges on May 28.
http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/231437
by Jeffrey Ong
Singapore loves feeling superior to Malaysia in every way. They have plenty of things to boast about: better public transport, less corruption, higher standards of living, and so on.
Here’s one simple question: is the Singapore judiciary any better than Malaysia’s?
That the Malaysian judiciary has had a tarnished reputation cannot be denied - the VK Lingam judge-fixing scandal, a history of sound judgements being overturned by judges promoted to the higher courts, and perhaps most blatant of all, the sodomy trials of Anwar Ibrahim.
Singapore can boast of cleaner streets, but when it comes to the judiciary, theirs is the burning shame of being right down there in the gutter with Malaysia. Now, we have a sham trial of almost Anwar-like proportions to demonstrate it.
A judiciary is far from clean when trials become a farcical mockery of justice, and political agendas and vendettas are the basis for trampling the very principles of due process. Even a first- year law student can recognise the blatant miscarriage of justice and meddling fingers of the government.
The pride and arrogance of the Singapore government, borne of being in power for too long (just like the BN) has blinded it to a distinct reality of contemporary society. To paraphrase Buddha: three things cannot long remain hidden - the sun, the moon and the truth.
They remain stuck in the past, where a nation’s perception of reality has been easy to manipulate by monopolising all print and broadcast media.
Malaysia has led the way in showing that people will not stand for lies and evil deception any more. If Singapore thinks it can hold back this tide of truth, it will go the way of all those who refuse to accept progress and change.
The case that has thrown the shameful failings of a core state institution into relief is that of Professor Tey Tsun Hang (left), who stands accused of accepting sexual favours and gifts from a student in exchange for better grades.
Before we examine the details of the case, who is Tey?
He was born in Segamat, Johor, and went on to study law in King's College and Cambridge in the UK. He rose in the system to become a district judge in the Subordinate Court (equivalent of Malaysia's Sessions Court), and then moved to a career in academia.
His academic work has been very critical of the Singapore government, also focusing in great detail on the failings of the judicial system and highlighting its shameful subservience to the overbearing powers of the Executive.
Tey’s publications are well respected and have found a ready audience internationally, where it is harder to suppress the freedom of academic inquiry, and where ideas require true merit to become popular.
Sex for grades?
Of course, being a crusader for a clean judiciary does not automatically absolve an individual of criminal charges. The question then becomes whether it is true that Tey accepted favours in exchange for giving better grades.
In order to prove their case, the prosecution would have to prove that he had sexual relations with this student, accepted her gifts, and in turn gave her better grades than she deserved.
The defence focused on disproving the last two of these accusations.
Firstly, it relied on evidence in the form of cheques issued in payment of the gifts that were allegedly given by the student. These cheques proved that Tey had himself paid for the items in question.
Secondly, it relied on detailed academic records audited by National University of Singapore (NUS) staff, which clearly indicate that the grades the student received from Tey were completely in accordance with the quality of her work, and were marked according to the exact same standard as that of other students in the class.
These two pieces of evidence should have immediately cleared Tey of any corruption charges. If it can be proven that there were sexual relations between him and the student, then this would constitute a clear and shameful breach of ethics and professionalism.
It would then warrant internal discipline proceedings at the NUS level, without sufficient evidence or cause to institute criminal proceedings.
What happened then in court, when the defence attempted to produce the vindicating evidence?
It was revealed that the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB) had seized evidence of cheque payment records which indicated Tey made payments for the supposed corrupt gifts. Yet, no investigation was pursued.
It was observed that investigators who were questioned in court were evasive, and eventually had to admit that no action was taken to investigate such important evidence.
To salvage the lapse in CPIB investigations, the prosecution objected strongly to the Tey’s application for forensic ink-dating tests and handwriting comparison analysis of the cheque payment records.
This was a make-or-break point, because the test results would prove scientifically that the payment records were made by Tey three years ago in 2010, when the alleged crimes of corruption took place.
The prosecution could not afford for the tests to be carried out, lest its theory be proven wrong on the spot and the case against Tey collapsed on itself.
Taking cue from the prosecution's strong objection, the judge refused Tey’s applications for forensic ink-dating and handwriting tests.
With this victory in hand, the prosecution then turned around and proclaimed that there was no such payments, calling Tey a liar who had fabricated a story about making payments.
Why did the judge refuse Tey's application for the scientific tests? If he was objective as a judge should be, he should have allowed the tests so that this critical evidence could finally be looked into, so that there is no miscarriage of justice.
To seek guidance from the prosecution and then simply brush aside the critical evidence reflects very poorly on his judgment, and indicates a total lack of independence, as well as an intent to convict Tey right from the very beginning.
Evidence rejected
Early on during the trial, the lawyer representing NUS, whose interest was obviously to vindicate itself with a bulletproof grading system, stood up to state that the university was ready to cooperate with providing all the necessary academic records as soon as the court issues the appropriate orders.
The lawyer was instead slapped with an order from the judge not to speak any more in court until he was told to do so.
Subsequently, the defence requests to compel NUS to provide those academic records were mostly disallowed by the judge or objected to by the prosecution, mainly on the grounds of student data confidentiality or completely silent without providing any ground of objection.
It seemed that the judiciary is more interested to maintain data confidentiality for NUS than to uphold truth and justice.
Furthermore, no less than six defence witnesses were censored by the judge. Worst of all, they were censored without providing grounds.
Could there be a more blatant miscarriage of justice? Who were the six witnesses? Why were they censored? What was said that could not have been said in the open? Might this have impacted the trial? Did the censoring of the witnesses prejudice the defence?
