(Red circle added for emphasis)"How does one ought to 'reasonably' know that having more than one person assemble outside Parliament is an offence?"Even the average Joe in Orchard road can tell you that SDP activists did not simply assemble outside Parliament. They protested, donning cheaply printed T-shirts, and holding placards. Why is it that every time SDP claims it is campaigning and then later deny it when they go into the courtroom? Can anyone trust this party at all?
"Under cross-examination by one of the defendants, Mr Carl Lang, during the hearing yesterday, police witness Sergeant Nor Hidah said that she was "not sure" whether the area around Parliament House was a gazetted place within which a gathering of more than one person needs police permission. And get this -- she has been a police officer for eights years.
This begs the question, doesn't it? If an experienced police officer doesn't know the above requirement (and we'll wager our last dollar that Sgt Nor Hidah is not the only police officer who doesn't know) how does one expect the average guy to, reasonably or otherwise?"
Jeremy Au Yong, Political Correspondent
The Straits Times
25 October 2008"THERE were disagreements in court on Friday as the first prosecution witness took the stand in the ongoing trial of 17 people charged with taking part in an illegal assembly outside Parliament House on Mar 15.
However, this came from among defendants themselves, as they could not see eye-to-eye on a number of matters.
Chief among these was the line of questioning of police photographer Nor Hidah Ali Jinnah, the witness.
At one point, lawyer Chia Ti Lik, a defendant, interrupted fellow defendant Yap Keng Ho's cross-examination to say: 'Your Honour, I do not see the relevance of this line of questioning. And I wonder why the DPP (Deputy Public Prosecutor) has not objected.'
Yap had been questioning the police photographer on the type of flash she used to take pictures of the scene. He said it was to establish the authenticity of the photos.
Staff Sergeant Nor Hidah had been tasked to take pictures of the area where the assembly and procession had allegedly taken place, to establish the setting.
Half an hour of questions from Yap delving into technical details of her camera equipment made his co-defendants lose patience..."
"The morning started off with Mr Ng E-jay pleading guilty to the charge of taking part in an assembly outside Parliament House. The second charge of participating in a procession was taken into consideration. Mr Ng was subsequently fined $600."Compare this to the article "Come and support the activists during the trial" which read, "We are proud of being able to come together to defend and push for the rights of our fellow citizens, for without these rights we are at the mercy of the PAP. We know that we are guided by the truth and righteousness."
"In the end, Mr George pleaded guilty as this was the only way for him to get back to his work. He was fined $1,200."What's more, one of the SDP activists pleaded guilty just to go back to work! Seems like career is more important than political stand.
"I understand what was read out to me," Mr Jufrie replied, "what I don't understand is why are we being charged. You see groups of tourists and other people everyday in front of Parliament. Why are they all not charged?"This either shows the naivity of Mr Jufrie to law, or that he's trying to say the SDP did not campaign at all in front of Parliament. So wasn't there a demonstration?
Jeremy Au Yong
The Straits Times
Headline: 19 on illegal assembly trial
IT WAS a lively start to the first day of court proceedings for 19 people accused of demonstrating in front of Parliament House in March.
The 19, who include Singapore Democratic Party chief Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin, have been charged with taking part in an illegal assembly and a subsequent procession.
The group piled into Court 5 of the Subordinate Courts at 9.30am on Thursday, and extra chairs had to be put in place to accomodate all of them.
The public gallery was filled with about 20 people, including supporters of the SDP and those on trial.
Amid the noise and commotion as the defendants were taking their seats before proceedings started, one of them, blogger Yap Keng Ho, 45, remarked to the rest: 'This is the largest pasar malam in the history of Singapore'.
During the course of proceedings before District Judge Chia Wee Kiat, several of those who were charged rose to ask questions or make applications.
There were requests for copies video clips taken by the police of the March 15 event; one accused sought an adjournment as he wanted to get back to his job; and one asked for the Court to observe a minute's silence for the late opposition polition JB Jeyaretnam, who was to have represented several of the activists.
But the first order of formal business on Thursday morning for District Judge Chia was to deal with the decision by one of the accused, blogger Ng E-Jay, 31, who said that he was pleading guilty.
He told The Straits Times that he had decided to do so just on Wednesday.
Proceedings were then adjourned so that his case could be dealt with before the trial of the remaining 18 accused could continue.
Ng was fined $600, or six days in jail in default, after he admitted to the charge.
http://www.straitstimes.com/Breaking%2BNews/Singapore/Story/STIStory_293924.html
Straits Times
18 October 2008
Govt responds to call by US advocacy group to desist from 'using defamation suits to stifle political opposition'
THE Government yesterday gave its position on criticisms levelled against government leaders by opposition politicians, in response to a statement by a New York-based advocacy group, Human Rights Watch (HRW).
The group had called on Singapore's leaders to 'end the practice of using defamation suits to stifle political opposition'. In comments posted on its website yesterday, it highlighted a High Court ruling this week.
HRW noted that the court had awarded Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong and Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew six-figure sums against the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), its secretary-general Chee Soon Juan and his sister Chee Siok Chin for defamation.
In reply, the Ministry of Information, Communications and the Arts' spokesman noted that in Singapore, opposition politicians have the right to criticise the Government and government leaders.
But, Ms K. Bhavani added, 'that does not entitle them to tell lies or defame'.
'If they do, the leaders must either sue to clear their names and be prepared to be cross-examined in open court, or allow the lies to stand unchallenged and the public to believe that the defamations are true.
'This is the way to establish the truth, and to keep Singapore's public discourse honest and responsible.''
In reference to the court ruling, Ms Bhavani noted that the Chees and their political party, the SDP, had accused PM Lee and MM Lee of dishonesty, nepotism and corruption, among other things.
They had done it just before a General Election in 2006, she noted in a statement to the media. 'When the two ministers sued, the other members of the SDP central executive committee apologised, but Chee and his sister refused to do so.
'The Chees had every opportunity to justify and prove their allegations in court, but totally failed to do so. Therefore, they have to pay damages commensurate with the seriousness of the defamation and in accordance with the judgment of the court.'
The defamation was committed in articles published in SDP's newsletter, The New Democrat. Nine of its leaders settled earlier with the Lees, apologising and paying them $170,000 each.
That leaves the SDP and the Chee siblings owing the Lees $610,000 in all. The siblings are bankrupt. If the SDP is unable to pay, the 28-year-old party faces the prospect of being wound up.
The possibility was highlighted as well in HRW's statement. It reported its deputy Asia director Elaine Pearsonas saying: 'Using defamation laws to silence peaceful political speech makes a mockery of Singapore's claim to be a model democracy. Opposition criticism of the Government is an essential ingredient of a democratic political system.'
The group urged the Government to 'lift legal restrictions on freedom of expression to bring the country in line with international law'.
In concluding remarks, the HRW said 'the assault on free speech by Singapore's leaders extends to critical foreign publications circulating in Singapore'.
It mentioned several cases, involving among others, the Far Eastern Economic Review and The Wall Street Journal Asia.
Ms Pearson said: 'The history of defamation in Singapore shows a pattern of making people pay dearly for exercising the basic right of peaceful expression.
'Singapore has nothing to fear from a vocal opposition and its people have everything to gain.'
