Jaslyn Go’s Blog

28th January 2010 was a special day to me.

This was the day when the TBT trial finally came to the end.  Prosecution and defendants have both closed their cases and what is left is submission from both sides which is due on 25th February 2010, and judgment will be on 8th March 2010.

I am so proud of myself for having the perseverance to stay on the trial till the end despite the objections, ‘threats’, and the lack of support from family and some of my close friends.

I am so proud that I have overcome this trial without any legal counsel to represent me and having to do my own cross-examination which was daunting for me as this was the first time I was charged in court.

I am also proud that despite having E-Jay and Ti Lik leaving the trial, I am able to hold my own fort and persevere till the end.   My persistence has surprised many of our activist friends and it is always interesting to have them come up to me to tell me how I shocked them.

Martyn once told me that unlike others who start from beginner to intermediate, mine was a straight jump to intermediate.  How true.  Unlike many who are still struggling to overcome their fears, I was forced to address my fear when I was first faced with the police investigations and thereafter the charge. The long drawn trial was really a challenge, not just because of having to sit through the trial, but having to juggle sending and picking up my kids from school.

I remember someone once told Dr Chee that this TBT trial is a good way to sieve out the leaders from the followers. At that time, I was rather offended by this statement because my good buddy E-Jay has chosen to plead guilty at the very start of the trial which I empathize with, and to me, E-Jay has every quality to be a leader.

However, on hindsight, I came to realize that it does hold certain truth in it.  It does not mean that those who stay on are definitely of leaders’ quality, but I know real leaders will be able to withstand the test of time and will never be a quitter despite the adversity faced.  To this, I give my utmost respect to Dr Chee, Gandhi, Siok Chin, John and Jufrie Mahmood who have been through many more trials than us, but have never given up. These are the leaders who when they called upon me, I will willingly follow.

Come 8th March 2010, I will face with the possibility of a a hefty fine which is taxing for a mother of 2 young children, but this is the price I am prepared to pay for standing up not only for myself, my family but also to my fellow citizens against the rising cost of living in Singapore, standing up to the rights of citizens to speak up for what they believe in, standing against a autocratic government who do not respect our Singapore Constitution and the rights of their citizens.

They can charge me, fine me, but they should not take that right away from me.

It was a long and tiring trial for most of us this tranche. Much time was wasted by my two fellow co-defendants Yap and Carl during their cross examination with William Goh.

When it came to be my turn, i thought that by being straight to the point and not wasting time, my questioning would be smooth. It seemed that i was wrong.

The following is my cross examination with DSP William Goh (formerly ASP, was promoted after this case).

Jas : during the material day and time did u see me?

WG : yes

Jas : where did you see me?

WG : I saw her at Parliament Square and subsequently at Funan.

Jas : what was I doing?

WG : at Parliament Square I saw her with a child and same thing at Funan.

Jas : can you please reconfirm your answer that you saw me with only one kid? not two or three?

DJ : Ms Go would you like me to repeat his answer?

Jas : no, I would like the witness to reconfirm his answer.

WG : yes. I rem only 1.

Jas : I didn’t suppose you can point out in the video what i was doing at that point in time.

WG : I don’t know what she was doing unless I see the video again.

Jas : so would u like to see the video again?

DJ : Ms Go, is that necessary?

Jas : depends on the witness as he is the one requesting to see the video in order to identify what I am doing

DJ : We been going through the past few days the video and I am asking if it is necessary for us to waste time watching the video again.

Jas : I am not the one asking the witness to watch the video, instead he was the one requesting to in order to identify what I am doing. However, I can move on to my next question. Mr Goh, did you see me carrying the placards?

WG : no

Jas : did u c me walking from Parliament Square to Funan?

WG : on that day I didn’t recall seeing her walk from Parliament Square to Funan. I saw her at Parliament Square n subsequetly at Funan.

Jas : when u stopped the group at Funan did u notice where I was?

WG : no

Jas : I put it to you that during the entire period you did not notice where I was, what I was doing n whether or not I was in the group.

