DOCSLIB.ORG

“Kill the Chicken to Scare the Monkeys” Suppression of Free Expression and Assembly in Singapore

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
“Kill the Chicken to Scare the Monkeys” Suppression of Free Expression and Assembly in Singapore HUMAN “Kill the Chicken RIGHTS to Scare the Monkeys” WATCH Suppression of Free Expression and Assembly in Singapore “Kill the Chicken to Scare the Monkeys” Suppression of Free Expression and Assembly in Singapore Copyright © 2017 Human Rights Watch All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 978-1-6231-35522 Cover design by Rafael Jimenez Human Rights Watch defends the rights of people worldwide. We scrupulously investigate abuses, expose the facts widely, and pressure those with power to respect rights and secure justice. Human Rights Watch is an independent, international organization that works as part of a vibrant movement to uphold human dignity and advance the cause of human rights for all. Human Rights Watch is an international organization with staff in more than 40 countries, and offices in Amsterdam, Beirut, Berlin, Brussels, Chicago, Geneva, Goma, Johannesburg, London, Los Angeles, Moscow, Nairobi, New York, Paris, San Francisco, Sydney, Tokyo, Toronto, Tunis, Washington DC, and Zurich. For more information, please visit our website: http://www.hrw.org DECEMBER 2017 ISBN: 978-1-6231-35522 “Kill the Chicken to Scare the Monkeys” Suppression of Free Expression and Assembly in Singapore Glossary .............................................................................................................................. i Summary ........................................................................................................................... 1 Criminal Penalties for Peaceful Speech .................................................................................... 2 Restrictions on Peaceful Assembly ............................................................................................ 3 Non-Criminal Penalties for Peaceful Speech ............................................................................. 6 Regulatory Restrictions on Online Media .................................................................................. 6 Access to Funding and Venues, and “OB” Markers .................................................................... 7 Fear and Self-Censorship ......................................................................................................... 8 Key Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 11 To the Prime Minister and the Government of Singapore.......................................................... 11 Methodology .................................................................................................................... 12 Background ...................................................................................................................... 13 Detention Without Trial in Singapore’s First Decades ............................................................... 13 Use of Defamation and Contempt Laws against Political Opponents ........................................ 15 Restrictions on Public Assemblies .......................................................................................... 18 Control Over the Media ........................................................................................................... 22 I. International and Domestic Legal Standards .................................................................. 25 Constitution of Singapore ...................................................................................................... 28 II. Criminalization of Peaceful Expression ......................................................................... 30 Contempt ............................................................................................................................... 30 Sedition Act ............................................................................................................................ 43 Penal Code Section 298: Wounding Religious Feelings ............................................................ 50 Parliamentary Elections Act .................................................................................................... 56 Regulation of Assemblies: The Public Order Act ....................................................................... 61 “Unrestricted” Areas: Speakers’ Corner ................................................................................... 75 Censorship in the Arts: The Films Act ..................................................................................... 88 Censorship in the Arts: Theatre ............................................................................................... 93 III. Non-Criminal Penalties for Speech ............................................................................... 96 Civil Defamation .................................................................................................................... 