SDP Acquittal Recinded -- the very definition of poor judgment

My thoughts are after the article……

Apr 21, 2010
ILLEGAL PROCESSION
SDP group fined

They were convicted after a rare Govt appeal against their acquittal
FIVE leaders and supporters of the opposition Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) have each been fined either $500 or $600 for taking part in an illegal street procession in 2007.

They are SDP chairman Gandhi Ambalam, assistant secretary-general John Tan, central executive committee member Chee Siok Chin and party supporters Yap Keng Ho and Chong Kai Xiong.

District Judge John Ng sentenced them on Monday, with Tan, Chee and Chong each fined $500 or five days' jail in default. Gandhi and Yap were each fined $600 or six days' jail in default.

The five applied for time and were given until May 14 to pay the fines. They had faced fines of up to $1,000 each under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.

Earlier this month, High Court Judge Choo Han Teck allowed a rare appeal by the Government against their acquittal last October by the district court, and convicted the five.

He also sent them back to District Judge Ng for sentencing.

Read the full story in Wednesday's edition of The Straits Times.

In Sep last year, District Judge Ng probably didn’t realize the ripples his initial judgment would have caused. Only in Singapore would the proverbial ‘butterfly wing flaps’ of an impartial protection of constitutional rights cause a cyclone to rip through the fabric of society.

Judge Ng stunned observers by acquitting the leaders of the SDP as he judged that their procession on 16 Sep 07 “did not cause inconvenience to the public, affect traffic flow or make noise which disturbed the public peace.”

Key to his decision was the absence of the definition of what constituted a “procession” under the law as the legality of the walk hinges upon this definition. He concluded: "I am fortified in my views when I consider that the principal [Miscellaneous Offences] Act and the Rules were meant to relate to offences against public order, nuisance and property. The walk which had taken place did not impede or cause any disruption to the flow of vehicular traffic or the movement of pedestrians."

As the Appended article above indicates, High Court Judge Choo Han Teck allowed a rare appeal by the Government against their acquittal and convicted the five. Justice Choo’s reasoning was that dictionary definitions (of the word “procession”) must be read in the context of local law, as the word ‘procession’ has ‘long defied exact legal definition’. He also added that “whether an event may cause public disorder, it was a risk for the police to assess, not the organizers” and “disorder may result not necessarily from the organizers, but from the members of the public observing the event.

I take issue with 2 points raised by Justice Choo:

[1] “context of local law” – What context is he referring to? At the time of the incident, the Miscellaneous Offences Act forbade the gatherings of 5 persons or more. Justice Choo’s reading of the incident was that even though the SDP members were not walking in groups of 5, they could easily coalesce into one.
Or was he actually referring to the political context of law whereby gatherings (of whatever number) for a “political cause” would inherently result in law and order problems? The non-issuance of permits for the Workers’ Party’s cycling event in 2007 comes into mind.

[2] “whether an event may cause public disorder, it was a risk for the police to assess, not the organizers”

This statement by itself is perfectly fine as the police are tasked to make such judgments and to bring offending parties to the courts for prosecution. However, the courts are in turn charged with the responsibility of assessing if these judgments are indeed valid and not accept them as status quo. Hence if Judge Ng was “fortified in my views” (as he put it) that the walk which had taken place did not impede or cause any disruption to the flow of vehicular traffic or the movement of pedestrians, then the police’s initial assessment should – as it originally was - be overthrown.

So what grounds did the Government have for its appeal of the decision? What new evidence was considered? There seems to be none.

From the latest outcome, it reads as the act itself was deemed illegal as no permit was attained and Justice Choo disagrees with Judge Ng's assessment. And although the 'procession' (if you could define it as such) did not cause law and order issues, it could have, and as such, a permit should have been sought.

Now with hindsight, Judge Ng’s initial acquittal could therefore be seen as the ‘butterfly wing flaps’ that set in motion a hasty legal code reworking to prevent such impartial and independent readings of the law. The resulting ‘cyclone’ was the amendments to the Public Order Act slightly more than a month after.

As we have it, a good judgment was superseded by two massively poor ones.

