Dec 8, 2005
Court dismisses protesters' suit against minister, police chief
By Ken Kwek
THE High Court has thrown out a suit by three protesters against the Home Affairs Minister and the Commissioner of Police, saying they were 'misguided' in their claims.
In his judgment yesterday, Justice V.K. Rajah said the police had not behaved unreasonably in breaking up what the trio called a 'peaceful protest', which they staged with a fourth person outside the CPF building in August this year.
They were Ms Chee Siok Chin, Ms N. Gogelavany and Mr Yap Keng Ho. The fourth person was Mr Tan Teck Wee.
Justice Rajah said the trio were 'misguided' in thinking they could attack the integrity of public institutions and undermine civic order while evoking their rights to free speech and public assembly.
'The applicants have persistently attempted to elevate the present proceedings to a 'constitutional motion' to protect the public right of assembly. They claim that the protest was 'peaceful',' he said.
'This cannot mask the fact that the contents of their T-shirts and the placard are...more incendiary than an ordinary affray or localised breach of peace.'
On Aug 11, the four protesters wore white T-shirts with the names of public institutions such as the CPF and HDB emblazoned in red. They held a placard which called on the Government to be more transparent.
The police, acting on complaints they received, asked them to disperse, saying they were causing a 'public nuisance'. Their T-shirts and placard were also later seized.
In October, Ms Gogelavany, Mr Yap and Ms Chee, who is the sister of opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, initiated proceedings in the High Court against the Home Affairs Minister and police commissioner.
They said they had been unlawfully disbanded and that the police infringed on their rights to freedom of speech and assembly.
The Attorney-General's Chambers, on its part, asked the High Court separately to dismiss the trio's application.
Justice Rajah indicated yesterday he could not simply agree to dismiss the application, noting the court had a duty to assess and accord proper and serious consideration where an applicant genuinely seeks its help. This is even if the applicant may have a political agenda.
But in assessing the trio's suit, he nevertheless dismissed their case, saying they had not exercised their rights responsibly. The police had also not acted inappropriately against them.
'What the applicants are in fact contending is that...they are at liberty in groups of four or less to picket public institutions, question their integrity and cast a slur on their reputation without any restraint and responsibility for what they may wish to say,' he said.
The law deems it illegal to hold a public gathering of five or more people without a police permit.
The judge also criticised the trio for their lack of effort in justifying their actions.
'I can only conclude from this that they either did not think it necessary to justify the basis of their 'protest' or could not possibly substantiate it,' he said.
'Putting it as charitably as possible, the applicants have shown a manifest lack of conviction in their assertions.'
Obviously, the PAP owns the law and the law belongs to the PAP, as from this kangeroo show. So all those who keep bitching abt Melvyn Tan getting off lightly from the law, you might want to start bitching here instead!
I agree with the judge on this ruling.
what exactly do these people mean by not being transparent? I wish they had given us the details and not just throw rhetoric.
Interesting. Any details on what the police did to the protestors? V K Rajah is an excellent judge btw.