96 Protection from Harassment Act ............................................................................................ 100 Regulatory Restrictions on Online Media ............................................................................... 103 Control over Venues and Arts Housing .................................................................................. 110 Denial or Withdrawal of Funding ............................................................................................ 111 Discriminatory Media Guidelines and Censorship of LGBT issues ...........................................113 IV. Other Laws that Restrict Freedom of Expression ......................................................... 115 Internal Security Act .............................................................................................................. 115 Penal Code Section 298A: “Hate Speech” ............................................................................. 116 Penal Code Sections 499-502: Criminal Defamation ............................................................... 117 Penal Code Section 504: “Insults” that Provoke a Breach of the Peace .................................. 118 Penal Code Section 503: Criminal Intimidation ...................................................................... 120 Penal Code Section 509: Insults to Modesty .......................................................................... 121 V. Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 122 To the Government of Singapore ........................................................................................... 122 To the Attorney General’s Chambers ..................................................................................... 127 To the Director General of Police ........................................................................................... 127 To the Minister of Foreign Affairs ........................................................................................... 128 To Concerned Governments and Intergovernmental Bodies ................................................... 128 Appendix I: Letters to the Singapore Government ........................................................... 129 Glossary FEER Far Eastern Economic Review ISA Internal Security Act MDA Media Development Authority NAR “Not allowed for all ratings” NParks National Parks Board NPPA Newspaper and Printing Presses Act PAP People’s Action Party PEMA Public Entertainments and Meetings Act POA Public Order Act POHA Protection from Harassment Act PPSSO Preservation of Public Security Ordinance SPH Singapore Press Holdings TOC The Online Citizen TRS The Real Singapore Summary In Singapore, there is this culture of fear. Don’t speak up against the government or the government will “fix” you. —Leslie Chew, cartoonist, Singapore, October 2015 In Singapore, even if it is true you aren’t supposed to say it. —Alan Shadrake, author, London, November 2015 Singapore promotes itself as a bustling, modern city-state and a great place to do business. Beneath the slick surface of gleaming high-rises, however, it is a repressive place, where the government severely restricts what can be said, published, performed, read, or watched. Those who criticize the government or the judiciary, or publicly discuss race and religion, frequently find themselves facing criminal investigations and charges, or civil defamation suits and crippling damages. Peaceful public demonstrations and other assemblies are severely limited, and failure to comply with detailed restrictions on what can be said and who can participate in public gatherings frequently results in police investigations and the threat of criminal charges. The suppression of speech and assembly is not a new phenomenon in Singapore. Leaders of the ruling Peoples’ Action Party (PAP), which has been in power for more than 50 years, have a history of bankrupting opposition politicians through civil defamation suits and jailing them for public protests. Suits against and restrictions on foreign media that report critically on the country have featured regularly since the 1970s and restrictions on public gatherings have been in place since at least 1973. Although there has been some relaxation in the rules on public assemblies, they remain extraordinarily strict, and restrictions on participation by foreigners have only increased over time. The government has also enacted new regulations to control online media. The government now uses a combination of criminal laws, oppressive regulatory restrictions, access to funding,
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in the Commonwealth
    Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in The Commonwealth Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change Edited by Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites Human Rights, Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity in The Commonwealth: Struggles for Decriminalisation and Change Edited by Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites © Human Rights Consortium, Institute of Commonwealth Studies, School of Advanced Study, University of London, 2013 This book is published under a Creative Commons Attribution- NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NCND 4.0) license. More information regarding CC licenses is available at https:// creativecommons.org/licenses/ Available to download free at http://www.humanities-digital-library.org ISBN 978-1-912250-13-4 (2018 PDF edition) DOI 10.14296/518.9781912250134 Institute of Commonwealth Studies School of Advanced Study University of London Senate House Malet Street London WC1E 7HU Cover image: Activists at Pride in Entebbe, Uganda, August 2012. Photo © D. David Robinson 2013. Photo originally published in The Advocate (8 August 2012) with approval of Sexual Minorities Uganda (SMUG) and Freedom and Roam Uganda (FARUG). Approval renewed here from SMUG and FARUG, and PRIDE founder Kasha Jacqueline Nabagesera. Published with direct informed consent of the main pictured activist. Contents Abbreviations vii Contributors xi 1 Human rights, sexual orientation and gender identity in the Commonwealth: from history and law to developing activism and transnational dialogues 1 Corinne Lennox and Matthew Waites 2
    [Show full text]
  • Tan Wah Piow, Smokescreens & Mirrors: Tracing the “Marxist
    ASIATIC, VOLUME 7, NUMBER 1, JUNE 2013 Tan Wah Piow, Smokescreens & Mirrors: Tracing the “Marxist Conspiracy.” Singapore: Function 8 Limited, 2012. 172 pp. ISBN 978-981-07-2104-6. On May 21, 1987, in an operation code named “Spectrum,” Singapore’s Internal Security Department (ISD) detained 16 Singaporeans under the International Security Act (ISA). Six more people were arrested the very next month. The government accused these 22-English educated Singaporeans of being involved in a Marxist plot under the leadership of Tan Wah Piow, a self- styled Maoist, and a dissident Singaporean student leader living in the United Kingdom (UK). He was released from prison in 1976 after serving out a jail term of two years for rioting. As soon as he was released from jail, Tan Wah Piow was served with the call-up notice for National Service (NS), which is compulsory for all male Singapore citizens of 18 years and above. But instead of joining the NS, he fled to the UK in 1976, and sought and given political asylum. He has remained there ever since and is now a British citizen. On 26 May, 1987, Singapore’s Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) released a 41-page press statement justifying the detention without trial of the original 16. They were accused of knowing Catholic Church social worker Vincent Cheng, who in turn was alleged to be receiving orders from Tan Wah Piow to organise a network of young people who were inclined towards Marxism, with the objective of capturing political power after Lee Kuan Yew was no longer the prime minister (Lai To 205).
    [Show full text]
  • Active Learners Celebration 2016
    FEI YUE NEWSLETTER • 2016 • JULY Together with Our Beneficiaries HEART@Fei Yue: Turning Families Around Together Active Learners Celebration 2016 Research Presentation on Transnational Families Executive Director’s Message ear Friends, It has been a busy yet fruitful quarter! DWe officially opened our Child Protection Specialist Centre, HEART@Fei Yue in April and had our Active Learners Celebration in May, in conjunction with Fei Yue’s 25th Anniversary this year. Through each of these events, we hope to reach out and bless even more beneficiaries through quality services, bringing transformation to their lives. In this issue, we also celebrate the journeys we have had the privilege to take together with the various beneficiaries that have come through our doors at different points of their lives. Each has a unique journey and a unique story to tell, and we hope that as you get a glimpse into their struggles, you too will be encouraged to reach out to those around you who are struggling and help them in your own unique way. May the years ahead bring even more meaningful and effective work in the community for Fei Yue! Leng Chin Fai Executive Director Greetings from Fei Yue Community Services (FYCS) and Fei Yue Family Whats Inside Service Centre (FYFSC). Footprints will Community Outreach Activities be published every quarter to bring to you highlights of what is up and Together ● 25 With Our Beneficiaries coming, what event you had missed Together with Our Beneficiaries and how you can partner with us in Services Quiz various ways. Looking Back Turning Families Around Together Active Learners Celebration 2016 Research Presentation on Transnational Families Coming Up Getting There www.fycs.org Tel: 65631106 Fax: 68199171 Community Outreach Activities Bukit Batok Zone 2 RC Mothers’ Day Celebration On 14 May, families from Bukit Batok RC Zone 2 came together for a heartwarming gathering in celebration of Mothers’ Day.
