Aug 29

Police has done it again..

Another called up by them for “illegal assembly” for TBT’s campaign on National Day..

This time, a Indian Policeman came..told me there is a letter for me and make a quick exit before I can even take a close look at him..(oh..my sweet boy manage to call out “bye bye uncle” before he dash into the lift)..No identification on him stating he is a policeman..he was not in police uniform..he did not identified himself as policeman..so who is he?

The sad state of our policemen..which lead me to think;

1) are they getting ashamed of what they are doing to their fellow citizens?

2) are they no longer proud of donning their uniforms?

3) or perhaps they are phasing out their blue uniforms and changing to white to represent the party they are protecting?

On the hindsight..judging from their behavior on the day itself, 2 plain clothes policemen approach us, 1 make a statement, while the other started aiming the camera at everyone of us..(believe me, the way the police videographer did was no class..police intimidation at their ultimate)..

The policeman identified himself and cited illegal assembly as an excuse to ask us to disperse.  We cooperated, and started packing up while getting ourselves organize for a group photo taking.  Of course the police videographer was all too glad to capture our group photo taking as well..We were so cooperative that we even make their job easier by having our pictures taken in a group for their easy identifications / reference later (haha)..

I was at the first TBT campaign in Toa Payoh on May Day..police at that time says it’s ok..we are not doing anything illegal..subsequent TBT campaign from Toa Payoh to Bishan (I think about 3-4 times), which I did not attend due to my family commitment, police didn’t come ‘kajiao’..so what makes the rest ok and on National day not ok for the police? It will be interesting to hear their answer (if they have any..)  :-)

No wonder Mas Selamat was let off easily, our police rather spend unnecessary resources on us than  trying to catch the real criminals out there.. Our citizens lives are compromise by the police who definitely misplace their priorties..

Aug 29

Fw: Re: Unlawful Parking made by Police Vehicles (SIU 3494/2008)
Friday, 29 August, 2008 11:19 AM
To:
Paul_TAN@spf.gov.sg
Dear Paul,

Thank you for taking the time to reply to my email.

However, your email failed to address my concerns.

1) Were the police parking illegally during the 3 occasions that I
mentioned?

2) As I mentioned clearly in my email to Inspector Yew, there were many
occasions where I saw the police parking in the parking lots that were meant
for residents while they bought food from ABC food center. I am certain that
on those 3 occasions, they were doing likewise, unless you would like to
prove me otherwise.

3) Inspector Yew has take the stand that the drivers are responsible for not
engaging in acts which would subject ordinary civilians to summons. Why then
are police being treated differently in this case? Are they are above the
law? Rules and regulations for the citizens do not apply to them? Or they
have special privileges to commit certain “offenses”?

I would like the police to clearly state their stand on this. Inspector Yew,
being a police officer himself, clearly has made a statement that his
colleagues did not adhere to. Please walk the talk and show us that our
laws are fair and just and apply to all citizens regardless of their
profession or status.

Jaslyn Go

Aug 28

Report against Police vehicles for parking in reserved lots at public car parks
Thursday, 28 August, 2008 9:33 AM
To:
URA_CPPLU@ura.gov.sg

Dear Esther..

Allow me to address you point by point..

* You took in total 6 weeks to respond to me to ask for further details? I have sent out 2 emails. The first you choose to ignore, and the second you took 3 weeks to reply. Despite taking 6 weeks to respond, you expect me to respond to you within 2 weeks? Bearing in mind that you represent URA to respond to me, hence it is your job to reply to me, while I am being the good citizen reporting on errant police driver’s parking illegally.

* The picture clearly show the vehicle no, carpark lots numbers, (except for the 3rd picture of police parking in the loading and unloading bay), I have mentioned in my email that the police park at the ABC hawker centre, which is where I am residing. Clearly if you are able to get the HDB to stop my season parking previously, you should have known the name of my car park (which I don’t even know).

* The tone of your email seems to be discouraging me further from taking action against police illegal parking by citing the need to make court appearances as a witness, which normally would have put off many people. I don’t see how a summons cannot be issued against the police where evidence has shown that the police has indeed been parking illegally. There is no need to require my presence as a witness at this stage unless of course our police intend to deny their commission of parking offences. If however, our police indeed does go on to deny their commission of their parking offences, i would have no qualms about testifying against such abuse of powers by civil servants.

