Photo by Chia Yong Tai

Singapore exile and lawyer, Tan Wah Piow has just replied to Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) on their response to his earlier request for the convictions in 1975 against him and another two individuals to be quashed in view of the conviction against former NTUC secretary-general and People’s Action Party Member of Parliament, Phey Yew Kok on 22 January.

In AGC’s reply to Tan on 31 May 2016, it wrote that the conviction upon the three can only be quashed through the Singapore court and that they did not appeal their conviction in 1975.

Tan in his reply, reiterated to AGC that the new evidence about Phey’s criminality is more than adequate in law to render the 1975 conviction upon him and the other two individuals unsafe.

Read – Phey Yew Kok has the “temerity to instigate his staff to fabricate false evidence

Tan wrote, “once the facts of Phey Yew Kok’s nefarious activities in the 1973-79 period are known, it is no longer tenable for the Attorney-General to ignore the issue of the miscarriage of justice in my case. This is because it was the defence case that Phey Yew Kok was the architect of the frame-up.”

Tan, Ng Wah Leng and Yap Kim Hong were accused of being a member of an unlawful assembly, committing criminal trespass and the offence of rioting on or about 30 October 1974 at about 11 am at the office of the Singapore Pioneer Industries Employees’ Union (PIEU) and charged under Section 147 of the Penal Code.

The three accused were tried at the First District Court before Judge Mr T S Sinnathuray and finally convicted after a 47-day trial which started on the 10th December 1974.

Tan had consistently maintained that Phey had framed him and other unionists for the riots in the mid-1970s. Read here for full story – The Phey Yew Kok affair.

In his letter, Tan called upon Mr VK Rajah, the Attorney-General to do the right thing, “and especially one who professes to want to instill public confidence in the administration of justice, it is incumbent upon you to erase this blot.”

AGC notes that Tan’s points about Phey’s charges of fraud are entirely unrelated to his conviction on charges of rioting as Phey could not and did not give material evidence to the incident. It further referred to the judge had convicted him after hearing all the evidence and gave his reasons for doing so.

replyAGC
Reply by AGC to Tan Wah Piow



Below is the full letter sent by Tan Wah Piow to the Attorney-General

Thank you for the letter of the 31 May 2016.

The jurisdiction point I take issue with your assertion that ” have asked the Attorney-General to quash (my] your conviction. However, in Singapore this can only be done by the Court.” You are of course right on the jurisdiction point, but my letter of 28° January 2016 invited you “to take all necessary steps” to quash the convictions against each of the three defendants.

The step or steps you could take are as follows:
(a) The AG lodging a motion to the court to quash the convictions of the three defendants in the 1974-5 case on the basis that in the light of the 2016 conviction of Phey Yew Kok, the verdicts were no longer safe.
(b) If such a motion can only be lodged by a defendant under current law, the AG could recommend the government to amend the law to grant such rights to the AG.
(c) Alternatively, the AG could indicate to the defendants that if they were to submit an application to the court to quash the convictions, the AG would not oppose such an application.
(d) As a last resort, the AG could advise the Government to pass an Act of Parliament to quash the 1975 convictions.

The relevance of Judge Jennifer Marie’s remarks

You claim that Judge Jennifer Marie’s sentencing remarks on Phey Yew Kok were “entirely unrelated to your conviction on charges of rioting in 1975” .

I believe your proposition is wrong. Judge Marie’s remarks touched on the evil deeds and character of Phey Yew Kok during the 1973 to 1979 period. Although those remarks relate to the specific charges before her, they nevertheless impinge on the character and credibility of Phey Yew Kok at the time when he gave evidence as a prosecution witness in the 1974 “rioting” case.

The criminality of Phey Yew Kok was central to the defence case during the trial. I raised the issue of Phey’s criminality when I cross-examined him. That was disallowed by the Judge, and Phey was released as a witness. By his own volition, Phey returned to court the following morning to assert his “good character”. He told the court that he had no criminal record.

We now know, following his 2016 conviction that Phey was economical with the truth. In fact at the time when he asserted his good character at my trial in 1974, he was actually in the midst of a criminal enterprise to embezzle trade union funds.

It is therefore my submission that once the facts of Phey Yew Kok’s nefarious activities in the 1973-79 period are known, it is no longer tenable for the Attorney-General to ignore the issue of the miscarriage of justice in my case. This is because it was the defence case that Phey Yew Kok was the architect of the frame-up.

The relevance of Phey Yew Kok’s physically presence at the “riot” I further take issue with the following assertion in your letter: “Mr Phey was not present at the rioting incident on 305 October 1974. He could not and did not give evidence as to what happened during the incident.”

It is not in dispute that Phey was not present on the 30th October when his own trade union officials overturned the furniture, and smashed the glass panels of their own office to fabricate a ‘riot’. Phey Yew Kok’s absence at the scene does not undermine the defence case that he was responsible for the frame-up, and the “riot” was fabricated to advance his agenda. In conspiracy cases, the real mastermind is often absent from the scene of the crime.

The question of Judge T S Sinnathuray In your effort to avoid addressing the narrow issue which I had posed, namely the conviction was unsafe because of the new evidence about Phey Yew Kok, you relied on the records of the trial prepared by Judge T S Sinnathuray a depository of “truth” about the case.