    [Show full text]
  • Group Representation Constituencies
    Sembawang Sengkang West SMC GRC Hougang SMC Punggol East SMC Polling Marsiling- Yew Tee GRC Chua Chu Kang Nee Soon Pulau Ubin Pulau GRC GRC Tekong Bukit Holland- Panjang Bukit Timah Ang Mo Kio Pasir Ris- scorecard SMC GRC GRC Punggol GRC Hong Kah Here’s your guide to the polls. North SMC Bishan- Aljunied Tampines Toa Payoh GRC GRC You can ll in the results as they are GRC Jurong East Coast GRC released on www.straitstimes.com/ge2015 GRC and tick the winners as they are announced. West Marine Coast Tanjong Pagar Parade GRC GRC GRC Jalan Mountbatten Fengshan SMC Besar SMC Jurong GRC 6-member GRCs Island Bukit Batok MacPherson 5-member GRCs SMC Pulau Brani SMC Sentosa 4-member GRCs Pioneer SMC Yuhua SMC Radin Mas SMC Potong Pasir SMC SMCs GROUP REPRESENTATION CONSTITUENCIES Aljunied 148,142 voters Ang Mo Kio 187,771 voters Bishan-Toa Payoh 129,975 voters Votes cast Spoilt votes Votes cast Spoilt votes Votes cast Spoilt votes WP No. of votes PAP No. of votes PAP No. of votes Low Thia Khiang, Sylvia Lim, 50 Chen Show Mao, Lee Hsien Loong, 63 Ang Hin Kee, 49 Intan Azura Ng Eng Hen, 56 Josephine Teo, 47 Chong Kee Hiong, 59 54 Mokhtar, 39 49 Muhamad Faisal Pritam Singh, 39 Gan Thiam Poh, 51 Darryl David, 44 Koh Poh Koon, 43 Chee Hong Tat, 41 Saktiandi Supaat, Abdul Manap, 40 41 PAP No. of votes RP No. of votes SPP No. of votes Yeo Guat Kwang, Victor Lye K. Muralidharan M. Ravi, 46 Gilbert Goh Jesse Loo Benjamin Pwee Mohamad Hamim Law Kim Hwee, 55 54 Thiam Fatt, 53 Pillai, 47 Keow Wah, 54 Hoe Bock, 52 Yek Kwan, 47 Aliyas, 51 Chua Eng Leong, Shamsul Kamar, 43 Osman Sulaiman, Roy Ngerng Siva Chandran, 31 Bryan Long Mohamad Abdillah 44 40 Yi Ling, 34 Yaoguang, 37 Zamzuri, 30 • It made history in 2011 as the rst GRC to be won by an opposition party, • Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s constituency had the highest GRC vote • The PAP team here has the largest share of new faces apart from a defeat for the PAP which saw two Cabinet ministers lose their seats.
    [Show full text]
  • [2020] SGCA 16 Civil Appeal No 99 of 2019 Between Wham Kwok Han
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2020] SGCA 16 Civil Appeal No 99 of 2019 Between Wham Kwok Han Jolovan … Appellant And The Attorney-General … Respondent Civil Appeal No 108 of 2019 Between Tan Liang Joo John … Appellant And The Attorney-General … Respondent Civil Appeal No 109 of 2019 Between The Attorney-General … Appellant And Wham Kwok Han Jolovan … Respondent Civil Appeal No 110 of 2019 Between The Attorney-General … Appellant And Tan Liang Joo John … Respondent In the matter of Originating Summons No 510 of 2018 Between The Attorney-General And Wham Kwok Han Jolovan In the matter of Originating Summons No 537 of 2018 Between The Attorney-General And Tan Liang Joo John ii JUDGMENT [Contempt of Court] — [Scandalising the court] [Contempt of Court] — [Sentencing] iii This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. Wham Kwok Han Jolovan v Attorney-General and other appeals [2020] SGCA 16 Court of Appeal — Civil Appeals Nos 99, 108, 109 and 110 of 2019 Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, Judith Prakash JA, Tay Yong Kwang JA and Steven Chong JA 22 January 2020 16 March 2020 Judgment reserved. Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 These appeals arise out of HC/OS 510/2018 (“OS 510”) and HC/OS 537/2018 (“OS 537”), which were initiated by the Attorney-General (“the AG”) to punish Mr Wham Kwok Han Jolovan (“Wham”) and Mr Tan Liang Joo John (“Tan”) respectively for contempt by scandalising the court (“scandalising contempt”) under s 3(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (Act 19 of 2016) (“the AJPA”).