* You have confirmed my suspicion that government bodies will come down hard on its citizens and yet when the same offense is being committed by by their own goverment bodies, they will break all rules to let off fellow civil servants. This is certainly something that the public especially the Singaporean Electorate will not take to kindly if they find out so.

The ball is in your court to prove to the people that URA are impartial.

Cheers;

Jaslyn Go

Aug 27

The Condescension of a Ruler towards his Peasants

Until the front page news splashed over all papers on 26th August 2008, I never fully understood the meaning of condescension and insult. Indeed, I have never felt so insulted before in my life.

Indeed throughout my 34 years. I have been bullied, punished, criticised, ridiculed, arrested, charged, soon to be jailed, maybe in time to serve extended detention in some alleged conspiracy and maybe to face the gallows for some trumped up charges in time to come. But i have never felt so insulted before.

His Excellency, the Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong has shown what it is like for him to behave like a ruler.

He has LIBERALISED Singapore allowing outdoor demonstrations at Hong Lim Park.

NOTE: Only at Hong Lim Park.

Prior to that was a flurry of requests from reporters as a prelude to that announcement over the weekend. And what faces me now is a stark contrast of fiction and reality.

Here i am. On on hand, running helter-skelter, left-right-centre defending multiple actions necessitated by the actions of the Singapore Police Force against the freedom of expression and freedom of assembly, on the other hand, Lee Hsien Loong cleverly protrays himself as an open, all magnanimous and all progressive leader in throwing the door open for demonstrations and protests in ….. Hong Lim Park.

Little do people know that on one side, we have this facade of openness. On the other side activists are getting charged for doing things which in other democracies would not have even raised an eyebrow. Over here we have almost a picture of an entire machinery galvanised to arrest and charge democracy groups in Court.

To-date, we have a total of more than 22 activists charged for at least 3 separate protest incidents stretching back to September 2006. It is likely that more charges are coming in even at this moment ludicrously. All of which are aimed at the opposition that provides the most sting – the Singapore Democratic Party.

The Prime Minister’s father, his Excellency, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew had ruled Singapore by a series of well placed and timed and handled ISD detentions, ColdStore 1, Coldstore 2, detentions in the 70s (someone tell me the codename if any) and Operation Spectrum.

LKY’s style was that of a heavy hand, an iron fist which often left his opponents, or should i say perceived opponents, with a broken ribcage, coughing out blood, passing out and never really returning for a fight in a second round.

His Excellency, the Prime Minister, Lee Hsien Loong has now done the honours in escalating the humiliation. Lee Hsien Loong has carried the superiority of his position and that of his minions and his establishment to an even higher level.

In a rare master stroke of ingenuity, he has sidestepped true obligations of a leader who has promised political openness, yet strengthened his position protraying himself as an open minded leader who understood the changing times and need for progress to demonstrated political correctness and wit in allowing demonstrations and delegating the control of Hong Lim Park from the Singapore Police Force to the National Parks Board.

The National Parks Board deals with plants and shrubs. And only mindless vegetation should be on the radar scope of the National Parks Board. As such, i have little wonder what our Prime Minister is actually trying to say.

As an activist, ex-politician and soon to be jailed lawyer involved in so many dissident actions, the press naturally hounded me for my opinion on what those concessions meant to me. As there were so many queries, i could not answer them all given the number of court actions i need to give my attention to.

I do recall now forgetting to answer the email request from Imelda Saad, i hereby apologise for that. I also recall stating quite abit of my unrestrained opinion to a reporter from FM95.8 a Ms Fengqin, Ms Esther Ng from Today, Ms Sue-Ann Chia from Straits Times just to name a few.

As far as I am aware, Today carried my comments. I had stated to Esther “this is an attempt to retain control over what the government is unable to control.” but i was quoted as saying that ‘this is an attempt to “return” control…’ which essentially does not make sense.

I also made it clear that such pseudo-openness does not measure up to the openness of true democracies in developed countries.

I also stated that “it is akin to someone taking away all of your money and throwing 10 dollars back onto your face and expecting you to express gratitude for the return of the 10 dollars.”