I had scrupulously avoided raising the issue of Judge T S Sinnathuray’s handling of the trial because I believe that the new evidence about Phey Yew Kok’s criminality is more than adequate in law to render the 1975 conviction unsafe.

However, since you have chosen to use T S Sinnathuray’s records as a defence for your reluctance to act, I must draw your attention to what went on in, and outside the court beyond what you could glean from the judge’s “comprehensive written decision”.

I enclose herein Dr G Raman’s Foreword to the book Smokescreens and Mirrors. His recollection about the trial is invaluable as he was the defence lawyer for one of the defendants. G Raman is a well respected senior member of the Singapore Bar. It is clear from G Raman’s sharp observations that T S Sinnathuray handling of the trial is not beyond reproach.

I hope G Raman’s observations are of help to you. It should also assist you in appreciating why at the end of the trial I told the judge that I would not go around shopping for justice in Singapore.

The injustice in this case is of concern to me on a personal level. It eventually led to my exile. But it is also, in the words of G Raman, “a major landmark in Singapore’s legal history. It is a blot that cannot be erased.”

As the Attorney-General, and especially one who professes to want to instill public confidence in the administration of justice, it is incumbent upon you to erase this blot.

The stench of the injustice in this case has unfortunately landed on your desk. I hope you have the vision, courage and commitment to do the right thing.

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Needy: Pay $10 to get $6 back?

Leong Sze Hian/ When TOC’s Interim Chief Editor, Ravi Philemon, asked me…

扭转六年营亏 170员工受影响 莎莎关闭22狮城商店

莎莎国际控股有限公司宣布,将关闭国内所有22间商店,估计有170人的生计受到影响。 该公司于周一(12月2日)发出文告指出,当局是为了扭转连续六年所面对的营业亏损,才出此下策。 “为了改善新加坡市场的表现,集团近年来已经采取措施重组本地管理团队,并改善商店的陈列和产品结构,以推动销售。” “遗憾的是,有关的结果远不能令人满意。” 截止9月30日的李个月中,莎莎新加坡的业务营业额为9940万港元(约1730万新元),比去年下降了4.6巴仙。 莎莎表示将根据新加坡的《雇佣法令》,为170名员工提供全额薪酬。 这家化妆品零售商指出,目前的最新举措是当局针对香港核心市场战略的一部分,由于中国大陆的游客人数急剧下降,当地市场变得更加困难了。 当局指出,这也将让负责新加坡和马来西亚市场的管理团能专注于更具发展潜力的马国市场。 为了弥补新加坡市场和香港的亏损,莎莎将继续扩展中国大陆的营销,并加快电子商务的发展。 文告中,它指出目前营运资金仍足以维持营销行驶。 “预计终止新加坡的租约不会对集团的营运产生重大影响,因为集团本身总共营运了265家商店,新加坡只占了22家。” 该集团指出,截止9月30日,其现金和银行结余共有7.887亿港元(约1.38亿新元),足以满足其营运需求。

对假消息政府有酌处权 亚洲互联网联盟忧侵蚀言论自由

对于我国政府有意通过《防止网络假信息和网络操纵法案》,亚洲互联网联盟(AIC)表达高度关注,同时也对于法案起草过程,公众缺乏有意义的参与和咨询机会深感失望。 亚洲互联网联盟的会员包括脸书、苹果、LINE、领英(LinkedIn)、推特、谷歌、雅虎等媒体巨头。 他们在文告中指出,支持我国政府在维护社会和谐和凝聚力、保障国家机构和政治进程完整的努力。 不过,他们对于法案起草过程中,公众缺乏有意义的参与和咨询机会表达遗憾,即便有关法案对许多利益相关者,包括媒体、科技业者、新加坡和本区域的公民社会,将带来深远影响。 ”立法不应被视为首要解决方案“ 该联盟重申,他们的立场和其他专家相同,即在应对假消息这个极度复杂的课题上,立法不应被视为优先的解决方案。 ”我们也高度关注新加坡政府获得充分酌处权,来判定消息真伪。这是迄今为止类似立法中权限最广的,过度的干预恐怕会威胁言论自由,不论对新加坡或全球各地都可能带来严重后果。“ 亚洲互联网联盟表示,愿与政府紧密配合打击错误信息,不过不愿公共辩论和思想的交流因上述法案付出代价。 至于脸书也发表声明,指出部分相关立法条文赋予新加坡政府权力,迫使公司撤下他们认定的假新闻,同时要求公司将政府的警示信息发送给用户。 根据《防止网络假信息和网络操纵法案》,部长获得很大酌处权,判断哪些消息属假消息,并可行使权力发出指示,要求发送者或有关媒体进行更正。 如果符合这些条件,有关部门的部长,可通过三大管道制止假信息传播。 一、政府可发出针对性更正指示,比如规定假信息的内容旁,贴上正确讯息或引导读者到正确讯息的链接上。有关新闻不需撤下。…

NUS leadership will have a town hall with students to discuss review committee and policies on sexual harassment

NUS Dean of Students Assoc Prof Peter Pang has announced that a…