    [Show full text]
  • Goh Chok Tong V Chee Soon Juan [2003] SGHC 79
    Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan [2003] SGHC 79 Case Number : Suit 1460/2001 Decision Date : 04 April 2003 Tribunal/Court : High Court Coram : MPH Rubin J Counsel Name(s) : Davinder Singh SC, Hri Kumar and Nicolas Tang (Drew & Napier LLC) for the plaintiff/respondent; Defendant/appellant in person Parties : Goh Chok Tong — Chee Soon Juan Civil Procedure – Pleadings – Defence – Particulars of defence of duress not pleaded – Effect on defendant's case Civil Procedure – Summary judgment – Whether to set aside summary judgment and grant defendant leave to defend claim – Whether defendant had real or bona fide defence Contract – Discharge – Breach – Whether intimidation a defence to breach of contract of compromise Contract – Duress – Illegitimate pressure – Whether threat to enforce one's legal rights could amount to duress Tort – Defamation – Defamatory statements – Republication – Words republished by mass media – Whether defendant liable for republication Tort – Defamation – Defamatory statements – Whether defamatory in natural and ordinary meaning or by way of innuendo 1 This was an appeal by Dr Chee Soon Juan to judge-in-chambers from the decision of Senior Assistant Registrar Mr Toh Han Li (‘the SAR’) granting interlocutory judgment with damages (including aggravated damages) to be assessed in a defamation action brought by the respondent, Mr Goh Chok Tong. Mr Goh is, and was at all material times, the Prime Minister of the Republic of Singapore. On 25 October 2001, Mr Goh, as a candidate of the People’s Action Party (‘PAP’), was returned unopposed as a Member of Parliament for Marine Parade Group Representation Constituency (‘GRC’) in the 2001 General Elections.
    [Show full text]
  • Ramesh S/O Krishnan V AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd
    IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE [2016] SGCA 47 Civil Appeal No 112 of 2015 Between RAMESH S/O KRISHNAN … Appellant And AXA LIFE INSURANCE SINGAPORE PTE LTD … Respondent In the matter of Suit No 1022 of 2012 Between RAMESH S/O KRISHNAN … Plaintiff And AXA LIFE INSURANCE SINGAPORE PTE LTD … Defendant JUDGMENT [Tort]—[Negligence]—[Breach of duty] [Tort]—[Negligence]—[Causation] This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. Ramesh s/o Krishnan v AXA Life Insurance Singapore Pte Ltd [2016] SGCA 47 Court of Appeal — Civil Appeal No 112 of 2015 Sundaresh Menon CJ, Chao Hick Tin JA and Steven Chong J 25 November 2015 27 July 2016 Judgment reserved. Sundaresh Menon CJ (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction 1 Employers often require potential hirees to provide references from their former employers. Such references may serve as a basis for the prospective employer to assess the applicant’s character and abilities, and will likely have at least some, if not significant, bearing on the applicant’s chances of obtaining employment. For this and other reasons, which we will elaborate upon in the course of this judgment, it is important that employers prepare such references, when called upon to do so, in a fair and accurate manner to avoid unjustifiably prejudicing the former employee’s prospects of obtaining fresh employment. Before us, it was accepted that an employer has a duty of care when preparing such a reference.
    [Show full text]
  • Singapore's Chinese-Speaking and Their Perspectives on Merger
    Chinese Southern Diaspora Studies, Volume 5, 2011-12 南方華裔研究雜志, 第五卷, 2011-12 “Flesh and Bone Reunite as One Body”: Singapore’s Chinese- speaking and their Perspectives on Merger ©2012 Thum Ping Tjin* Abstract Singapore’s Chinese speakers played the determining role in Singapore’s merger with the Federation. Yet the historiography is silent on their perspectives, values, and assumptions. Using contemporary Chinese- language sources, this article argues that in approaching merger, the Chinese were chiefly concerned with livelihoods, education, and citizenship rights; saw themselves as deserving of an equal place in Malaya; conceived of a new, distinctive, multiethnic Malayan identity; and rejected communist ideology. Meanwhile, the leaders of UMNO were intent on preserving their electoral dominance and the special position of Malays in the Federation. Finally, the leaders of the PAP were desperate to retain power and needed the Federation to remove their political opponents. The interaction of these three factors explains the shape, structure, and timing of merger. This article also sheds light on the ambiguity inherent in the transfer of power and the difficulties of national identity formation in a multiethnic state. Keywords: Chinese-language politics in Singapore; History of Malaya; the merger of Singapore and the Federation of Malaya; Decolonisation Introduction Singapore’s merger with the Federation of Malaya is one of the most pivotal events in the country’s history. This process was determined by the ballot box – two general elections, two by-elections, and a referendum on merger in four years. The centrality of the vote to this process meant that Singapore’s Chinese-speaking1 residents, as the vast majority of the colony’s residents, played the determining role.
