Jail terms for wearing Kangaroo T-shirts
-
Jail terms for wearing Kangaroo T-shirts
Thursday, 27 November 2008
Singapore Democrats
SDP Assistant Secretary-General, Mr John Tan, was sentenced to 15 days imprisonment by High Court Judge Judith Prakash for wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with a kangaroo in a judge's gown during the defamation hearing between Lee Kuan Yew and the Singapore Democrats.Fellow activists Mr Shafi'ie and Mr Isrizal were each sentenced to 7 days imprisonment also for wearing the T-shirt. Mr Tan's penalty was heavier because he had handed the T-shirt to the other activists.
All three men were also ordered to pay $5,000 as cost to the Attorney-General.
During the hearing on 24 November, the Attorney General had wanted a harsh punishment for the three because, according to Deputy Solicitor-General Jeffrey Chan, "calling the judicial system a kangaroo court is the worst insult one can hurl against it."
Mr Tan had argued that since the presiding judge had conceded that the judiciary is not beyond criticism, the court should then accept the message conveyed by the T-shirt as fair criticism. The SDP leader explained that the purpose of his action was to point out weaknesses in our judiciary system and had hoped that improvement to the quality of justice would be made.
The arguments, however, did not sit well with Judge Judith Prakash, who found the three men guilty as charged.
In another incident, Mr Gopalan Nair called on SDP's leaders and other human rights advocates after he was released from jail on 20 Nov 08, following his two-month imprisonment for insulting High Court Judge Belinda Ang. Mr Nair bade farewell and the SDP wished him well and a safe journey home to the US. He left Singapore yesterday.
Read also Yawning Bread's Conversation stoppers.Three Singaporeans jailed for wearing Kangaroo T-shirts
Bernama
The Singapore High Court Thursday sentenced three Singaporeans to seven to 15 days' jail for wearing T-shirts bearing a picture of a kangaroo in judge's robes in the vicinity of the New Supreme Court Building last May.
Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi Sariman and Isrizal Mohamed Isa were jailed for seven days each and Tan Liang Joo John, 15 days, by Justice Judith Prakash.
She also ordered each of them to pay the Attorney-General's Chambers S$5,000 in costs and disbursements.
The case against the trio for contempt of court was heard on Monday.
The Attorney-General had applied for contempt proceedings to be instituted against the three after they appeared in the T-shirts in the court which was hearing assessment of damages in respect of a defamation action brought by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong against the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leaders last May.
The AG's Chambers took offence as it implied that the court was a kangaroo court.
Tan was also heard saying: "This is a kangaroo court" to Lee when the Minister Mentor walked past him outside Court No. 4B at the New Supreme Court Building.
On 27 July this year, an article entitled "Police question activists over kangaroo T-shirts" appeared on the SDP website.
The article reproduced a photograph of the three men wearing the same T-shirts and it was meant to give wider publicity to their allegation that the court was a kangaroo court, the AG had said.
At the Monday hearing, the Attorney-General was represented by Deputy Solicitor-General Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck, principal senior state counsel Jennifer Marie and state counsel Gillian Koh Tan and Lee Jwee Nguan.
Tan and Isrizal appeared in person while Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi was represented by Chia Ti Lik.
After reviewing the evidence from both sides, Justice Prakash found that each of them was in contempt of court in the manner alleged.
In the case of Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi and Isrizal, Justice Prakash found that they were in contempt for wearing the T-shirts in the vicinity of the court and inside the courthouse.
In the case of Tan, the judge found him to be in contempt for distributing the T-shirt in the court building and wearing the offending T-shirt and for being involved in the posting of the photograph on the SDP website.
The three men also refused to apologise to the court or to withdraw their insinuation about the Singapore court when given the opportunity to do so by Justice Prakash. -
Singapore Strikes Again
The city-state resumes its campaign against the Journal.
Let us begin with an apology to our readers in Asia. Unless they are online, they will not see this editorial. For legal reasons, we are refraining from publishing it in The Wall Street Journal Asia, which circulates in Singapore.
![[Review & Outlook]](http://s.wsj.net/public/resources/images/OB-CT136_oj_1co_DV_20081128212248.jpg)
AP
Singapore's Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong.
Our subject is free speech and the rule of law in the Southeast Asian city-state -- something on which the international press and Singapore's government have often clashed.
We can't say which side would prevail if the Singapore public could hear an open debate, but the fact is that we know of no foreign publication that has ever won in a Singapore court of law. Virtually every Western publication that circulates in the city-state has faced a lawsuit, or the threat of one.
