Re: Singapore judges worst than kangaroo court
- From: "AleXX" <Alexx@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Dec 2008 14:08:43 +0800
"truth" <truth@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/1531-chee-presses-judge-to-rule-on-the-constitutionWhy are you hiding down under barking! You have no balls to come here and
Chee presses judge to rule on the constitution
Sunday, 07 December 2008
Do the police in Singapore have the right to ban public
demonstrations and processions purely based on their "policy position"? Or
is such a policy ultra vires (beyond the scope of its power) of the
This question was asked of District Judge Toh Yong Joo in the
on-going trial of the four activists charged with attempting to stage a
procession during the World Bank and International Monetary Fund meeting
in September 2006.
Last Thursday Dr Chee Soon Juan, one of the defendants, asked the
Judge to make a ruling on the matter. Judge Toh, however, refused.
On Friday, Dr Chee pressed the point again. Citing authorities,
including a judgment by England's Lord Justice Woolf which former Chief
Justice Yong Pung How had relied on, the Singapore Democrats'
secretary-general said that the Subordinate Courts had the power to rule
on such a matter.
"Lord Justice Woolf stated in his decision that a criminal court can
determine the matter if a policy of the executive is 'on the face of it'
contradictory of the constitution." Dr Chee pointed out.
"I decline to making any such findings, I reserve my judgment until
after hearing all evidence," Judge Toh replied.
But in Woolf's decision, it was determined that such an issue "is a
matter of law whether, for example, a byelaw [policy] is unreasonable in
operation or is out with the authorising power." And it such an instance
"no evidence is required; the court can decide the issue by looking at the
terms of the primary legislation [Constitution] and the subordinate
legislation [policy] which is alleged to be invalid." (emphasis added)
One of the prosecution witnesses, licensing officer Marc E, had
already testified that the police have a written document that expressly
forbids demonstrations of any nature. What other evidence does a judge
need to rule on this matter?
But the Judge still refused: "I repeat my stand, I decline to making
any such findings."
Sensing that the Judge was unsure of the issue, Dr Chee then asked
him to refer the matter to the High Court for adjudication, a mechanism
provided for in the Subordinate Courts Act where a lower court judge has
the discretion of referring a constitutional issue to the High Court.
The Judge again refused: "I decline to exercise my power to refer
this matter to the High Court under section 56A of the Sub Courts Act as I
see no reason why the case should not proceed."
"We are talking about fundamental freedoms of not just the four of us
seated here in this courtroom but the freedoms of all Singaporeans," Dr
Chee pressed on. "This issue goes to the heart of our Constitution and
whether we are a nation of laws. As I have pointed out, the Constitution
is the supreme law of the land. What the police have done is substantively
invalid of the Constitution."
Deputy Public Prosecutor Lee Lit Cheng interjected and, in an
unbelievable adulteration of logic, argued that the police have said that
they would reject any application for a demonstration.
"This clearly shows that there was no discriminating policy, and
therefore no basis to suggest that there was any contravention of the
Constitution," the prosecutor comically offered. But she was dead serious.
Dr Chee replied: "You don't need to have a PhD to see that there is a
contravention of the Constitution. If you can read and reason, you will be
able to see that Article 14 of the Constitution says one thing and the
police are doing something diametrically opposite.
"It seems that the Singapore establishment is the only place that
cannot see this contravention. Everyone else, including the International
Bar Association, legal scholars, senior lawyers, sees this. No one
believes that this kind of policy is not in direct contravention of our
"If Your Honour can see that the two are in conflict, then rule in
our favour. If not, rule against us and we can then get on with the rest
of the hearing. But either way make a ruling, don't procrastinate. And if
you cannot decide then refer the matter to the High Court."
The Judge declined to do all three, indicating that he would decide
on this at the close of the prosecution's case.
The trial at Subordinate Court 19 resumes on Tuesday.
say whatever you think about the court and see what happen like Nair.
- Singapore judges worst than kangaroo court
- From: truth
- Singapore judges worst than kangaroo court
- Prev by Date: Re: pap government fail Singaporeans
- Next by Date: Re: This is how Australian hold their government to their promises
- Previous by thread: Re: Singapore judges worst than kangaroo court
- Next by thread: pap government fail Singaporeans