WG : I saw her in red tee at Parliament Square when group was there n subsequntly at Funan when after some of the group were arrested and remaining those at the back of group then I saw her standing on my right nearer to the staircase of Funan with 2 or 3 other women and men in red tees and some other children.

Jas : you saw me standing at Funan. Am i right?

WG : at funan I saw her somewhere on my right nearer to staircase of Funan with some other men n women wearing red tees and some other children.

Jas : I put it to u that you are here today to testify as a prosecution witness but you have no evidence of me commit any offence.

WG : I believe she was part of the group although I didn’t see her within the activities of the group. Perhaps can see video to confirm that.

Jas : I put it to you that you have no evidence against me but you have to watch the video to verify and even then you can’t verify.

WG : there were so many in the group I don’t recall or specifically keep an eye on Ms Go to specify what she did on that day all the time.

Jas : I rest my case.

It was amazing how DSP William Goh can change his evidence. During DPP’s examination-in-chief, he pointed out that he can only remember some of the defendants, naming Dr Chee, Siok Chin, Gandhi and John. After being taken through the video playback minute by minute over several days by Carl (which the Judge and the DPP did not object) during his cross-examination, it dawned on him that he could identify me.

Judge Chia Wee Kiat and DPP Issac Tan allowed Carl and Yap to go on and on when the questions they asked are neither relevant nor related to their defence.

However, when it came to be my turn, you can see from the above….

E-Jay, Ti Lik and myself, we are known to be the inseparable F4.  Me being the Empress was always seen with my 2 trusted bodyguards by my side.

We used to do many things together like in this case took part in the protest together, and charged for illegal protest and assembly together.

With the latest development, and Ti Lik choosing to plead guilty due to his work commitment, I suddenly felt so alone without my trusted bodyguards watching over me or fighting alongside with me.

I remember chatting with Sylvester on Monday, who asked me how am I doing, I told him I don’t know if end of the day, what I am going through, to stick by my believe and my conviction is worth it, but I know I have to carry on, not for myself, but for my children.  I am doing all this to pave the way for the younger generation, I hope by the time my kids are older, there is true democracy in Singapore.

Yet this afternoon after our lunch break, while Carl is doing his cross-examination, my handphone rings for several times, unable to pick up at that point of time and not knowing who called, I didn’t think much of it.  When I reached home, I realized the school was trying to contact me because my son is sick and having a high fever.  I was filled with remorse and guilt for not being there for him.

The price all of us – believers of democracy, have to pay to carry on with the trial.  Of course, this is exactly what the PAPies knew and how they using it to kill us.. Some of us has the luxury of time on our side to continue the fight, while others like E-Jay, Ti Lik, Jeffrey George, Rajan and Suraya did not.

As a mother, a woman, I do have my limitation and emotional moments.  I wouldn’t know if end of the day, what is going to come out of this trial, this fight, what I have lost along the way but I still chose to continue on.

To my remaining 12 comrades, thank you for giving me all the support I need to carry on this fight.

Thank you Siok Chin and John for always talking to me, lending me a listening ear.

Thank you Seelan for always checking if I am feeling ok.  I feel your concern.

Thank you Sylvester for always sharing with me and assuring me you know what I am going through.

Thank you Shafiie for the butter bread that you sweetly order for me for breakfast on Monday.

Thank you Kai Xiong for always coming up to me and sharing some jokes to make me laugh.

Thank you Francis, for now you are the only one addressing me as Empress.

Thank you Gandhi, for the generous compliments to me each day at our trial which never fails to perk me up (ok I admit I am vain, and I loves compliments..haha)

Thank you Dr Chee, Carl, Jufri Snr for working through all those cross-examniation and speaking up not just for us, but the rest of the Singaporeans.

Thank you E-Jay, for the chat we share in this early morning.  Your assurance and support gives me new strength and I know I have a friend in you.

Last but not least, thank you PAPies, for making all this possible.  For you have taught me to be a strong woman, to standby my conviction and belief against all odds.  You have educate my political knowledge along the way and develop true friendship from the TBT 18.

This is my TBT comrade, Sylvester Lim’s cross examination of SI Yeo Kok Leong..