    [Show full text]
  • Countries: Religious Diversity in Canada and Singapore
    German Law Journal (2019), 20, pp. 986–1006 doi:10.1017/glj.2019.74 ARTICLE A Tale of Two (Diverse) Countries: Religious Diversity in Canada and Singapore Arif A. Jamal* and Daniel Wong Sheng Jie** (Received 22 April 2019; accepted 29 August 2019) Abstract Both Canada and Singapore express support for—and have the reality of being—multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, and multi-religious; and both jurisdictions have an avowed commitment to the freedom of religion. Yet, this commitment expresses itself in different ways in these two contexts. Although both the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Singaporean Constitution guarantee the freedom of religion, juridical definitions of what this freedom means may differ quite profoundly. This Article explores and analyzes these two different environments that nonetheless share important features. We argue that the approaches of Singapore and Canada do not fall simply into the categories of being “liberal” or “illiberal,” but instead invite reflection and reconsideration on the concepts of plural- ism, secularism, and liberalism in interesting ways. This Article thus highlights the significance of contex- tual factors in understanding the ways in which religious diversity is dealt with, particularly in Canada and Singapore, but also more generally. Keywords: Canada; Singapore; religious diversity; multiculturalism A. Introduction Singapore and Canada are in vastly different parts of the world but share some salient character- istics. Both are tremendously diverse in ethnic, racial, and—increasingly—religious terms.1 Both countries also embrace their diversity. For example, reference to the multicultural and multi- religious character of both countries is common, both in general social discourse as well as by political actors and state officials.
    [Show full text]
  • Major Vote Swing
    BT INFOGRAPHICS GE2015 Major vote swing Bukit Batok Sengkang West SMC SMC Sembawang Punggol East GRC SMC Hougang SMC Marsiling- Nee Soon Yew Tee GRC GRC Chua Chu Kang Ang Mo Kio Holland- GRC GRC Pasir Ris- Bukit Punggol GRC Hong Kah Timah North SMC GRC Aljunied Tampines Bishan- GRC GRC Toa Payoh East Coast GRC GRC West Coast Marine GRC Parade Tanjong Pagar GRC GRC Fengshan SMC MacPherson SMC Mountbatten SMC FOUR-MEMBER GRC Jurong GRC Potong Pasir SMC Chua Chu Kang Registered voters: 119,931; Pioneer Yuhua Bukit Panjang Radin Mas Jalan Besar total votes cast: 110,191; rejected votes: 2,949 SMC SMC SMC SMC SMC 76.89% 23.11% (84,731 votes) (25,460 votes) PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY (83 SEATS) WORKERS’ PARTY (6 SEATS) PEOPLE’S PEOPLE’S ACTION PARTY POWER PARTY Gan Kim Yong Goh Meng Seng Low Yen Ling Lee Tze Shih SIX-MEMBER GRC Yee Chia Hsing Low Wai Choo Zaqy Mohamad Syafarin Sarif Ang Mo Kio Pasir Ris-Punggol 2011 winner: People’s Action Party (61.20%) Registered voters: 187,771; Registered voters: 187,396; total votes cast: 171,826; rejected votes: 4,887 total votes cast: 171,529; rejected votes: 5,310 East Coast Registered voters: 99,118; 78.63% 21.37% 72.89% 27.11% total votes cast: 90,528; rejected votes: 1,008 (135,115 votes) (36,711 votes) (125,021 votes) (46,508 votes) 60.73% 39.27% (54,981 votes) (35,547 votes) PEOPLE’S THE REFORM PEOPLE’S SINGAPORE ACTION PARTY PARTY ACTION PARTY DEMOCRATIC ALLIANCE Ang Hin Kee Gilbert Goh J Puthucheary Abu Mohamed PEOPLE’S WORKERS’ Darryl David Jesse Loo Ng Chee Meng Arthero Lim ACTION PARTY PARTY Gan
