Amos Yee at the State Court on 17 August 2016 (Photo – Terry Xu)

Teenage blogger, Amos Yee, 17, turned up in court today to stand trial against 8 charges filed upon him by the State Prosecutors over alleged offences dealing with deliberate intent to wound religious feelings under Section 298 of the Penal Code and failure to turn up for police interviews under Section 174 of the Penal Code

Section 298 refers to the deliberate intention of wounding the religious or racial feelings of any person, utters any word or makes any sound in the hearing of that person, or makes any gesture in the sight of that person, or places any object in the sight of that person, or causes any matter however represented to be seen or heard by that person.

While Section 174 refers to the act of intentionally omitting to attend at the place or time, or departs from the place where he is bound to attend before the time at which it is lawful for him to depart, under orders from a public servant.

Indicating that he will not plead guilty to the 8 charges, Yee declares that he would be representing himself in court to defend the charges against him.

Yee was given the prosecution’s affidavits on the morning itself to look through, which consisted of statements, blog posts, photos, screengrabs and chat logs captured from electronic devices seized from him and his family.

At the start of the hearing, the State Prosecutor asked for the 8 charges to be heard together in the same trial on the argument that the timing of the offences were interlocking and also related to the other as it is an continuity of the action.

District Judge Lim Tse Haw noted that the charges under Section 298 are under the same issue, and asked if the charges under Section 174 will detract from ascertaining the offence by the accused of wounding the feelings of Christians and Muslims. He said that these two are totally separate issues.

The Prosecutor pointed to the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) and raised reference to section 134(d) of the code, saying that the illustration mentioned gives an example of how two separate offences can claim trial together.

Yee raised objection to the Prosecutor’s proposal. He said it is a detraction from the nature of the offences and feels that he will be subjected to an unfair trial should the jointed trial be approved and that there is not enough strong correlation between the two offences for a jointed trial to take place.

The District Judge subsequently decided that it is appropriate to have a joint trial based on illustration C in Section 134 of the CPC after a short period of stand down.

Prosecutor then asked to have the conditional statements of the 7 witnesses from Prosecution to be submitted to the court instead of having the witnesses to take the stand in court. However, that proposal was rejected by Yee, meaning that the 7 witnesses will be cross examined by both parties in court.

The 7 witnesses are; 2 Investigation Officers in charge of Yee’s case, 3 officers from Tech Forensic who examined devices from Yee or saved the videos and blog posts, and 2 officers who were involved in the arrest of Yee.

Before the trial could proceed any further, Yee requested to go for the Criminal Case Resolution (CCR) process. Yee said that he had got to know of CCR by the stroke of luck while doing his own research for his legal defence after the District Judge noted that such a request should have been made during the Pre-Trial Conference.

After a short discussion in Chambers, Yee was granted the permission to go for CCR.

CCR which was implemented in 2011,  provides a neutral forum, facilitated by a judge, for parties to discuss and explore the possibility of early resolution of criminal cases. This reduces wastage of valuable resources due to “cracked‟ trials where the accused person pleads guilty on the day of the trial or after the trial has commenced. For cases where a trial is necessary, CCR process will assist parties to identify the material triable issues and thereby utilise allocated trial dates in a more focused and efficient manner.

The eight charges faced by Yee are; six charges under section 298, and two charges under section 174 of the Penal Code.

SN Date of Offence Article or Video/Act in Offence Penal Code
1 28 Nov 15 “If you are a muslim, you are retarded” Section 298
2 17 Dec 15 “The banned anti-Islam Facebook post by Amos Yee” Section 298
3 14 April 16 “Responding to the common bullshit of Christians” Section 298
4 17 April 16 “Research has begun” Section 298
5 8 May 16 “Amos Yee arrested for wounding religion again” Section 298
6 19 May 16 “Refuting Islam with their own Quran” Section 298
7 14 Dec 15 Omit to attend interview at Jurong Police Divison Section 174
8 10 May 16 Omit to attend interview at Jurong Police Divison Section 174

 

If found guilty of section 298, the penalty is imprisonment for a term of up to 3 years, or with fine, or with both. If found guilty of section 174 of the penal code, the penalty is imprisonment of up to one month, or with fine of $1,500, or with both.

Yee will go for the CCR at 9.30 am and will then stand trial again at the State Courts.

Yee was found guilty of the two charges brought against him on 12 May 2015. One charge is obscenity for having uploaded a picture of the late Singapore prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew in a sexual depiction with the former British prime minister, the late Margaret Thatcher and the second, wounding the feelings of Christians for remarks he made in a video of Mr Lee and the Christian religious icon, Jesus Christ, which he had uploaded onto Youtube.

Yee was given a jail sentence of four weeks on 12 June 2015 for the two charges but was released on the spot in court as he had already spent a total of 55 days detained on remand.