Syl: Mr Yeo, as a member of the police force, you are a civil servant is that right?

Yeo: yes

Syl: as a civil servant , who are you serving?

DPP: relevancy?

Syl: I just want to make sure that Mr Yeo understand the duties of a civil servant afterall he’s been a civil servant for 15yrs..

DPP: we are not here to be schooled on civil servant, you should ask relevant questions..

Syl: I just want to verify that Mr Yeo, in understanding his duty as a civil servant that he could have made a wrongful arrest…Mr Yeo as a civil servant, do you thnk you made a wrongful arrest of the Indian man that you mentioned?

Yeo: I have no comment..

Syl: Mr Yeo, as a member of the police force, you have certain authority, if u have made a wrongful arrest, wouldn’t that be an abuse of your power?

Yeo: if the said Indian man felt that I’ve wrongfully arrested him, he should have made a report against me for wrongful arrest 1 yr ago…

Syl: Mr Yeo, when you are given an order, do you just follow without questioning?

Yeo: I can only comment on this incident whch DSP William Goh ordered me to make arrest. I complied..

Syl: as a civil servant, if you think that what you are asked to do is morally wrong, would you question your superiors?

DPP: relevancy again

Syl: Your Honor, there are members of the police force here, they are forced to listen because its their duty to this court proceedings. During the whole process it is rather saddening that a civil servant of the police force can be so evasive at times with his answers. I would have thought that the police force being civil servants, are to protect the citizens of Singapore and they should be very proud of their jobs and their duties…

Judge: relevancy?

Syl: I just want to ensure Mr Yeo is as truthful as he can with his answers and I will move on with my next question…

I thank you Your Honor

Since I have discharge my lawyers on 26 February 09, I have been following the trial more attentively. It helps that I am also typing the transcript for the on-going trial..

The current PW 2 on the stand SI Yeo Kok Leong has been avoiding and evasive in his replies to question posed to him.
Not only that..at times, he will make his own decision that he don’t see the point in answering the question.
On a few occasions we have to request the judge to direct him to answer the questions posed to him.

Today, when DJ Chia Wee Kiat asked me if I have any questions for PW 2.. I decided to exercise my rights as a defendants to question PW 2 on the witness stand..

Below is our exchange ;

Jas: Mr Yeo did you know thatt,when u were there under the instructions of your superior or William Goh or whoever thatt is, the event was an sdp event and that the permit was rejected by u?

Yeo: can u repeat the question again?can I request Ms Go to explain?

Jas: when u were there on March 15 08, do you know that it was an SDP event?

Yeo: I knw thatt there is an event but I am not sure whether it was done by SDP..

Jas: so do u know that the event was the permit that you have rejected?

Yeo: yes

Jas: so if it was a yes, then how do u not know it was an SDP event?

Yeo: I knw Dr Chee is frm SDP but his application did not mention thatt this was an SDP event..

Jas: ok thank you u..my next question.. if application was approved or rejected is between the SPF and the applicant, will the public be aware of such approval or rejection?

Yeo: for my unit, we need not reveal to any members of the public.as for the SPF as a whole, I don’t know…

Jas: if the application for CASE permit is between SPF and CASE, do u thnk the 2000 or 3000 protesters who attended the event reasonably ought to have known that there is/isn’t any permit issued?

DPP : relevancy..is she expecting the witness to speak on behalf of 2000 or 3000 people?

Yap: I think DPP is trying to stretch your ruling..

Jas: allow me to rephrase that question…in the situation of CASE and SPF, the permit application, did the police make any announcement to the public that a permit was granted for the event?

DPP : relevancy?

Jas: I am a member of the public. for me, I am not particular who organized the event but the relevancy why I attended or participated in the event. I attend as member of public.n I believe CASE protesters also attended as member of public. As a member of the public, how do I know which event is legal and which is illegal?

DPP : when Ms Go asked about the event in question, whether the application or the rejection thereof is communicated to the public I ddn’t object..as to whether another application or rejection or grant for that matter was communicated to the public, is of no relevance to this case

Judge : irrelevant but u can direct the question to PW 2 on the event you attended…..