Which brings us to the ruling against us this week in Singapore's High Court. Dow Jones Publishing (Asia) was found guilty of contempt of court for two editorials and a letter to the editor published in The Wall Street Journal Asia in June and July.
The Attorney General, who personally argued the contempt case against us, characterized the articles as "an attack on the courts and judiciary of Singapore inasmuch as they impugn the integrity, the impartiality and the independence of the Court."
In suing for contempt, Singapore chose to go after us for the most basic kind of journalism. The first editorial, "Democracy in Singapore," reported on a damages hearing in a defamation case brought (and won) by former Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew against opposition politician Chee Soon Juan. The second editorial, "Judging Singapore's Judiciary," informed readers what an international legal organization had said about Singapore's courts.
Regarding the first editorial, we'll note that court proceedings are privileged under Singapore law, which means they can be reported -- though Singapore's media rarely do the job. Mr. Chee wrote a letter in response to the first editorial, which we published and which is cited in the contempt charge. We also published two letters from Mr. Lee's spokeswoman.
In the second editorial, we reported on the International Bar Association's critical study of the rule of law in Singapore. This is the same outfit that held its annual conference in Singapore last year, a meeting that Mr. Lee himself touted as a sign of confidence in Singapore's courts.
The Law Society of Singapore is a member of the IBA. If reporting on what such a body says is contemptuous of the judiciary, then Singapore is saying that its courts are above any public scrutiny.
Again, we published a letter from the Singapore government responding to the editorial. This one was from the Law Ministry, which blasted the IBA report and us for repeating its "vague allegations." The IBA then weighed in, in a posting on its Web site, saying it wished "to correct some inaccurate comments" in Singapore's letter. It invites readers to read the report and "see for themselves" that its views are "based on comprehensive examples and evidence." The IBA homepage is www.ibanet.org.
In his ruling, Justice Tay Young Kwang refers to us as a "repeat offender." He's right in the narrow sense that this isn't the first time Singapore has pursued the Journal Asia for contempt. In 1985, the newspaper and its editors were sued over an editorial about legal actions against opposition politician J.B. Jeyaretnam. The editors apologized.
In 1989, the paper was sued for contempt again, this time over a news story that quoted Dow Jones's then-president, Peter Kann. Mr. Kann had criticized a libel judgment won by Mr. Lee against the Far Eastern Economic Review, the Journal Asia's sister publication. The paper, its editor, publisher, local distributor and local printer were all named. They lost.
We are not eager to return to that fractious era, when the Journal Asia had its circulation severely restricted in Singapore and the paper's reporters were unwelcome. Since 1991, when the newspaper and Mr. Lee reached a settlement, our relationship with Singapore had been more or less stable until the latest contempt charge.
Meanwhile, in September, the Far Eastern Economic Review lost a defamation case brought by Mr. Lee and his son, current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over an interview it published with opposition leader Mr. Chee. The elder Mr. Lee has long used defamation suits to silence his critics in the press and among the political opposition.
As for this week's contempt ruling, the first line of Justice Tay's decision is revealing as a standard for Singapore justice. "Words sometimes mean more than what they appear to say on the surface," he writes, going on to interpret the words as contemptuous because they had an "inherent tendency" to "scandalise the court." The fine he levied, S$25,000 ($16,500), is the largest ever meted out for such an offense. Justice Tay expressed the hope that it will deter "future transgressions."
We'll pay the fine. We'll also continue to express our views about politics, the courts and other subjects that we think our readers should know about. And we'll let readers decide what to make of the judiciary in Singapore.
-
Subordinate Courts Act Chapter 321 Section 8
1) The subordinate courts shall have power to punish for contempt of court where the contempt is committed —
- (a)
in the face of the court; or
- (b)
in connection with any proceedings
in the subordinate courts.
[4/96](2) Where contempt of court is committed in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1), the court may impose imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 or both.
[4/96](3) The court may discharge the offender or remit the punishment if the court thinks it just to do so.
[4/96](4) In any case where the contempt is punishable as an offence under section 175, 178, 179, 180 or 228 of the Penal Code (Cap. 224), the court may, in lieu of punishing the offender for contempt, refer the matter to the Attorney-General with a view to instituting criminal proceedings against the offender.
They had it comming...
-
Opps... wrong act...
it should be Supreme Court of Judicature Act Chapter 322 section 7
Contempt
(1) The High Court and the Court of Appeal shall have power to punish for contempt of court.[16/93](2) Wilful disposal by a garnishee, otherwise than in accordance with law or by leave of the court, of any property attached in his hands or under his control by a notice of court, shall be deemed to be contempt. (3) Wilful disobedience by a corporation to any order punishable by attachment may be punished by attachment of the directors or other officers of the corporation who are responsible for, or are knowingly a party to, such wilful disobedience.