Yesterday, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on freedom of opinion and expression, David Kaye, warned that Yee’s trial is deeply worrying and a sign of the increased criminalization of expression in Singapore,

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

HDB: Vegetation cleared to remove rat burrows and rid stray dogs of possible hiding places

Netizens were shocked when they saw images of what was formerly a…

【国会】民众质疑“已放纵有些时日” 毕丹星冀更有力手段对付涉不公聘雇雇主

工人党党魁、阿裕尼集选区议员毕丹星,昨日(31日)首次以国会反对党领袖,参与辩论政府施政方针。在致词中,他提到新加坡当前面临的改变、必须恒守不变的事务,以及必须改变的事项。 近来外籍雇员议题闹得沸沸扬扬,他在致辞中也谈及,尽管外籍专才确保我国经济保持活力,我国开放和友善的态度也视这些在社群中的外籍人士为友人。但与此同时,更要关注那些感觉被排除在国家发展之外的本地雇员。 8月5日,人力部揭发47雇主招聘员工时未公平对待新加坡人;竟有30个金融、专业服务行业雇主,聘请外籍PMET大部分来自同一国家、有18家公司的PMET过半都是外籍人士。 毕丹星直言,很显然的问题是,人力部采取行动前,何以这些雇主能被纵容至此?这无怪乎新加坡人质问,人力部是否放任这些雇主不公聘雇行为,已有些时日? 但毕丹星坦言,能理解议题的复杂性,包括一些银行的客户不在我国,且不使用我国的任何一种语言,但是和PMET来自同一个国家,那么聘请该国人才的理由就成立。也有人认为,这是让我国成为全球金融中心所需要采取的步骤。“问题是,我们根本不了解详情。而且这会导致信息真空出现,并将被恶毒言语的言论充斥着,藏有一定危机。” 毕丹星认为这些都应该立即加以纠正,而新加坡贸易和工业部部长早前接受访谈中,他所提到的一些细节也是非常需要受到关注的,希望当局能够提供更多有用的讯息详情。 应加重不公招聘的雇主惩罚 他促请人力部公开违反公平雇佣原则的雇主,让民众了解他们的业务经营模式,及指引他们成为合格雇主的方法。他认为政府在这方面需要提高知名度,且不要三分钟热度。此外也可从第三方获得帮助,如设立国会特选委员会,以调查探讨劳动队伍的局限和探讨我国经济的需求、新加坡员工面对的竞争,及雇主面对的难题。 “除此之外,国会通过反歧视立法,并对违规者进行罚款,也能防止雇主不公平雇佣,这也是劳资政公平雇佣守则(TAFEP)应该在近期内更积极努力的方向。” 毕丹星指出,目前违规公平雇佣守则的雇主所最严重刑罚,即禁止使用或更新员工工作准证长达两年,但是对雇主本身没有任何刑事处罚。这让雇主们存了侥幸的心态,因为他们只要没有做出任何虚报,就不会受到刑事起诉。“这是远远不够的,要取得更大的威慑作用,应该让所有申请就业准证和S准证人士提供教育证书,并由申请者承担费用,确保来我国工作者是真正合格的人才。” 应培训更多金融业人才 此外,他也对在我国教育是否有培养足够的人才感到质疑。他对于本地大型银行,即华侨银行、大华银行、渣打银行和星展银行的国人比例感到好奇,甚至希望了解相关银行没有聘请更多国人的原因。…

Temasek’s unit in talk to sink more than $0.5b into PIL run by PBM holder S S Teo

Last Tues (26 May), after months of speculation by industry analysts, the…

别开生面的温馨庆生会 退休经理邀36拾荒者共聚

一名退休经理在11月1日过生日,却不是宴请亲朋好友共进一餐,而是请来了36名拾荒老人家,和他们一起分享自己的生日喜悦。 60岁的前基金经理,蔡松福(Chua Soon Hock)在受访时表示,今年的60岁生日,他希望来一个不一样的生日会。“平常我都会和家人一起共享简单的晚餐或午餐。虽然举办派对很开心,但是意义不大。因此我希望增加维度,举办更有意义的庆祝活动,让有需要者受益。” 他在非营利组织“乐于助人基金”(Happy People Helping People)的协助下,成功在在武吉知马的73@Hillcrest餐厅,举办上述富有意义且温馨的庆生活动。 他表示,在和该基金合作后,心中就有了帮助这群年长拾荒者的想法。 “我很尊重这些拾荒者。他们很年长,也很穷,但是很有尊严地辛劳工作,用他们的双手努力工作。但他们中,有很多都生病体弱。” 他补充说,“他们是贫困群体的可见代表,在NHK纪录片中指出,我国共有25万名贫民被隐藏在繁荣的新加坡背后。可见到的贫困居民,只是冰山一角。” 该基金会在11月1日,在脸书页面上分享了这温馨的一刻。…