There are a number of other extremely disturbing aspects of Malaysian professor Tey Tsun Hang's trial in Singapore.
Firstly, the chief judge personally oversaw the entire trial at Court No 1. This is extremely irregular for what should have been a normal corruption trial.
The last time a full trial took place at Court No 1 (under Judge Michael Khoo) was in 1986, over the politically-motivated trial of JB Jeyaretnam, then a newly-elected member of parliament from the opposition Workers' Party (a trial which, as it happens, Tey had written about extensively).
In that case, when Chief Judge Michael Khoo acquitted Jeyaretnam, the former soon found himself booted out of court. After the acquittal, a retrial was ordered and Jeyaretnam was found guilty.
Dissatisfied with the way things were done, Jeyaretnam eventually was vindicated at London's Privy Council. After that, the Singapore government swiftly abolished the appeal recourse to the Privy Council.
After 27 years, while skyscrapers and iPhones have run rampant in the island republic, it seems that Singapore has made absolutely zero progress towards an independent judiciary.
The prosecution has also pumped a lot of resources into the Tey trial.
At the initial stage, it was reported in the newspapers that a team of 10 prosecutors from the Attorney-General's Chambers sat in to support and advise the lead prosecutor.
There was also ‘live' transcription of the court proceedings which the prosecution paid for, using Singapore taxpayers' money, costing S$5,000 a day. For a 30-day trial, that amounts to S$150,000 for the transcription alone. The transcription, although using public funds, was given to the judge, but not to the defence.
The Attorney-General's Chambers stationed a public affairs officer (who used to be a journalist under the Singapore Press Holdings, which controls all print media in Singapore) in the courtroom every day throughout the trial.
She briefed the media on what to report and the angle to take. She was overheard by a few people to have leaked to the media personal information about Tey that was not mentioned in court, and also distorted details from unknown sources to fuel negative publicity and scandalise Tey's image.
The public got one version of details about the case while the court had another one. The character assassination of Tey has run rampant without bothering the presiding judge a bit. A trial by media has been done way before the trial proper was even concluded.
With a 30-day trial at Court No 1, a 10-person prosecution team, S$150,000 live transcriptions and a dedicated PR manager to sit in the court every day, we are left asking: how much taxpayers' money is the Singapore government spending on this one case, involving corruption charges for an amount less than S$2,500?
Abuse and persecution
The compromise of Tey's health has also been central to this case.
During investigations, he was hospitalised after 12 hours of interrogation at the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). It packed him off in an ambulance, and he was rushed to Alexandra Hospital.
He was kept there for over three days and diagnosed with various physical conditions such as acute kidney injury and mental conditions including acute stress disorder and altered mental status.
Immediately upon discharge, he was forced to sign two confessions when he was still under psychiatric medication. Four more confessions were taken from him, while he continued to receive treatment and medication.
It is widely reported in the local newspapers in Singapore that, even now, Tey continues to see his doctors and has to take several psychoactive medications daily.
What did Tey confess to, immediately after hospitalisation and while under medication?
It is observed that the judge repeatedly blocked questions about many issues and so-called corrupt items that were investigated by CPIB. What is beneath the surface of these topics that were censored in court the very minute they were mentioned?
Putting aside sensitive topics, why did the judge disallow Tey's questions about false confessions, i.e. wrongful confessions or confessions to non-existing crimes? Under what circumstances did these false confessions come about? What investigation methods were used that resulted in a man confessing to crimes he did not commit?
Were there mistakes or wrongful deeds committed by CPIB investigators, in the process of forcing the professor to confess to supposed crimes?
The truth may never be known, for the judge chose not to allow the airing of any false confessions, repeatedly shutting down questions by the defence.
Medical evidence ignored
The judge also ignored all medical evidence of Tey's physical and mental conditions. The medical evidence is from government hospital doctors, and is proof of the brutal treatment and sufferings Tey endured at the hand of CPIB investigators.
The prosecution did not call in any expert witnesses to disprove the medical evidence and findings. Instead, it took the line that Tey had lied to all the doctors that he was unwell, when in fact he was in perfect health.
Anyone with any common sense would know that only those who are ill have to see their doctors regularly and take medication every day, for a year and more. Would a whole group of doctors be foolish enough to be lied to over such an extended period of time? Do a person's physical symptoms lie about his conditions? The judiciary's action in effect makes a mockery of Singapore's own medical profession.
In yet another show of how the judge very willingly cooperated with the prosecution, the chief judge sang exactly the same tune as the prosecutor - he called the professor a liar and said he in fact was in good health all this time.
The judge should have ruled that all the medication and hospital sessions be stopped the very moment he decided that all the medical evidence be ignored because Tey was lying.
A person who is well will not require all these long-term medical attention and drugs. Such a ruling will very clearly show the judge to be correct - or totally biased.
The time has come for the people of Singapore to decide whether they are willing to live in a world-class economy with a gutter-class judiciary.
The Singapore government can continue to live like a frog beneath a shell, and attempt to ignore the worldwide trend towards greater transparency and integrity in government institutions. It does so at their own peril.
Already, Singaporeans are voting against the government in greater numbers than ever before. Will the authorities recognise that this is a clear objection to their pitbull, tyrannical persecution of anyone who dares question the government? Nothing would more quickly effect a change in government than their failure to do so.
Its only hope of survival is to recognise that dissidence is a healthy, integral part of democracy. It can bend to accommodate this or, sure as the sun rising in the east, it will break trying to crush it.
* The Singapore court found Tey guilty of all six corruption charges on May 28.
