|
|
|
CSJ:
Trial a mockery of justice
23 Nov 06
Dr Chee
Soon Juan read this statement in Court today.
This
trial will go down in the annals as one of the most shambolic and
disgraceful legal exercises. From day one it has been fraught
with sloppiness and, I daresay, outright mischief on the part of
the Prosecution.
Shenanigans galore
The
about-turn of the DPP not to use the video evidence and then
changing her mind again halfway through the proceedings has
turned this trial into a farce, one bordering on the
comedic.
Then there are the contradictions and
inconsistencies of the more than a dozen police witnesses
tripping over each other to maintain the incredible story that
they acted independently of their political master, prompted into
action only by this phantom 'Peter', a member of the public,
whose identity they conveniently forgot to record.
At
least two key witnesses, Sgt Lester Wong Wong and Sgt Nor
Hasdian, who received and disemminated the first information to
the rest of their colleagues told the Court one thing and then
minutes later, when prompted by the DPP, said something
diametrically opposite.
Another witness, ASP Colin Wong,
admitted that he had briefed his officers the day before our
event at Yishun and would have us believe that the police did not
have prior knowledge of the SDP's campaign activities.
One
of the witnesses had, in fact, admitted that he transcribed and
translated the video recording immediately upon returning to the
police station. This was at 12 noon on a Saturday!
What
was the hurry?
In 1997, Senior MInister Goh Chok Tong
admitted that when opposition candidate Tang Liang Hong lodged a
police report against PAP leaders, the report was immediately
given to Home Affairs Minister Wong Kan Seng who then passed it
on to Lee Kuan Yew who, in turn, instigated ten of his colleagues
to launch a massive lawsuit with him against Tang.
This
was done in the ministers' personal capacities. In other words,
the police were used to benefit the personal activities of the
PAP leaders.
Handing over the report was a blatant breach
in police procedure that itself warranted an investigation. Its
perpetrators ought to be brought to justice.
And we are
expected to believe, in the persent case, that the police acted
without instructions from the PAP and that it was a member of the
public that had lodged the complaint?
I am in no doubt
that the video and its transcript were placed at Mr Lee Kuan
Yew's desk the minute they were processed, hence the rush to
transcribe it that very morning itself.
Another officer, a
DSP no less, came up with the fairy tale that he made duplicate
copies of the video because he “happened to be the one who
knew how to operate the machine.” A total of five officers
had, at some point, the original tape in their custody. As I
mentioned it is obvious that copies were given to PAP
leaders.
The fact that we were stopped by the Judge when
we asked the witness whether copies were given to the PAP is more
than interesting.
Then there was the mother-of-all monkey
businesses. Police witness ASP Jeremy Koh was caught being in the
courtroom and colluding with other witnesses. Even to a layperson
this was an outrageous breach of the most fundamental of court
practices, outrageous in its daring and brazenness.
The
fact that this incident registered barely a ripple in the
subsequent proceedings which continued as if nothing had
happened, speaks volumes.
(Even our application of a
Criminal Motion to the High Court for the trial to be aborted
because of the tainting of the evidence by Jeremy Koh's presence
received short shrift. The Judge, Mr Choo Han Teck, didn't bother
to hear our arguments.
And if you take into account the
Registrar bizarrely fixing the Criminal Motion hearing on the day
after it was filed, leaving the applicants without time to
prepare our case, you begin to, if you haven't already, form the
picture that the entire machinery was moving inexorably towards
its inevitable conclusion.)
Collectively, the actions of
the Prosecution and the evidence given by the police witnesses
serve to remind us of how the ruling party continues to use state
instruments to, in the infamous words of our dear leader Mr Lee
Hsien Loong, “fix” the opposition.
A
Constitution waiting to be applied
Be that as it may,
I have no interest in using these matters in my defence. For even
without the video evidence I would never have denied doing what I
did on 22 April 2006. Why deny something I am proud of?
In
the premises, was there really a need for the Prosecution to
resort to such puerile tactics to secure a conviction?
So
why am I bringing all this up? My intention is to demonstrate
that the charge is not simply one of the police enforcing the
law, but rather the PAP misusing and abusing its powers in a
political game designed to crush the opposition.
But while
the police may be in a difficult position to defy their boss, the
Judiciary should have the wherewithal to resist being dragged
into such political ignominy.
In such a case, should not
our Judicial system look into the motivation of the Executive and
determine for itself if the spirit of the law has been breached
in this case? Should not our Judges, sworn to uphold the rule of
law, be interested to see if there has been any abuse of the law
by the ruling party to persecute the opposition?
Justice
is, I want to believe, foremost in the mind of this Judiciary.