Election Fever

I've haven't had to time to do a proper analysis of the current shifts in oppositional politics in Singapore but from my cursory scans, it does seem to me that Alternative Party spokespersons are getting far more "official" airtime than years back.

Not all of this coverage may be faltering, e.g the revival of the Chee vs Chiam spat over who ousted whom, but there definitely seems to be a softer approach to oppositional campaigning. Take for example the following:

Sometime back there was also one on the NSP signaling intentions to run in the the Tampines GRC.

Few days back we had a story of the Workers' Party bumping into AMK GRC MP Inderjit Singh while walking around Ang MO Kio.

Then we had a story of the SDP doing rounds in the Bukit Panjang GRC while the Reform Party together with the SDA visited the Bishan-Toa Payoh GRC.

And today, we have another profile of Kenneth Jeyaretnam, which also references the Reform Party's visits to the West Coast GRC (i've attached that article here for posterity).

There is a fever sweeping across Singapore and its not World Cup fever or Youth Olympic Games fever. With Skyrocketing prices (ranging from car Coes to HDBs, Cigarettes to Tuition Fees) and a virulent unease perpetuated by an increasing Foreign Worker component that is seen as the cause of the rising cost of living and underemployment, you can't help but feel that this GE could be a real game changer.

As a long-suffering Liverpool FC fan, hope always springs eternal.

I am my own man: Kenneth Jeyaretnam
05:55 AM Apr 08, 2010
by Loh Chee Kong

It has been almost a year since Mr Kenneth Jeyaretnam was persuaded to take over the leadership of the Reform Party, following the death of its founder - his father JB Jeyaretnam (JBJ). The 50-year-old former hedge fund manager, who gave up his job to focus on politics full-time, says that at the time the Opposition party was a "drifting, rudderless empty vessel".

While Mr Jeyaretnam sees his work as a continuation of his father's lifelong mission, he also wants to be seen as "his own man" with his own brand of "economically-competent" politics. And perhaps having witnessed firsthand his father's costly legal battles, he recently told LOH CHEE KONG that he wants the Reform Party to steer clear of legal minefields.

'I've got nothing to hide'

Why did you enter politics? Was it what your father expected of you? And is the JBJ legacy a boon or a bane to your own political career?

My father had always hoped that one of us (Kenneth or his younger brother Philip Jeyaretnam) would follow him into politics ... My father's legacy is not really an issue any more because I'm seen as my own man.

When we did our walkabout with the Singapore Democratic Alliance last Sunday, I was sitting with my members at a table (at the void deck of a block of flats) and a guy at the next table said: "Hi Kenneth, how's it going?" People do come up and approach me now.

You had previously kept a low profile. Were you prepared for the media scrutiny?

I'm ready for any scrutiny - I've got nothing to hide. Obviously, it's an uphill struggle to get your message across in the mainstream media. But because of the rise of the new media, we've been getting our message across ... but we have to be in control of the content.

One of the things I'm concerned about is that we don't put out anything that is potentially libellous, inflammatory or seditious, that could lead to potential legal problems.

You have spent a large part of your life overseas. Will that count against you getting elected? Can you relate to the average Singaporean?

Let's get it straight: Do you think that I left Singapore by choice? I couldn't get a job here.

I had a "double first" (first-class honours in two separate subjects) from Cambridge. After I graduated in 1983 - which was two years after my father was elected into Parliament - I wanted to return to Singapore.

The Monetary Authority of Singapore rejected my application after one round of interviews. A lot of financial institutions and banks also rejected my applications.

Anyway, I'm not here to whine. I've succeeded in London. I've built a successful career in the financial sector and in hedge fund management. It has given me a perspective of seeing how an open, democratic society operates.

People find me approachable, proactive, capable - even though some people say I speak with an English accent.

'The party was in a bad state'

It's been almost a year since you took over leadership of the Reform Party. What was the experience like?

When I was elected as secretary-general, it was actually a bit of a shock because I found the party was in quite a bad state. It was like a drifting, rudderless empty vessel. Morale had dwindled, the number of members had decreased and there hadn't been central executive committee meetings for about four or five months ...

But since then, the responses I've gotten have been much more than I expected. We've definitely created a watershed in Singapore politics. For the first time, you've got an Opposition party that is perceived as economically competent, credible, and proposing alternative policies that could really make a difference or change Singapore.