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
Subordinate Courts Act Chapter 321 Section 8
1) The subordinate courts shall have power to punish for contempt of court where the contempt is committed —
(a) in the face of the court; or(b) in connection with any proceedings in the subordinate courts.
[4/96](2) Where contempt of court is committed in the circumstances mentioned in subsection (1), the court may impose imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or a fine not exceeding $2,000 or both.
[4/96](3) The court may discharge the offender or remit the punishment if the court thinks it just to do so.
[4/96](4) In any case where the contempt is punishable as an offence under section 175, 178, 179, 180 or 228 of the Penal Code (Cap. 224), the court may, in lieu of punishing the offender for contempt, refer the matter to the Attorney-General with a view to instituting criminal proceedings against the offender.
They had it comming...
i know they had it coming but i still feel its too heavy handed, especially for the kid in ns, his parents themselves were against his actions but couldn't stop him.
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Jail terms for wearing Kangaroo T-shirts
Thursday, 27 November 2008
Singapore Democrats
SDP Assistant Secretary-General, Mr John Tan, was sentenced to 15 days imprisonment by High Court Judge Judith Prakash for wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with a kangaroo in a judge's gown during the defamation hearing between Lee Kuan Yew and the Singapore Democrats.Fellow activists Mr Shafi'ie and Mr Isrizal were each sentenced to 7 days imprisonment also for wearing the T-shirt. Mr Tan's penalty was heavier because he had handed the T-shirt to the other activists.
All three men were also ordered to pay $5,000 as cost to the Attorney-General.
During the hearing on 24 November, the Attorney General had wanted a harsh punishment for the three because, according to Deputy Solicitor-General Jeffrey Chan, "calling the judicial system a kangaroo court is the worst insult one can hurl against it."
Mr Tan had argued that since the presiding judge had conceded that the judiciary is not beyond criticism, the court should then accept the message conveyed by the T-shirt as fair criticism. The SDP leader explained that the purpose of his action was to point out weaknesses in our judiciary system and had hoped that improvement to the quality of justice would be made.
The arguments, however, did not sit well with Judge Judith Prakash, who found the three men guilty as charged.
In another incident, Mr Gopalan Nair called on SDP's leaders and other human rights advocates after he was released from jail on 20 Nov 08, following his two-month imprisonment for insulting High Court Judge Belinda Ang. Mr Nair bade farewell and the SDP wished him well and a safe journey home to the US. He left Singapore yesterday.
Read also Yawning Bread's Conversation stoppers.Three Singaporeans jailed for wearing Kangaroo T-shirts
Bernama
The Singapore High Court Thursday sentenced three Singaporeans to seven to 15 days' jail for wearing T-shirts bearing a picture of a kangaroo in judge's robes in the vicinity of the New Supreme Court Building last May.
Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi Sariman and Isrizal Mohamed Isa were jailed for seven days each and Tan Liang Joo John, 15 days, by Justice Judith Prakash.
She also ordered each of them to pay the Attorney-General's Chambers S$5,000 in costs and disbursements.
The case against the trio for contempt of court was heard on Monday.
The Attorney-General had applied for contempt proceedings to be instituted against the three after they appeared in the T-shirts in the court which was hearing assessment of damages in respect of a defamation action brought by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong against the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leaders last May.
The AG's Chambers took offence as it implied that the court was a kangaroo court.
Tan was also heard saying: "This is a kangaroo court" to Lee when the Minister Mentor walked past him outside Court No. 4B at the New Supreme Court Building.
On 27 July this year, an article entitled "Police question activists over kangaroo T-shirts" appeared on the SDP website.
The article reproduced a photograph of the three men wearing the same T-shirts and it was meant to give wider publicity to their allegation that the court was a kangaroo court, the AG had said.
At the Monday hearing, the Attorney-General was represented by Deputy Solicitor-General Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck, principal senior state counsel Jennifer Marie and state counsel Gillian Koh Tan and Lee Jwee Nguan.
Tan and Isrizal appeared in person while Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi was represented by Chia Ti Lik.
After reviewing the evidence from both sides, Justice Prakash found that each of them was in contempt of court in the manner alleged.
In the case of Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi and Isrizal, Justice Prakash found that they were in contempt for wearing the T-shirts in the vicinity of the court and inside the courthouse.
In the case of Tan, the judge found him to be in contempt for distributing the T-shirt in the court building and wearing the offending T-shirt and for being involved in the posting of the photograph on the SDP website.