And how is justice kept alive? Former US Supreme Court Chief
Justice Earl Warren said: “It is the spirit and not the
form of law that keeps justice alive.”
Don't hide
behind the letter of the law, Your Honour. Have the courage to
apply the spirit of the law. And the spirit of the law demands
that Singapore's opposition cannot be curtailed in its right to
speak to the people while the ruling party freely propagates
itself and its views.
Let me make myself perfectly clear:
The spirit of the law demands that everyone be treated
even-handedly under the law.
But if the Judiciary so
chooses to be co-opted in to the PAP's hideous exercise of
decimating anything and everything that stands in its path to
unbridled power, then so be it. It, too, will have to face the
consequences when the time comes.
I have been urged to
point out that selling our party publication, The New Democrat,
is different from making a speech and to ask to be acquitted
because at no point were we making a speech because all we were
doing was selling the newspaper.
But for me to raise these
technical points is to miss the forest for the trees. It doesn't
matter if I was simply selling a newspaper or if I were
addressing voters. The important thing is that I had the right to
do both and that right must be recognized and respected.
In
this context, it is meaningless – unseemly, in fact –
for me to quibble about whether my actions on the said dates
amount to public speaking or merely the selling of my party
newspaper.
The substantive point that I would like to
focus on is that the Public Entertainment and Meetings Act has
been used by the PAP to prosecute and deter legitimate political
activity.
Its application has been selective and targeted
to ensure that the political opposition's ability to reach out to
the people in an effective manner is crippled.
Street
vendors, hawking all manner of goods, are found all over the
island doing exactly what we did on 22 April. Doesn't it seem
strange to this Court that the police singled out the SDP for
prosecution when they let everyone else continue on with their
sales?
Isn't there something in our Constitution about
citizens being treated equally under the law that you, the Judge,
should at least show some interest?
The fact that you have
denied us the right to adduce evidence that this charge was
nothing but political vengeance on the part of the ruling party
is revealing. May I add that in time to come, it will also prove
hugely embarrassing for the Judiciary.
Encouraged by
the punishment
I stand before you with nothing to
hide, no tricks up my sleeves and, most important, with
absolutely no remorse.
I come to this courtroom armed with
only my faith in democracy and my belief that one day I will be
vindicated, and that Singapore will be a free and democratic
country.
I wish deep in my heart that I were wrong and
that somehow, not for my own sake because I have prepared myself
to go to jail again but for the sake of my country and my fellow
citizens, that we will not be found guilty.
But I am also
not one to indulge in wishful thinking.
Indeed, if I had
an ounce of hope that the evidence we establish would have a
bearing on the verdict I would pour my heart and soul into this
courtroom battle.
But alas, after having gone through
several trials where I have repeatedly tried to bring reason and
the spirit of democracy to bear on the judicial process, I say
with a heavy heart that I am convinced that no words, no fact, no
call to reason can alter the verdict.
Your hearts have
been hardened with fear and no amount of persuasion can enlighten
you at this time. I hope, however, that one day they can be
healed by courage, the courage to face the truth, the courage to
dispense justice and fairness to the citizens of this country.
I
speak not out of spite. I have only the highest respect for your
achievements and your elevation to the bench. But I will not
shirk my responsibility to speak the truth to you. Because
everyone, no matter the status or the title he attains in life,
will have to face the truth sooner or later.
This is why I
ask not for mercy. Only one who has done wrong need ask for
mercy.
There are at least two reasons for the
administration of criminal justice: deterrence and
rehabilitation. What will punishing me achieve? Do you think it
will rehabilitate me and deter me from doing what I am doing?
If
it did, would I be standing here before you charged with the same
offence for the fourth time? In fact, every hour, every day,
every month that I spend in jail only strengthens my resolve to
fight this oppression.
I might add that Singaporeans
witnessing this ridiculous situation will not be frightened off.
What happens in this courtroom today makes them want to
contribute even more to the struggle for justice and democracy in
Singapore.
In other words, the punishment you mete out has
the opposite of the intended effect.
There is a difference
in punishing someone who has committed a crime versus punishing
someone who is fighting for democracy and the rights of the
people. The former you can curtail but the latter you only
encourage.
Surely you are intelligent enough to see that
injustice in the political arena cannot be cleansed by injustice
in the courtroom. On the contrary, it only serves to foment the
anger of the people.
Seen from this vantage, you realize
that my fight is not in this Court which renders but only one
opinion. There is another opinion that will be made and it will
resonate far beyond the confines of this Court and deep into
history.
And this is the opinion of the public both in
Singapore and throughout the world.
The defence therefore
cannot rest its case – the case of The People v PAP. It
will not rest until we achieve democracy in this country.
Chee
Soon Juan
23 November 2006
|
|