Jas: before the SDP event or this 15 March 09 event, did SPF make a public announcement, either through mainstream media or SPF website that the event had no permit? or advise the public not to attend?

Yeo: I don’t know…

Jas: as a Licensing Officer, isn’t it his duty to inform the public about such illegal event?

Yeo: my duty is to inform my supervisor.

Jas: does SPF conduct public education on the difference between state event, ministerial event or political event?

Yeo: I don’t know….

Jas: I am wrapping up my questions but I will like to add, if PW2 who’s been in the police force for past 15 yrs don’t know so many things, me as member of public, should not be expected or reasonably ought to know that much as well. That’s all. thank u..

When I am done, I was touched that many of my co-defandants were clapping and cheering me.  Not because that I have done a good job in my cross-examination with PW 2, but because they see that not only I have exercise my constitional rights as a citizen to speak up which landed me in court, but I have also exercise my rights as a defandant to question PW 2..

To my TBT 18 – thank you for your encouragement,  I believe I will improve with time

A reader’s kind remarks for Jaslyn and the cause she stands for
February 26, 2009 by admin
Filed under: Voices of the People

I am an American and live in the state of California. I happened to be looking at various websites addressing child care, and ran across this article. I applaud Ms Go’s courage. I am a single father, having raised my daughter for the past 19 years, and yes, I want her to live in a world cleaner and more humane than the one I live in. I see Ms Go taking a position to provide a better today and tomorrow for the residents of Singapore.

I have spent time in Singapore, quite a few years ago, while in the US Military, and have always held very fond memories of it, the people, the city. As a matter of fact, I fell in love there with a Malay woman, have very fond memories of walks by the river, or by the quay.

As an American, when people ask me about Singapore, there is only one response, “you have to see it for yourself”. I respect the country, and the people.

So Ms Go, I wish you the best in your pursuit, and though I may not know you, I respect you.

Good luck, from Rick in California

http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=2328&cpage=1#comment-3805

I missed out one point.

The prosecution maintains that there are only 3 “material facts” that needs to be established in this trial and nothing else matters. That is “whether we ought to have reasonably know” that it is an offence to participate in the protest. Kai Xiong commented that this can be directly investigated by questioning the TBT 18 during our police investigation.  Our presence is a given, so ultimately there are only 2 witness the prosecution needs to call.

Yet as everyone knows the story by now, there are 27 witnesses, most of whom are arresting officers.

A friend of ours from Taiwan who has been following TBT 18 trial was intrigue by this, he commented that in Taiwan, the judge would throw out all the witnesses irrelevant to the case to save time. The longer the trial drags on, the more unfair it is to the defendant(s).

The DPP never gave any answer to this.

Our trial was nearly stood down again because AGC for the Kangaroo trial wanted to arrange a last min PTC for John and Shafie at 9am in Supreme Court today.  Finally at about 6.45pm on Thursday, John manage to postpone the Kangaroo PTC to next week.

The TBT trial continue with Dr Chee cross examination with PW 2.  Through Dr Chee’s cross examination, the following has been established ;

1) On the SPF website where Dr Chee applied for the protest permit, there was no indication to input his DOB.

2) On the evidence submitted by the Prosecutor, Dr Chee’s DOB was stated.

3) PW 2 has absolutely no idea how this could happen.

4) The court rules all the above irrelevant as they are not interested to know how the evidence came about because the fact still remain that no police permit was granted, irregardless of whether the evidence was manufactured or fabricated or tampered.

5) It is stated clearly in SPF website that the NORMAL processing time is about 7 working days from the receipt of the application but SPF took 28 days to respond instead.

6) When trying to probe further if Dr Chee’s application was normal or not normal, Dr Chee was told that it was irrelevant again with the same reasoning that Dr Chee should take up Judiciary Review for such line of questioning.

At one point of time, TBT 18 stood up in unity (less the 3 of us who were represented by counsels) in support of Dr Chee and urge the Judge to disallow further objection from the DPP.  Though seated in my seat (with due respect to my counsels), I am in total support of the TBT 18.