The three men also refused to apologise to the court or to withdraw their insinuation about the Singapore court when given the opportunity to do so by Justice Prakash.AG appeared to have morphed beyond recognition.
-
Originally posted by oldbreadstinks:
i know they had it coming but i still feel its too heavy handed, especially for the kid in ns, his parents themselves were against his actions but couldn't stop him.
They're lucky to get 7 to 15 days when they could have gotten 6 month max...
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
They're lucky to get 7 to 15 days when they could have gotten 6 month max...
if jail term is inevitable then yes in that i agree but i still feel jail was unnecessary. since these are people who are so public spirited some other punishment could be given for first timers. like doing hours for charity work instead of jail.
and if they do not repent after being let off and try the same thing again, let them have a taste of 6 mths jail to feel the contrast.
-
Watch me not care...
Suppose SDP supporters need to maintain a presence in prison. With Gopalan Nair out, the SDP has to send some fellas in..
-
you can jail them for 6 centuries. they still won't sell their soul to the devil. good men.
-
This is ridiculous.
Singaporeans don't even have the right to wear t-shirts they like.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
This is ridiculous.
Singaporeans don't even have the right to wear t-shirts they like.
This is indeed Barbarian.Instead becareful of wearing Australia mascot T-shirt. LOL..
-
Originally posted by zenden9:
This is indeed Barbarian.Instead becareful of wearing Australia mascot T-shirt. LOL..
For some perverse reasons, I am beginning to suspect that these judges are relatives of lionnoisy.
-
When you have the power, you can always demand your right
When you have no power, you have no right to demand
-
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Jail terms for wearing Kangaroo T-shirts
Thursday, 27 November 2008
Singapore Democrats
SDP Assistant Secretary-General, Mr John Tan, was sentenced to 15 days imprisonment by High Court Judge Judith Prakash for wearing a T-shirt emblazoned with a kangaroo in a judge's gown during the defamation hearing between Lee Kuan Yew and the Singapore Democrats.Fellow activists Mr Shafi'ie and Mr Isrizal were each sentenced to 7 days imprisonment also for wearing the T-shirt. Mr Tan's penalty was heavier because he had handed the T-shirt to the other activists.
All three men were also ordered to pay $5,000 as cost to the Attorney-General.
During the hearing on 24 November, the Attorney General had wanted a harsh punishment for the three because, according to Deputy Solicitor-General Jeffrey Chan, "calling the judicial system a kangaroo court is the worst insult one can hurl against it."
Mr Tan had argued that since the presiding judge had conceded that the judiciary is not beyond criticism, the court should then accept the message conveyed by the T-shirt as fair criticism. The SDP leader explained that the purpose of his action was to point out weaknesses in our judiciary system and had hoped that improvement to the quality of justice would be made.
The arguments, however, did not sit well with Judge Judith Prakash, who found the three men guilty as charged.
In another incident, Mr Gopalan Nair called on SDP's leaders and other human rights advocates after he was released from jail on 20 Nov 08, following his two-month imprisonment for insulting High Court Judge Belinda Ang. Mr Nair bade farewell and the SDP wished him well and a safe journey home to the US. He left Singapore yesterday.
Read also Yawning Bread's Conversation stoppers.Three Singaporeans jailed for wearing Kangaroo T-shirts
Bernama
The Singapore High Court Thursday sentenced three Singaporeans to seven to 15 days' jail for wearing T-shirts bearing a picture of a kangaroo in judge's robes in the vicinity of the New Supreme Court Building last May.
Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi Sariman and Isrizal Mohamed Isa were jailed for seven days each and Tan Liang Joo John, 15 days, by Justice Judith Prakash.
She also ordered each of them to pay the Attorney-General's Chambers S$5,000 in costs and disbursements.
The case against the trio for contempt of court was heard on Monday.
The Attorney-General had applied for contempt proceedings to be instituted against the three after they appeared in the T-shirts in the court which was hearing assessment of damages in respect of a defamation action brought by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew and Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong against the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leaders last May.
The AG's Chambers took offence as it implied that the court was a kangaroo court.
Tan was also heard saying: "This is a kangaroo court" to Lee when the Minister Mentor walked past him outside Court No. 4B at the New Supreme Court Building.
On 27 July this year, an article entitled "Police question activists over kangaroo T-shirts" appeared on the SDP website.
The article reproduced a photograph of the three men wearing the same T-shirts and it was meant to give wider publicity to their allegation that the court was a kangaroo court, the AG had said.
At the Monday hearing, the Attorney-General was represented by Deputy Solicitor-General Jeffrey Chan Wah Teck, principal senior state counsel Jennifer Marie and state counsel Gillian Koh Tan and Lee Jwee Nguan.