My most stinging statements never made it to print. Faced with such media blitz glorifying the establishment on their move for openness, this is what i have to say with regards to the FACADE, HYPOCRISY, and CONDESCENSION of the administration (PAP, AG-C, SPF, and NPB included) involved.

Alex Au described it too meekly as he not wanting to dignify “tokenism”

I say this move is nothing more than an insult to activists’ and citizens’ intelligence.

Here we are getting charged left right centre by one arm of the government, yet the other arm of government has to cheek to seek self-glorification and praise for returning a mere pittance of what was robbed from a people in the first place.

Here we are expected to be immensely grateful to the Ruling party for its little scraps thrown at us with little dignity and in the midst of it having to face the iron fist of the machinery. Is that possible? :)

Imagine a rebellious peasant, one leg broken by the soldiers standing nearby, and forced into a kneeling position before the King. He would have expected the executioner’s sabre to cut his head off with a swift stroke. But that did not happen.

Instead, the ruler rises from his throne and approaches the kneeling peasant. Slaps the peasant with a swift and deft stroke by the back of his palm, followed by a spitting onto his face. To top it all, the orders the grimacing peasant to salute the king, praise his greatness and express his gratitude.

The ruler expects the peasant to be contented henceforth.

The peasant instead views the episode as an insult both to dignity and intelligence – a fate worse than death.

The peasant will remember this episode and he promises himself that the ruler and his soldiers will pay for this in time to come.

http://chiatilik.wordpress.com/2008/08/27/the-condescension-of-a-ruler-towards-his-peasants/

Aug 21

Today (18th Aug 2008) will be the 2nd PTC for the 18 of us who are being charge for the illegal assembly and procession.

It is funny how things have change from 15 March 2008 till now..

Before 15 March Protest, I was just a supporter..

My handphone contacts list didn’t even have a single SDP member contact..

When the 11 were arrested, the first to make it to my contact list were the wives of those arrested. Namely Mrs Chee, Suraya, and 2 Charlie’s angels (except for Mrs Chee, that was the first time we spoke)..

Now , Dr Chee, Siok Chin and the rest..we are constantly in touch with each other..something I will never imagine afew years ago…

I acted as a bailor for the 11 arrested too. That was also the first time I spoke with many of them..some of whom I never even met before.

When I was called up for police questioning, I was showed a picture of us taken outside Parliament House, I was asked who is standing beside me. At that time I wasn’t sure who is he, it is only later on that I came to know that he is Sylvester.

I was also asked by the police if I surf and knew the SDP website..which at that time I didn’t, but I have since been reading up alot on the SDP website and I think it was a great website..(thanks to the police..for reminding and directing me to the SDP website)..

Now, whenever we meet in court for this unfair and unjust charge (as I will called it)..it was like a get together for all of us.. I guess..the 18 of us are the most jovious group to be charge in court..court 24 are always filled with laughters to the irritation of the police there..

Thank you Police..for letting me get to know SDP members and activists better..

Thank you Police..for bringing all 18 of us closer together..

Thank you Police..for reminding me to read up on SDP website..

Thank you Police..for allowing our friendship to develop..

Aug 12

Re: Report against Police vehicles for parking in reserved lots at public car parks
Monday, 11 August, 2008 6:29 PM
From: “URA CPPLU”

—–Inline Attachment Follows—–

Please use www.ura.gov.sg/oa if you need to reply. Thank you.

Our Ref : CPD PO/E (08072350422) Tel : 6329 3464
Fax : 6225 3336
Website: www.ura.gov.sg/pon
11 Aug 08

Dear Ms Go

1 We refer to your emails of 30 Jun and 21 Jul 08.

2 We note that you have reported against Police vehicles for parking in reserved lots at some public car parks, and requested that SPF and URA follow up on the matter. You have also submitted 3 photographs on the purported parking offences.

3 However, in order to for us to review and follow up on such a report regarding the commission of parking offences, we require certain essential details of the offences, which we found were lacking in your emails.

