“The public should decide at least for once,” said Mr M Ravi, defence lawyer for Mr Alan Shadrake.

Mr Ravi was responding to a question from Justice Quentin Loh about who should decide on whether statements from Shadrake’s book Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Docks are contemptuous.

Photo credit: Reuters.

Mr Ravi said that the Singapore court has now been put in a difficult position, as it must now pass judgement on a case in which it is also an involved party. It is more appropriate that the people of Singapore be allowed to decide for themselves on whether the statements made in Shadrake’s book have scandalised the judiciary.

He explained that Singapore has developed as a society and that its people are now discerning and mature enough to react appropriately to fair criticism. There is no need for constant contempt of court charges to be brought against those who express their views on controversial or political issues such as the Death Penalty in Singapore.

“The Attorney-General Chambers should, for once, stop and just relax,” he said, adding that the concept of fair criticism is one that permeates all democratic societies and should not be suppressed by hypersensitivity.

He highlighted the difference between outspoken criticism and baseless insinuations, saying that “every citizen is entitled to fairly criticise” if there is reasonable apprehension of the judiciary bending backwards to accommodate executive decisions. Legitimate criticism would also help enhance public confidence in the judiciary.

“If Your Honour were to convict my client at the end of the day it would weaken confidence in the judiciary but would not strength confidence in the judiciary,” Mr Ravi said.

The literate and well-educated population of Singapore also makes it more appropriate for the real risk test to be used in this case instead of the inherent tendency test, he said.

The inherent tendency test was first deemed necessary in British colonial law as it was felt that inhabitants of smaller countries were not well-educated enough and therefore more susceptible to believe any criticism of the judiciary.

However, Mr Ravi submitted that the real risk test demands a higher level of proof, and is more suitable for a developed and discerning Singaporean society. “We can trust our population to handle these criticisms,” he said.

Justice Loh pointed out that in the past 12 to 13 contempt of court cases, Singaporean judges had used the inherent tendency test.

“It doesn’t matter. You are the one that makes the difference,” replied Mr Ravi.

He then went on to address the first 6 out of the 14 statements the Attorney-General Chambers had isolated from the book, demonstrating how each constituted fair criticism.

TOC is unable to provide a detailed report on Mr Ravi’s submissions on the statements as any one who publishes or reproduces these 14 allegedly contemptuous statements are liable to be also charged with contempt of court.

Mr Ravi also hit back at DPP Hema Subramaniam’s statements allegations, saying that by presenting the statements out of context, “it is the Attorney-General whose submissions are mean-spirited.” He stated that by cherry-picking certain excerpts instead of viewing the whole work in its entirety, even “biological textbooks would be labelled pornographic.”

The hearing continues tomorrow morning. (See also DDP’s submissions here)

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

Register of electors to be updated before 30 April

The Elections Department has announced through a press release on Monday (2 Feburary) that the registers of electors to be updated no later than 30 April.

“Shy” Malaysian youth went ‘missing’ in Singapore for 10 days as he “didn’t dare to talk to” Singaporeans

An 18-year-old Malaysian boy who reportedly went ‘missing’ in Singapore for 10…

Malaysia High Court strikes out human rights group Lawyers for Liberty’s case against K Shanmugam, says MHA

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) said on Thursday (1 October) that…

国家发展部发指示 要AHTC限制林瑞莲、刘程强财务决策权

上月2日,阿裕尼—后港市镇理事会宣布,工人党主席林瑞莲与议员刘程强无需回避市镇会所有财务事务。 不过,国家发展部今日(3日)对该市镇会发出指令,要求限制上述二人在财务上的决策权。 该部在文告中指出,阿裕尼后港市镇会上月13日,向该部提呈陈情书,解释为何林、刘二人无需回避财政事务。 该部认为市镇会提出的陈情理由,和法庭裁决两人疏失“不能相提并论”;也指市镇会的改进措施不显著,恐未能有效避免财务疏失重演。 故此国家发展部长援引《市镇会法》指示阿裕尼后港市镇会采取行动,限制刘程强和林瑞莲批准或涉及市镇会财务决策。这意味着两人也不能代表市镇会签支票。 不过,有关指示不会限制他们继续行使议员职责和在市镇会的其他职务,例如参与会议讨论和在委会中投票。 国家发展部则在上月5日回应,质疑该市镇会决策,并指出除非法院推翻对林瑞莲与刘程强的判决,否则这些裁决应被视为有效。 高庭在去年10月11日判决,工人党议员林瑞莲等人,需为阿裕尼-后港市镇会蒙受损失,承担法律责任,后者决定提出上诉。 11月5日,经过超过四个小时激辩,以52票赞同、9票反对、两票弃权,通过副总理兼财政部长王瑞杰的动议,要求刘程强和林瑞莲回避一切和阿裕尼-后港市镇会相关财政事务。