    [Show full text]
  • Public Prosecutor V Amos Yee Pang Sang [2015] SGDC 215
    Public Prosecutor v Amos Yee Pang Sang [2015] SGDC 215 Case Number : MAC No. 902694 & 902695 of 2015 Decision Date : 28 July 2015 Tribunal/Court : District Court Coram : Kaur Jasvender Counsel Name(s) : Hay Hung Chun, Hon Yi & Kelvin Kow Weijie (Deputy Public Prosecutors) for the prosecution; Alfred Dodwell and Chong Jia Hao (Dodwell & Co LLC) and Tan Ngee Wee Ervin (Michael Hwang Chambers LLC) for the accused Parties : Public Prosecutor — Amos Yee Pang Sang 28 July 2015 District Judge Kaur Jasvender: 1 The accused claimed trial to a charge under section 292(1)(a) of the Penal Code (Cap 224) and a charge under section 298 of the Penal Code (Cap 224). He was found guilty and sentenced to one week’s imprisonment on the charge under section 292(1)(a) and to three weeks’ imprisonment on the charge under section 298. Both terms of imprisonment were ordered to run consecutively. The four-week term was backdated and the accused was released on the same day. He has now appealed against the conviction and sentence on both charges. 2 The prosecution and defence agreed to proceed by way of agreed facts (‘ASOF’) and exhibits thus dispensing with the need for any evidence to be called. Accordingly, it was agreed that no adverse inference will be drawn against the accused from not testifying in his defence. 3 In the course of the closing submissions, the defence made reference to the cautioned statement of the accused relating to the section 298 charge recorded on 30 March 2015 at 10.07am. The prosecution objected to the defence making reference to the statement on the ground that it was not part of the ASOF and exhibits.
    [Show full text]
  • Juvenile Justice: a Study of National Judiciaries for The
    JUVENILE JUSTICE: A STUDY OF NATIONAL JUDICIARIES FOR THE UNITED NATIONS ASIA AND FAR EAST INSTITUTE FOR THE PREVENTION OF CRIME AND THE TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS A focus on Singapore and selected comparisons with California (USA) & Australia Joseph Ozawa* I. SINGAPORE When Singapore is mentioned in various parts of the world, there are certain predicable responses, often focusing on Singaporean laws or the judicial system. “Oh, the place that makes chewing gum illegal!” or “The country that caned Michael Fey for spraying graffiti!” or “The nation that makes it a crime not to flush a toilet!” However, despite these sometimes amusing though derisive attributions, taking decisive action on minor infractions was subsequently popularized and advocated by James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling in their 1982 treatise entitled, “broken windows.” Here Wilson and Kelling argued that actually tolerating broken windows will actually result in larger and more extensive crimes. A successful anti-crime strategy is to fix problems when they are still minor. New York City government used much of Wilson’s and Kelling’s theory in “cleaning up” New York streets. Whatever the end product of “small laws,” Singapore has 12 times the population of Vancouver but just half the crime rate. It is difficult finding many recent international crime comparisons and as researchers know, comparing crime rates is filled with methodological problems. However, in general, in 1993, the juvenile delinquency rate in Singapore was rated at 538 per 100,000 persons whereas Japan was rated 1,220 per 100,000 and the USA 5,460 per 100,000.
    [Show full text]