Kai Xiong later pointed out to the Judge that if this trial is based on the fact that there was no police permit and that a illegal assembly and procession did took place, then the Prosecutor need not have 27 witnesses on the stand and instead just need 2 which is the Licensing Officer, to testify no police permit was issue and the video taken on that day to prove our participation.  He is baffled as to why then the need to submit 27 witnesses to waste everybody time!

It seem to me that if the court take such stand as that of the DPP, they might as well ask TBT 18 to show cause, instead of wasting time to stand trial since it is establish that no police permit was issue, PERIOD!

As to why the police permit was not granted, who makes the final decision to reject Dr Chee’s application, is there biasness when SDP protest is not allow but CASE protest is allowed, why it took 4x the NORMAL time for them to process Dr Chee’s application, why the application form printed from Dr Chee’s online application and that produced by the Prosecutor is different, why the DOB appears on the Prosecutor evidence when Dr Chee’s did not input his DOB in his application can only bring it up for Judiciary Review.

I am deeply disturb by the on-going of our TBT trial. Disturbed by the fact that as long as evidence is being produced in court by the DPP, the Judge has no interest to know if the evidence might have been tamper, manufacture or fabricated.

This is the first time in my entire life that I was standing as a accused person in court, it is also the first time I have come so up close with the court, the Judge, the Prosecutor, and somehow, I feel that I am already convicted even before the trial ends.

I wanted to write more updates about the court..but end up I am always so tired after court each day..

Tired not because of the action in court, but tired of the wait in court.

Judge stand down of 10 mins usually end up 1 hour instead and 30 mins ended up 2hrs+..

It doesn’t help when the presiding Judge is one who is rather indecisive.  He allows argument to escalate, letting DPP time to address him on issues raised by Dr Chee when we thought after court dismiss for the day, he would come to a decision in the morning when the court adjourned.

Due to this, DPP ask for 30 mins break to do research and that 30 mins ended up took 2 hours and 10 mins with the court officials coming out to inform us that the DPP will be late..That aside, DPP return with research and presented his arguments.

As it was almost lunch time and John and Shafie need to be at High Court to answer their “kangaroo tees” charge at 1430, the court was dismissed for the day without counter arguments from TBT 18.

When the court adjourn the next morning, TBT18 ask for more time to do research to counter DPP arguments, most of the TBT18 are not legally trained and given the fact that 2 of the TBT 18 are over at the High Court for a different matters yesterday afternoon.

Judge then rule that Dr Chee could not continue his line of questioning to PW 2. (without hearing the defense of the TBT 18)  That line of questioning is that who makes the decision to reject SDP’s application for a police permit for the March 15 protest..

It is final – The police rejected Dr Chee application for a police permit for the protest, as to who, why and on what basis the permit was rejected he is not allowed to ask.

hmm..I suddenly get reminded of my mummy..

When I was a kid, mummy always disallow us this and that, when me and my siblings challenge my mummy as to why are we not allow to say, play with our neighbourhood friends, mummy will always replied us “because Mummy SAID SO”..that it..no reason given..mummy words will be final.  That is always the best answer mummy could give when she had NO answer for us.

As a mother myself now, I will always make conscious effort to explain to my kids as to why mummy forbid them to do certain things, it takes alot of patience and yes at times it can be frustrating when my kids refused to listen and find 1001 ways to convince me otherwise.  Through it all, my kids have been able to hone their negotiation skills and at times able to convince and assure me of my concerns (sometimes unfounded) and thus allowing them to do what I initially set out to forbid.

Well..our SPF doesn’t work this way!

Looking at how things are going, I am expecting more objection and more irrelevant from DPP and Judge will still continue to allow the arguements to go on and on before making his decision.

27 witnesses from the Prosecution side, we coming to the end of our 2 weeks trial yet we are only into the 2nd PW, Dr Chee being the 1st to cross examine, and he is perhaps halfway through his questioning, there are 13 more to go..

Looks like this trial will take a very looooong time..

It was a thursday morning. I actuall went to Court excited and looking forward to have fun in the court.

The trial started with E-Jay pleading guilty to the illegal assembly charge and having the procession charge taken into consideration.  The matter was stood down to 11am and thereafter 1530 for E-Jay’s counsel to prepare his mitigation plea and DPP to prepare the statement of facts.

