 Singapore Democrats
Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP) Mohd Hassan continued making U-turns and flip-flops in his testimony on the second day of cross-examination by Dr Chee Soon Juan. It was reported yesterday how the police witness made contradictory statements while on the stand but refused to admit that he was lying or that his memory had failed him. The contradictions continued today.
It was an offence -- or not
Mr Hassan had testified that he had approached Dr Chee at Raffles City outside the City Hall MRT Station while the SDP secretary-general was distributing flyers on 10 Sep 06. He added that he had told Dr Chee that he was committing an offence.
And what was the offence?
"Dr Chee and the others were distributing flyers that promoted an event that posed
pubic order concerns," was DSP Hassan's reply.
"So it was not the mere act of distirbuting flyers but rather the content of the flyer that was the offence," Dr Chee asked.
"Yes."
"Did you tell me what offence I was committing when you engaged me?" Dr Chee continued.
"It was clear that the offence was distributing the pamphlets," Mr Hassan replied.
First, the witness said that it was not the distribution of the flyers per se that was the offence but then did an about-face and said that "it was clear that the offence was distributing the pamphlets."
When Dr Chee pointed out the glaring contradiction, the officer stared blankly into the microphone in front of him. He then bizarrely came up with: "The pamphlets or flyers that Dr Chee was distributing promoted an event which could pose a public order concern."
Dr Chee brought the witness back to focus: "You had said that the offence was not one of merely
distributing the flyers but rather the content of the flyers, right?"
"Yes," the witness replied softly.
Seeing the DSP's dilemma, Dr Chee offered: "Was it a mistake, a mistatement, that you had mis-spoken the second time round?"
"Perhaps it was a mistake," Mr Hassan finally admitted.
To pose or not to pose a public order concern?
A day earlier, under cross-examination by Ms Chee Siok Chin, Mr Hassan had testifed that he had called the Command Post when he first spotted Dr Chee outside Raffles City because his assessment was that Dr Chee could "pose a public order concern."
Dr Chee revisited this point today: "Why did you not confront me when you first saw me?"
"At that time there was no public order concern," the witness replied.
Confused, the defendant continued: "But wasn't it your testimony that you called the Command Post when you first spotted me because, in your
assessment, I posed a public order concern?"
The Judge then stepped in and said that Dr Chee's questions were referring to two different things. The SDP leader disagreed. The Judge, however, insisted that the defendant rephrase his question.
Dr Chee complied: "Witness, you had made an assessment that I did not pose a public order concern and that is why you did not confront me when you first saw me. At the same time, however, you said that you called the Command Post because you made the assessment that I posed a public order concern. Which is which?"
"When I first saw Dr Chee, my assessment then was that he could pose a public order concern," Mr Hassan replied. (emphasis added)
Dr Chee repeated: "The question is: Did I or did I not pose a public order concern when you first saw me?"
"At that point in time, Dr Chee could not pose a public order concern," came the
contradiction. (emphasis added)
We will leave readers to figure out how to make sense of Mr Hassan's replies.
Starbucks or escalator?
The third controversy arose when the witness testified that he had walked up from Starbucks Coffee to confront Dr Chee.
"So I was facing Starbucks and you were facing the escalator going down to the MRT Station?" Dr Chee asked.
"Yes."
At this point Dr Chee showed the DSP the photograph above which shows the officer engaging Dr Chee on the day of the incident.
Confronted with the evidence DSP Hassan agreed that the positions of the two men were, in fact, the opposite: Mr Hassan was facing Starbucks Coffee while Dr Chee was facing the escalators.
The DSP quickly pointed out, however, that when the photograph was taken, the positions had changed. He maintained that his original version was correct.
The video footage taken by the police would
determine whether Mr Hassan was right or wrong. Unfortunately, the DPP would not produce it as part of the prosecution's evidence.
Dr Chee ended his cross-examination of DSP Hassan today. Hearing resumes tomorrow with the next police witness.
| Seelan Palay - |
Wed, 14 Jan 2009 1:16 am | |
| I thought I remembered... but then I forgot to think, too. | | |
| Robox - Yes, What Was The Offence |
Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:20 pm | |
This has been a question on my mind: how are they going to twist this into an unpardonable crime?
Putting aside the alleged offence for a moment, the charge instead is Rule 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance)(Assemblies & Processions) Rules.
This charge contains the words:
1. "assembly" and "procession" - I will focus on the former since this couldn't possibly be construed as a procession, even by the despicably low standards espoused by the Singapore Police Force; and,
2. "without a permit, or in contravention of any term or condition of a permit..."
As I've mentioned previously, in law, "assembly" refers to a gathering for the purposes of a political activity, typically, protests, rallies, etc.
This then begs the question: is the raising of publicity for a political activity to be held at a later point itself a political activity i.e. an
"assembly"?
Should the court decide that it is, then I would expect, in the interests of justice being seen to be served, that there would be a clear and unambiguous explanation for it, even if the judge is not obliged to do so? Public confidence in the courts is so low that it is impereative that the judge makes that explanation.