4 As such, we require you to confirm the following details officially in writing, before 25 Aug 08, if you wish to act as the complainant to lodge a report against the vehicles:

a. The offending vehicle number.
b. The location of offence (name of car park, parking lot number, etc).
c. The date and time of offence.
d. Whether you agree to bear witness in court if the need arises.

5 We require the abovementioned information to be furnished clearly in your statement before we can follow up on the matter.

Yours sincerely

ESTHER WANG (Ms)
for DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT
CAR PARKS DIVISION

This reply is sent via email. No signature required.

Please use www.ura.gov.sg/oa if you need to reply. Thank you.

Privileged/Confidential information may be contained in this message. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy, distribute or use it for any purpose, nor disclose its contents to any other person. Please notify the sender immediately if you receive this in error

Aug 6

Law Society has ‘no views’ on freedoms of speech and assembly
Sunday, 27 July 2008

Singapore Democrats

The president of the Law Society of Singapore (LSS) wrote that the Society “expressed no views” on the matter of the Government prosecuting Singaporeans for exercising their right to peaceful protests. The group of activists who have been charged with taking part in an assembly and a procession without permit has written to the Law Society calling on it to weigh in on the matter. (See letter here)

In his reply to the activists, Mr Michael Hwang SC gave the view that the LSS did not want to get involved in the fight for the Constitutional rights of the people of Singapore.

The Singapore Democrats find it hard to understand what the LSS means by having no views on the matter. This is especially so in light of the fact that the stated objective of the Society is “protecting and assisting the public in Singapore in all matters relating to the law.”

The rights of citizens in this country are encoded in law. The Government is either right or wrong in enforcing laws that restrict freedom of assembly and speech. Expressing no views on the matter is neither here nor there. How does the Society protect the public when it takes such a stance?

In addition Mr Hwang had called on lawyers to help Singaporeans know their rights by helping them take on cases against the Government especially those involving civil liberties. The Society also indicated that it wants to look into the issue of human rights and study how the Universal Declaration of Human Rights applies to Singapore.

Earlier this year the organisation set up the Public and International Law Committee (PILC) to study the issue of human rights. This may be a good opportunity for the PILC to study the Society’s response to a real-life situation involving human rights in Singapore.

Aug 6

22 July 2008

Mr Chia Ti Lik
c/o 24 Peck Seah Street
#05-09/11 Nehsons Building
Singapore 079314

Dear Ti Lik,

Thank you for your letter of 16 July 2008.

The thrust of your letter seems to be as follows:

a. You and your colleagues are charged with participating in an assembly and procession without permit.

b. You and your colleagues believe that it is your right as citizens to demonstrate in this way, as the right of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression, which are fundamental liberites, are quaranteed by our constitution.

c. The Law Society, as the body that represents the defenders of justice, must assist citiznes who are prosecuted by the STate for exercising their fundamental liberties.

d. You would like the Law Society to arrange legal representation for you and your colleagues on a pro-bono basis.

The Council has discussed your letter, and our response is as follow:

1. The Society expressed no views on the specific complaints that you and your colleagues have against the Government.

2. The Society is concerned that all citizens should have access to legal representation, particularly in criminal cases.

3. If citizens cannot afford the regular fees of lawyers in private pratice, the Society has in place the Criminal Legal Aid Scheme (CLAS). Those who are able to satisfy the means test may be granted legal aid by CLAS provided the offence are covered by the CLAS Scheme. Please see the attachment as to the range of offences covered by the CLAS Scheme and means test threshold. From telephone conversations between two of your coleagues and our CLAS officers Ms Shanaaz Banu, we understand that the Charges have been brought under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance Act (Cap. 184) and therefore do come within the offences to which the CLAS Scheme applies.

4. If you and your colleagues believe that that qualify under the CLAS Scheme, they may make application to our office at the Subordinate Courts, Level 5 (room beside Subordinate Court No. 6), 1 Havelock Square, Singapore 059724.

This exchange of correspondence will be posted on the Law Society’s website.

Your sincerely,
Michael Hwang, SC
President
The Law Society of Singapore

Aug 6

http://yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore/782-calling-all-lawyers

Calling all lawyers
Calling all lawyers PDF Print E-mail
Sunday, 03 August 2008
Singapore Democrats

Singapore is gearing up for the most controversial, if not the biggest, trial in its modern history. For when ever have 18 Singaporeans been charged in court for conducting a peaceful protest? For that matter when ever has Singapore seen a peaceful protest in such numbers?