When I returned back to court after picking up my kids, I was told that E-Jay was handcuffed in public and escorted to pay his fines. Damn it! did they have to resort to that?  Was that necessary?  Mas Selamat himself, a terrorist was not even handcuffed when he went to the toilet and why then is E-Jay treated worse than Mas Selamat?

Anyway, when the court resumed sitting at 1530, it took almost 2 hours for them just to read out the charges to all 18 of us.

Upon the DPP’s application for joinder of trial, District Judge Chia Wee Kiat next asked all the accused whether they were agreeable to a joint trial, most of the accused objected to the joinder with Yap Keng Ho.  Judge Chia granted DPP application for joint trial eventually which make me wonder then why ask us in the first place if the decision was to allow it even though majority was against it?

The 1st day of trial came to an end with Jeffrey George expressing his intention to plead guilty to the charges as the judge refused to grant a disjoinder of his trial, refused to grant an adjournment and disallowed his application to be excused from attendance despite his offer to be bound by the proceedings in his absence.

The 2nd day of trial started with DPP finally providing some answers to the provision of the video recording which the Police intended to adduce as evidence.

We returned to court at 2pm to view the video together. We all had a good laugh as this is the first time after the protest that the TBT 18 sat down and re-lived the experience of the protest. As we viewed the video. We were laughing away at some of the scenes. e.g. when Seelan was dragged and the police videographer was focusing on Seelan’s shoes..Seelan lifted up his legs and commented that he is still wearing the same pair.

We also laughed at the silliness of ASP Willam Goh insisting that we move from the junction when the traffic light was clearly red.

I guess when this video is replayed again during cross examination, it will definitely draw laughter from us and from the public gallery..

When court was resumed at 1430, the first witness was put to stand.

A little time into the cross examination by my co-accused, it became clear that this lady police officer, who was assigned to take pictures of the locations 4 months after the protest did not know the following;

1) what sort of camera she was using despite according to her, she was a police photographer 1 year after joining the force, which means she has 7 years 9 months experience as a cameraman.  As a police photographer, she did not know the brand/focus length of her camera and lens.  This to me is rather unbelievable.  A police photographer who does not know her tools is akin to a policeman not knowing his personal issue weapon.

2) She is not sure that the parliament house is a gazetted area. A Police Staff Sergent who is in the force for 8 years 9 months is not sure so then why the Police Commissioner who issue the Police Summons to me expected that I reasonably ought to have known that the area was gazetted when his own subordinates do not?

Jufri Mahmood questioned the witness if she knew what gazetted actually meant but DPP objected to that citing irrelevance to which John made a very good rebuttal as he pointed out that even she as a Police Staff Sergent is not aware of Parliament House being a gazetted area and why are the rest of us laymen expected to reasonably ought to have known, hence he believe the relevance to Jufri Mahmood questioning of her understanding of the word “gazetted”.

But before the Judge could gave a reply to John, Yap hijacked the cross-examination with his request of asking the witness to leave the courtroom for 1 minute as he need to address certain issues with the court without the witness presense. INTERESTINGLY, the judge allowed Yap’s request and witness was told to leave the court room and Yap addresssed the issue of authenticity of the pictures blah blah blah. I drifted off after two sentences from Yap as I decided that what he was saying was utter rubbish.

When the witness returned, Yap went on to blah blah and blah..John passed a note to my counsel Thiru, in it he wrote “DPP, aren’t you going to object to this?” Thiru was laughing and say no no..he is not going to pass that to DPP.  We too were wondering why did the DPP and Judge allowed his line of questioning which was totally irrelevent and Yap was just trying to show off his knowledge of the camera.

Ti Lik finally stood up and objected to Yap’s questioning commenting that he was surprise why the DPP had chosen not to object when it was obvious Yap questioning has no relevance to the case and he is not objectiing but yet chose to object to question from the accused which are relevant. Jufrie Mahmood commented that Yap seemed to be applying for a job in the police force and that brought the whole courtroom into laughter. I caught the DPP laughing too.