Then onto the matter of the permit.
Was a permit applied for?
I believe there was a mention that it was in one of these articles, but if I am wrong and no permit was applied for (distribution of flyers is neither an assembly nor a procession which would neccessitate a permit), then I feel that the focus should turn to the police rejection of permits every time the SDP applies for one.
Again, in the interests of justice being seen to be served, that there would be a clear and unambiguous explanation for
it. | | |
| Robox - A Slightly Bigger Picture |
Wed, 14 Jan 2009 12:16 pm | |
I will highlight four instances of assemblies and falsely alleged assemblies here and the inconsistent treatment for all of them - arbitrariness being a hallmark trait of a lack of the rule of law, Fatty Woon's latest feeble attempt at a conversation stopper.
In my experience, sometimes, when many cases are juxtaposed and compared, the points that we have all always been trying to make becomes clearer.
Also, I am aware that foreign journalists and human rights organizations do read this website, and it is for the purpose of helping them with their documentation that I write this.
1. The Flyer Distribution Case
As I mentioned in the post previous to this, it is preposterous that this should be construed as an assembly.
I compare this to another case:
2. The Pink Jog
During the Pride Month celebrations of 2007, one of the events organized was a 'mass' jog. The
police turned up and pulled their usual intimidation tactics, threatening to press charges under the Miscellaneous Offences Act. (The officer of the law fumbled when questioned about which section, but in all likelihood it was going to be a charge of 'illegal assembly', a charge the police had threatened another Pride Month celebrations with: the Pink Picnic.)
In the end, and I believe it was because of the outcry from gay activists - I myself was insisting that this did not constitute an assembly and threatened that we will retaliate by calling the police every time we see groups of people jogging anywhere in Singapore - the police helped the situation out by insisting that the jogging be carried out only in pairs.
No charges laid. And with police help. too.
3. Tak Boleh Tahan
This does fit into the definition of an assembly and the 17 individuals were charged under a law that criminalizes assemblies of groups larger
than 4; the SDP is arguing against this charge on the grounds of unconstitutionality.
4. A Two Man Protest At MOM
Again this is clearly an assembly. But:
a) because there are no laws against assemblies of less than four; and,
b) possibly also because of the tight spot they find themselves in in the Flyer Distribution Case; and,
c) the continued compulsion felt by the PAP government in it's bid to criminalize politics by political parties other than itself;
the kangaroo cops cook up another charge instead: criminal trespass. | | |
| exSINgaPOORean - Don't fall into the trap. |
Wed, 14 Jan 2009 8:21 am | |
Dr. Chee and sister and gang:
I can tell you right now all of you will be found guilty by the kangaroo judge no matter how stupid the persecutor and witnesses might sound.
They might even say Dr. Chee was wearing a red skirt at that time.
LKY simply wnats to waste your time and effort in these type of wanyang court case and also to show the world that you are given a "fair" hearing by the kangaroo judge.
Just pledge guilty and go to jail for 10 days. Refresh yourself in jail and come out fight again.
The LEE family is controlling Singapore is sinking Singapore fast. 2009 and 2010 will bring the whole nation to its knee and the LEEs could do a disappearing act...like the current Indian company directors...sorry I can't recall the crooks names. | | |
| Gopalan Nair - |
Wed, 14 Jan 2009 9:11 am | |
I thought it was the Chief Justice Chan Sek Kiong and his side kicks Attorney General Walter Woon and the newly appointed Lee Kuan Yew's obedient boy, Minister for Law Shanmugam, who had togehter said, the integrity of the courts cannot be attacked.
Dr. Chee, you are doing a perfect job in doing exactly that. The court's integrity is now shredded to bits.
Should they not now prosecute you one more time? Or have they finally decided that enough is enough!Especially this particular judge Chng Lai Beng! You have made him look very bad. Kangaroo? | | |
| tan - |
Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:23 am | |
| And he's a police officer? I have every reason to believe he's a graduate from PAP Actors Academy, however he got his lines all wrong and the director is fuming. And all this happening live in the Kangaroo Movie Studio. How about rewriting the script, dog? | | |
| Dick - Truth or Lie? |
Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:44 am | |
| Hassan, it's easier to just tell the truth because you don't have to remember all previous lies. | | |
| Tan Tai Wei - |
Thu, 15 Jan 2009 12:35 pm | |
The poor presecution witness!
You see, when you exaggerate the "harm" that certain acts would cause, in order that you might stifle any opposition to your rule by making minute laws to rule out even little things, the result is the sort of encounters examplified in the encounter in court described above.
Little things, such as Chee appearing with leaflets in hand, speaking to another, within a shopping arcade, etc., had to be interpreted to be a matter of "serious public concern", with potentials of causing vast "racial unrest" in our "fragile multi-cultural society", etc., etc..
So, our hapless police witness had had to maintain the exaggerations in court, and this explains the difficulties he faced when pressed by the Chees to explain his policing of SDP
activities! | | | |