On 15 Mar 08, the group had gathered outside Parliament House to protest against escalating costs wearing Tak Boleh Tahan! t-shirts. They were dragged away by the police and subsequently charged.

The pre-trial conference, fixed for 18 Aug 08, will set the wheels in motion for the trial which will hear whether the activists had participated in an assembly and a procession without a permit.

The matter poses interesting questions such as why was the application for the permit to hold the protest not approved by the police? This question is especially salient when one considers that the Consumer Association of Singapore (CASE) conducted exactly the same protest on the same occasion, the World Consumers’ Rights Day, only the year before.

In fact the day after the police arrested the TBT activists outside the Funan Centre, it blessed a march of thousands organised by CASE, replete with speech and all.

Don’t we have laws that protect the rights of citizens to conduct such activities? Why is one group allowed to hold a march while another is banned? Who makes these decisions?

These questions will inevitably be raised in court. But who is going to ask them?

The TBT activists have sent out hundreds of emails to law firms asking for legal representation. Only a handful replied and of those who did many said that they were not criminal lawyers or that they were too busy and could not afford the time.

Others were more forthright and said that they were not prepared to take on cases that involved challenging the PAP Government. The ones who were bolder blamed it on their partners whom they said were not comfortable taking on such cases.

One even said that his firm was awaiting to sign a contract with a Government-linked company and couldn’t risk jeopardising the deal.

But all is not lost. A few indicated ̶ tentatively ̶ that they would consider making the representations.

The underwhelming response from the legal community indicates that the matter isn’t about some petty offence being tried in court. Nay, this case goes to the very heart of how the PAP has been keeping its stranglehold on Singapore ̶ by denying citizens the right to protest peacefully against it and its policies.

The difficulty of the activists getting legal representation also attests to the sorry state of affairs in Singapore where even the legal community dares not stand up to the ruling party when it usurps the power of our nation’s Constitution.

Even the Law Society, the body that represents Singaporean lawyers, insists on sitting on the fence. In the fight for the supremacy of the nation versus the supremacy of the PAP, the Society insists that it has “no views”.

Nobel Peace Laureate Desmond Tutu once said: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

Our lawyers seem to have missed the fundamental point of their vocation: Being an advocate and solicitor is not just about getting retainers and fees, it is not just about running a business. It is about a calling ̶ a calling to uphold justice.

It is rare privilege conferred on society’s talented to be an advocate of the law. It is a responsibility that few are called upon to shoulder. But if our nation’s lawyers keep their heads bowed in the face of political intimidation and choose to look away, then the legal profession is brought to shame.

In other countries, lawyers are at the vanguard of protecting the rule of law which necessarily includes a check on the executive arm of the government. When the government applies laws to persecute citizens, lawyers have the bounden duty ̶ the duty they swore to uphold when they became servants of the profession ̶ to defend the Constitution of this nation.

This is not a partisan matter, it is a national one. It is a matter that transcends ethnicity, class, and political persuasion. It is one that celebrates our humanity.

To be absolutely clear, the activists are the ones facing punishment for transgressing PAP laws, not the advocates in court. If we do not fear meeting our accusers and telling them they are wrong, why should lawyers? Should they be afraid for doing their job?

We make this appeal to our lawyers to come forward to help us defend these charges. We appeal to you not for our own sakes, but for the sake of our nation. Please contact us at speakup@yoursdp.org This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

Aug 6

Re: Unlawful Parking made by Police Vehicles (SIU 3494/2008)
From:
“Paul TAN”

Dear Ms Jaslyn Go,

I refer to your e-mail dated 21 July 2008 to Inspector Yeo Ai Choo on the illegal parking of police vehicles.

2 Singapore Police Force has an existing arrangement with the Urban Redevelopment Authority and the Housing and Development Board to allow its police vehicles to park at season parking lots. Notwithstanding, we will take action against officers who park at these lots when they are not on operational duty.

3 Thank you for your feedback.

Yours Sincerely,

Paul Tan
for Quality Service Manager
Singapore Police Force