With your brand of politics, are you trying to appeal to the intelligentsia?

We appeal to all sections of Singapore. I went on a house-to-house visit in West Coast GRC recently in a low-income area. We got a very enthusiastic response there ... there haven't been elections there for 20 years.

We appeal to the professional classes because of our economic policies and perceived economic competence. We definitely appeal to most Singaporeans who think there should be more opposition in Parliament - that we need to move towards a two-party system.

Rising property prices is one area that the Reform Party is concerned about. How would the party do things differently from the Government?

There's a conflict of interest in the Government's role as the owner of 79 per cent of the land and the provider of housing ... they have a vested interest in seeing property prices rise. We've said that we would like to see more private sector competition with the HDB in the provision of low-cost housing.

I don't think this would lead to lower quality because first, you have a regulator to ensure that standards are maintained. Second, competition usually leads to higher quality.

If you get into Parliament, do you see yourself as a full-time Member of Parliament? What would your priorities be?

I'm already a full-time politician and I'll certainly devote the major part of my time. Being an MP is not the ultimate objective, because every political party's objective should be to get to be the government and that's what I'll be working for.

The PAP may be against the two-party system but it's inevitable, as we have seen in Korea, Taiwan and Indonesia. The problem with the one-party system is not corruption - at least not in Singapore because the Government is not corrupt - but it leads to a society closed to new ideas, with too many "yes men".

'We are fairly united'

What is your take on the state of Opposition unity here?

You can't force Opposition unity but I think it will definitely happen. That's the basis of our purported alliance with the SDA (Singapore Democratic Alliance) - it would not be to just fight an election but to coordinate our actions in Parliament.

We don't all have to agree on exactly the same policies, but we all have the same objective, so it would be wrong to talk about Opposition disunity. We are fairly united.

If you team up with the SDA's Chiam See Tong to contest a Group Representation Constituency, wouldn't you find yourself in the shadow of a veteran Opposition figure?

Mr Chiam is much-loved and respected by his constituents. He has done a great job in Potong Pasir. But let's be frank: In a democratic country, if a party has failed for 25 years to expand its base beyond one seat in Parliament then I think the leaders would have been voted out.

Mr Chiam and I share the same view that the purpose of a political party is to form a government. He has spoken many times about the Opposition forming, not at the next General Election but by the election after that, to be in a position to be seen as an alternative government - which is something the Reform Party has also said.

I can't comment on our election strategy. It's completely shocking that we haven't seen the boundaries ... that is grossly unfair to the Opposition.

What do you hope Singaporeans see Kenneth Jeyaretnam as?

I hope that I'll be seen as somebody who transformed Singapore politics - I hope that doesn't sound too arrogant - and who made (participating in politics) seem like a normal and patriotic duty, rather than something to be shunned or avoided out of fear. cheekong@mediacorp.com.sg

The writer is a freelance correspondent.
http://www.todayonline.com/Print/Singapore/EDC100408-0000062/I-am-my-own-man--Kenneth-Jeyaretnam

US lawmakers seek action on Internet freedom

US lawmakers seek action on Internet freedom
(AFP) – 3 hours ago

WASHINGTON — US lawmakers from the two major parties on Tuesday issued a joint call for government action to ensure Internet freedom overseas amid alarm at China's cyber-censorship.

Democratic Representative David Wu and Republican Representative Chris Smith announced they were inviting lawmakers into a bipartisan Global Internet Freedom Caucus to help push forward legislation.

Wu, a Chinese American from Oregon, said he was introducing legislation to set up a government-backed Internet Freedom Foundation to award competitive grants for researchers to develop technology to circumvent censorship.

"While the spread of digital media technology is a tremendous force for good, it also faces a number of threats from those who seek to control information, quell dissent and censor non-violent free expression," Wu said.

"In an ever-changing digital world, we must work together to appeal to the better angels of our nature and strive not just for prosperity, but for freedom," he said.

Smith is the author of another bill being considered by Congress, the Global Online Freedom Act, that would prohibit US firms from assisting in cyber-censorship overseas.