After composing himself, DPP explained that he was of the view that the questioining was relevant. The Judge himself agreed with the DPP.

Kai Xiong, who studied photography for 3 years and worked as a freelance lighting assistant, too stood up to dismiss Yap’s line of questioning.

The trial ended with Yap finally decided to abandon his line of questioning. Another day wasted.. ;(

Hopefully Tuesday will be exciting..as it will be ASP Willam Goh turn to take the stand to be cross-examined

The trial begins – Part 1 – The Dilemma

I was at the meeting place early on Thursday and met SDP’s Assistant Treasurer Jeffrey George Since it has been some time since we last met, we were both elated to see each other. It turned out that Jeff had been away since his project started about a month back. Jeff then shared with me about his dilemma – that he needed to be back at work that evening and would not be available for the entire trial period.

Jeffrey George is an Offshore Drill Engineer, an esoteric line where not many people get to be acquainted with. Being skilled enough to start his own business as a private sub-contractor, he works on a project basis, his income is not fixed, and once he finishes one job, he would have to wait for another. He won’t know when his next project will be.

Due to a loss of travel documents recently which the SIR had been slow to replace, he was put out of work for almost a year, and had been living on his savings for the period.  Jeff is a family man with kids and wife to support and the year must have been really hard on him having to balance the need to look after his family, on the other hand, to fight for his convictions.

Like the rest of the TBT 18. We each all have our own difficulties.

For myself, throughout the entire trial period, my day will start dropping off my kids to school in the morning and rushing to court (barely in time for breakfast) and when the court adjourns for lunch, I will have to rush to pick up my kids from school, send them home before rushing back to court by 1430.  This is tough as usually my kids will not let me go, not to mention, I will be skipping lunch when I only have 1.5 hours to rush from the Subordinate Courts to West Coast and then to Bukit Merah before heading back to sub court.

I spoke to another of my co-accused during the 1st day of the boring trial.  I found out that he is a Despatch Rider who is the sole breadwinner in his family. He has a wife and 3 kids, the youngest being only 20 months old.  As he works on a contract basis with no basic pay, 2 weeks absence from work will make him almost $2k poorer. However he remains committed to stand trial for his beliefs.

Jufri and Suraya are in a similar position as well. Jufri is the sole breadwinner. They have 3 kids, the youngest was due to have operation for her tonsils removed.  As both Jufri and Suraya need to attend court, they have to make special arrangement for family members to help look after their 3 kids during their absence.

Shafie – the youngest among the TBT 18, is only 19 years old and a full time national serviceman. He trudges to court everyday from camp with a full pack on his back. He then makes his way back to camp when the Court rises for the day.

Shafie is a very gentle and soft spoken guy.  His mum accompanied him to court on the first day of trial, looking worried and concerned.  This was made worse by the AG-C’s representatives sent to identify Shaffie and Isrizal at the Court and serve them documents for Contempt of Court Committal hearing dates for their wearing kangaroo t-shirts.

Despite being unable to get a lawyer to represent him, he at such a tender age exhibits courage and fortitude in claiming trial together with the rest of us.

My good friend E-Jay who decided to throw in the towel during the 1st day of trial. I am sure he has his personal reasons for doing so.

The establishment is deliberately hurting our pockets to deter us from speaking up making it so easy to be tempted to throw in the towel. The only reason why the rest of us choose not to do so is due to our wish to stick to our convictions but also we face less problems as compared to Jeff and E-Jay who have no choice given their situation and circumstances.

Therefore, my compatriots Jeffrey George and Ng E-Jay, do not let all the unkind words of others affect you.  You have done your best to stand alongside with us in this battle.  I am truly proud of both of you.  TBT 18 will always be TBT 18, there will never be 1 less, let alone 2..

Before I post my experience in court..let me post a invitation to my readers..

Come this Tuesday, the 2nd witness will be put on stand, and that is ASP William Goh..

I would like to invite friends / readers to come join us as this is going to be a exciting witness to cross examine…

Details for our trial :

Court 5 – 9.30 am..

Hope to see you all there

Enjoy the long weekend holiday.