Tan and Isrizal appeared in person while Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi was represented by Chia Ti Lik.
After reviewing the evidence from both sides, Justice Prakash found that each of them was in contempt of court in the manner alleged.
In the case of Muhammad Shafi'ie Syahmi and Isrizal, Justice Prakash found that they were in contempt for wearing the T-shirts in the vicinity of the court and inside the courthouse.
In the case of Tan, the judge found him to be in contempt for distributing the T-shirt in the court building and wearing the offending T-shirt and for being involved in the posting of the photograph on the SDP website.
The three men also refused to apologise to the court or to withdraw their insinuation about the Singapore court when given the opportunity to do so by Justice Prakash.big mistake. never ever "play punk" with lawyers and judges, and those in power.
-
Originally posted by maurizio13:
This is ridiculous.
Singaporeans don't even have the right to wear t-shirts they like.
try imagine walking into the supreme court wearing a T-Shirt saying "Fuck you supreme court"...
-
Jailed for wearing T-shirts. I knew the Singapore courts were made up of petty and childish control freaks with weak little egos, but this really takes the fucking cake.
-
I always find myself disagreeing with Poh Ah Pak's posts but this time, I really do have to agree that the court should have no rights to charge someone for claiming that the court is not independent. Just my personal opinion.
It's like you calling me a bully, and that I don't like the word, so I punch you in the face.
How justifiable.
-
Originally posted by annoy-you-must:
I always find myself disagreeing with Poh Ah Pak's posts but this time, I really do have to agree that the court should have no rights to charge someone for claiming that the court is not independent. Just my personal opinion.
It's like you calling me a bully, and that I don't like the word, so I punch you in the face.
How justifiable.
imagine a soccer game. one guy foul another guy, there is dispute, and the referee rules to his best understanding. one of the player buai song and insult the referee, the ref have to send him off. if he do nothing, how he control the game? people won't respect him anymore, the game become chaos, and people will always remember this ref as a bad referee.. -
I really do have to agree that the court should have no rights to charge someone for claiming that the court is not independent.
That is very oppressive indeed.
They probably wanted to kill chicken scare monkey again.
-
Originally posted by skythewood:
imagine a soccer game. one guy foul another guy, there is dispute, and the referee rules to his best understanding. one of the player buai song and insult the referee, the ref have to send him off. if he do nothing, how he control the game? people won't respect him anymore, the game become chaos, and people will always remember this ref as a bad referee..This is the exact reason for the Contempt rule... Many of you are see only a kid wearing a T-Shirt and getting jailed... Don't get stuck in this tunnel vision...
The court is a place of Law and Order... proceeding and judgement are made there and lives are changed... as such, such place must be respected... If you don't respect the court, you basiclly saying you don't respect the Law...
This is not about a T-Shirt, its about contempt in court...
-
So if we want to make a protest saying court is kangaroo court controlled by PAP regime, how can we legally do that?
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
....
The court is a place of Law and Order... proceeding and judgement are made there and lives are changed... as such, such place must be respected... If you don't respect the court, you basiclly saying you don't respect the Law...
This is not about a T-Shirt, its about contempt in court...
And the reason why they did that is because the law in Singapore is unjust. It is unjust laws like preventing people from demonstrating and expressing their opinions on political issues that have pushed activists to engage in this kind of 'illegal' behaviour.
In the first place, there is no such thing as laws or government. It only exists in the mind of people, I should say indoctrinated in the minds of the masses. Do you consent to be governed? Or do you not consent to being governed? But of course, if you want to achieve such freedom, you better pack some heat.
-
Originally posted by MohamedF:
try imagine walking into the supreme court wearing a T-Shirt saying "Fuck you supreme court"...
Isn't one entitled to his/her own opinion?
Isn't that what democracy is about.
Or
Must we follow the PAP's ONLY opinion?
Don't see anything wrong with wearing that t-shirt (provided that it's a democratic government and not a authoritarian one).
There are caricatures of western leaders like thatcher, reagan, carter, but when someone wanted to do a caricature of LKY, he was strongly against it. The same can be said for countries like North Korea, where the leaders are held in high esteem (by knife point). Countries that are democratic are more tolerable of folks wearing t-shirts brought up by you.
If you wear a t-shirt with a "fxxx you Bush" and "fxxx you LKY" in public, guess which one will bring about the attention of the police.
-
After all, in Saudi Arabia, the Law ruled that if a girl goes out without a male relation, gets gangraped by 9 men, she goes to jail and gets 200 lashes of the whip.
Think this kind of unjust laws should be protested?