If approved, employees of IT companies could face prison in the United States if they knowingly give information to a foreign government that causes a person to be harmed for peacefully expressing political or religious beliefs.

"It's become very clear -- and Google's recent difficulties in China underline this -- that IT companies are not powerful enough to stand up to repressive governments," Smith said.

"Without US government support, they are inevitably forced to play a role in the repressive government's censorship and surveillance," the New Jersey congressman said.

Google in January said it would no longer cooperate with China and consider pulling out of the fast-growing market after discovering attacks against dissidents' email accounts.

Being sensitive to our over-sensitivity

When I read about the news of another Christian Pastor in Singapore apologizing for insensitive comments, my first instinct was to look out for what I thought was now becoming the omnipresent hidden hand of the Thios (Would you blame me, considering the rather recent surreptitious overtaking of AWARE and clandestine near-launch of SingaNews?)

The debate over whether Pastor Rony’s comments were deplorable is not contested. They are indeed insensitive and to feign ignorance of its possible reading by other parties would be disingenuous. Naturally netters are up in arms. (see here and here)

That being said, I began wondering if we have all become victims of our own prejudices when we react to highly charged issues of race and religion. It is almost as if we have been inbuilt with this unbearable urge to be politically correct and take offense at the slightest gibe.

Have we – in the pursuit of sensitivity – become too sensitive in the process?

As I have argued in an earlier article on SingNews, it is not just a simple polemic battle between pro-homosexual and pro-heterosexual camps. In this case, it too should not become a Christians versus the Buddhists as once again we will ignore the real bone of contention; the surfacing of hidden agendas.

With AWARE there was a clear hidden hand and the same can be said for SingaNews. So the real question here is what was Pastor Rony’s intent?

Netters have been fast to draw comparisons with Pastor Rony’s case and the Christian couple what was charged under the sedition act for mailing banned Chick Publications' material. The natural question for this comparison is why were the two charged for sedition while Pastor Rony escapes with the proverbial slap on the wrist?

As with the hidden hand argument, it really boils down to the intent of the actions rather than the magnitude of the repercussions.

While you could argue over the offensiveness of the tracts (the object), their act of distributing them directly to Muslims (the action) signaled the couple's clear intent to proselytise via religious denigration.

Pastor Rony probably intended to use the ex-Buddhist testimonials (the object) as a ‘positive’ example for his flock to perhaps convert their Buddhist friends, but the mass distribution of the video (the action) was done by a third party.

Hence you could argue that while both objects reek of intolerance, the actions taken to spread that message were clearly different. Perhaps that was taken into account as well; leading ISD to step in instead of the police.

Alas, the optimistic contrarian in me wants to believe that actions taken against both cases were unnececesary. But the pessimistic realist voice says otherwise. That said and done, are we done with this sorry state of affairs or will it be settled with a “sorry” or two or maybe three. Or is sorry simply not enough, “still must explain”?

**********************************
UPDATE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What is your reaction to the insensitive remarks made by Pastor Rony Tan?
05:55 AM Feb 10, 2010
Deputy PM and Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng:

What Pastor Rony Tan said and did at his evangelism sharing sessions was clearly offensive to Buddhists and Taoists. In fact, it has angered even Singaporeans who are not Buddhists and Taoists.

I am glad to note that Pastor Tan has realised his mistake and has met up with the Buddhist and Taoist leaders today to personally apologise for his actions.

This is the right thing to do.

I am also heartened to learn that the Buddhist and Taoist leaders, while understandably upset with the incident, have accepted Pastor Tan's apology and have urged restraint on the part of their religious communities.

This is also the right thing to do.

When there is a problem, we must resolve it rationally and constructively.

The Government cannot allow anyone to exploit and escalate any issue to whip up emotions and tensions on the ground between our ethnic and religious communities.

Mutual respect, tolerance and restraint are critical to maintaining communal peace and harmony in our multi-ethnic, multi-religious society.

Religious leaders especially, must lead and set the right example in this regard.

While each of us is free to propagate our religious beliefs, it must never be by way of insulting or denigrating the religious beliefs of others.

This is a fundamental OB marker that we must all steer by in Singapore."

Why were the three youngsters on Facebook treated differently from Pastor Rony Tan?
Deputy PM & Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng: It is a very serious matter if anyone were to be hauled up and investigated by ISD. It is not less serious than getting investigated by the Police.

I assure you that it is not.

The bottom-line in such cases is that we must ensure that the OB markers are clear and that transgressions are dealt with in a balanced and professional manner. Our agencies must be allowed to exercise their professional judgment on how best to achieve this outcome.

In the case of the Facebook incident, a complaint was made to the Police of an offence. The Police are investigating it and will refer it to the Attorney-Gerneral's Chambers who in turn will determine the appropriate conclusion to the matter.

We should let this Police investigation take place without interference or prejudging or speculating what that outcome will be or should be.

URL http://www.todayonline.com/Hotnews/EDC100210-0000104/What-is-your-reaction-to-the-insensitive-remarks-made-by-Pastor-Rony-Tan
Copyright 2010 MediaCorp Pte Ltd | All Rights Reserved

Singapore: "Textbook Example" of Repressive State

From Human Rights Watch (www.hrw.org)

Singapore: "Textbook Example" of Repressive State
20 Jan 2010

New York) - As Singapore begins to emerge from the international financial crisis and focuses on elections that are likely to be held later this year, the government should act to improve its poor human rights record, Human Rights Watch said in its World Report 2010, released today.

The 612-page report, the organization's 20th annual review of human rights practices around the globe, summarizes major human rights trends in more than 90 nations and territories worldwide. Its chapter on Singapore says the government fails to meet human rights standards in a number of critical areas, including freedom of expression, association, and assembly. While Singapore has touted its prowess as a leading economic nation in Southeast Asia, it continues to falter in respecting the rights of its own population, Human Rights Watch said

"Singapore remains the textbook example of a politically repressive state," said Phil Robertson, deputy Asia director at Human Rights Watch. "Individuals who want to criticize or challenge the ruling party's hold on power can expect to face a life of harassment, lawsuits, and even prison."

Freedom to express views publicly continues to be largely limited to the tiny Speaker's Corner in the city-state, while any procession or assembly for a "cause-related activity" must have prior police approval under the Public Order Act of 2009.

Draconian laws such as the Internal Security Act (ISA), Criminal Law (Temporary Provisions) Act (CLA), Misuse of Drugs Act (MDA), and Undesirable Publications Act remain available to the government to muzzle peaceful critics. In December 2009, three long-time government critics-Dr. Chee Soon Juan, Chee Siok Chin, and Gandhi Ambalam-were convicted of distributing flyers critical of the government. After refusing to pay fines, all three were sentenced to short prison terms.

But appearance-conscious Singapore sometimes forgoes criminal prosecution in favor of other forms of harassment, such as defamation suits seeking punitive damages that snagged the Wall Street Journal and the Far Eastern Economic Review, restrictions on publication licenses under the longstanding Newspaper and Printing Presses Acts, and enforcement actions limiting rights.

Human Rights Watch called for the repeal of laws allowing corporal and capital punishment, noting that the penal code authorizes caning for about 30 offenses, and sets out more than 20 drug-related offenses for which capital punishment is mandatory. Singapore resists all calls to rescind arbitrary detention without trial, refuses to recognize that caning constitutes torture or cruel, inhuman and degrading punishment, and insists on maintaining mandatory death penalties for offenses such as drug trafficking that are contrary to international human rights standards, Human Rights Watch said.

Human Rights Watch criticized Singapore's continued legal ban on private and consensual sexual relations between men and called for it to be overturned.
"As Singapore looks to its future and new elections, the time is long overdue for it to abandon its stubborn defiance of international human rights standards," Robertson said. "Singapore should have the confidence to trust its people with full freedom of expression, assembly, and association, and recognize that their participation is critical for the country's continued prosperity.

Is this the end of the cyber cold war?

Last week, while watching one of the US New channels – can’t remember which one now – I came across a speech by Senator Dodd who was announcing his retirement from the U.S. Senate. Sen. Dodd served 35 yrs in politics and is the current U.S. banking committee chairman that has helmed highly televised senate testimonial hearings surrounding the financial meltdown.

What struck me was his calm dignity and honesty when he declared “I am a Democrat and very proud of my party’s contributions to the vitality and strength of America”. But that was not the line that really resonated with me. Halfway through his speech he affirmed “I believe in bipartisan solutions, but I also believe you can only achieve those results with vibrant, robust and civil partisan debate”.

Then I began to think of Singapore. But I wasn’t thinking about how partisan debate has evolved but rather how the Government’s attitude towards alternative opinions and viewpoints emanating from new media sources has changed. Which naturally leads to the question: “Are netizens still automatically viewed as engaging in partisan debate every time a critical comment on a government initiative is made?”

Let’s look at some pivotal events in the last 3 years. Recall the Brown-Bhavani saga in 2006 where the government’s threshold of tolerance was tested when a semi-anonymous blogger “crossed the line” by bringing satire into mainstream media. The response was unbendingly harsh and forced the removal of Mr Brown from the TODAY team.

The key statement in Bhavani’s diatribe was this: “If a columnist presents himself as a non-political observer, while exploiting his access to the mass media to undermine the Government's standing with the electorate, then he is no longer a constructive critic, but a partisan player in politics”. The bottom-line was a warning to all to stay within your own realm whereby you cannot affect public opinion.

However, this implicit drawing of a cyber OB marker proved to be only a temporary truce. In 2007, rather than risking an all out open war, the PAP opted to rebut anti-establishment views by putting up postings anonymously online. It was as if the Brown-Bhavani saga, and the failed attempt to ban political videos during the 2006 general elections, was analogous to World War I & II. The next phase announced by then Manpower Minister Ng Eng Hen, represented a Cold War of sorts, where enemies are known but not clearly defined and propaganda is the name of the game. As MP Baey Yam Keng infamously put it, “The identity is not important. It is the message that is important.”

So with some help from the PAP Internet Brigade, the Internet would be left to self-regulate itself. But as with the real Cold War, there were periods of prolonged calm and of high tension. The calm was encapsulated in a 2007 paper by the Advisory Council on the Impact of New Media on Society (AIMS). The paper, entitled “Engaging New Media – Challenging Old Assumptions”, signaled a promising paradigm shift in relations between warring factions of anonymous critics (whom were increasingly identifying themselves)and Government spokespeople (whom were increasingly anonymising themselves).

But high tension is never far away, and the Government broke its “silence” in early 2009 (after tucking their heads between their thighs for the Mas Selamat Fiasco, Town Council Loses, CDC bonuses, Government lapses ... etc). Seizing on an event that had nothing to do with “online critics” in the first place, then Senior Minister of State (Information, Communications and the Arts) and current acting “Minister of Propaganda”, Lui Tuck Yew chided netters for not policing comments that voiced elation over the assault of MP Seng Han Thong by one of his constituents.

He went on to say:

"I do not think the community itself has done enough to rebut some of these unhelpful comments delivered by fellow netizens.

'It is a squandered opportunity for a higher degree of self-regulation. It would have been an example of the genesis, of the first steps, towards a more responsible, greater, self-regulatory regime.

'But many of those responses were not rebutted or answered, and I think it is not healthy for some of this to remain on the Net unchallenged, unquestioned and unanswered.'

So we blew it; at least in the eyes of the PAP we did. But even a seasoned PAP minister, our Foreign Minister no less, struggled to engage in a less traditional platform. Naturally, 2009 shaped up as a tension filled year, with 2010 promising much of the same.

So imagine my surprise when in the turn of new year, NTUC’s Deputy Secretary-General and PAP MP Madam Halimah Yacob wrote in to Temasek Review to civilly clarify what she felt was inaccuracies in an article on a speech she had made. You can read more about it here.

Did this gesture signal the end of the Cold War and a thawing of hostility between new media agents and Governmental officials? Before I could answer that, the cynic in me questioned whether this engagement was sanctioned or a mere PR slip by an MP eager to protect her good name? If the former, then we should hope to see a future of vibrant, robust and civil debate over alternate media platforms. If the latter, well, MP Halimah should be expecting a call to tea sometime soon and we best prepare for more of the same.

Dr Lim Hock Siew Speaks