Connect with us

Current Affairs

“We must stop this brutality,” says Human Rights Lawyer

Published

14 years ago

on

by Deborah Choo

Human rights lawyer Mr M. Ravi will apply to court for an injunction against the government’s newly imposed guidelines on the Tamil Hindu festival Thaipusam “indiscriminately” on the Hindu devotees participating in the said festival. This comes as the latest announcement at this morning’s press conference.

Source: trekearth.com

The guidelines released by the Hindu Endowment Board (HEB) bans the playing of recorded or sounding gongs or drums, painting and piercing of faces and bodies, any form of visual representations such as banners, flags, postcards, and prohibits a public address system amongst others.

In an unprecedented move, the HEB now requires the registration of a Kavadi representative to sign an undertaking before the authorization of the participation of a procession can be granted. In addition, he/ she has to attend a briefing on Thaipusam procedures prior to the authorization.

Thaipusam is slated to be held on next Thursday, 20 January.

Ravi, acting not only as human rights lawyer but also as a devout Hindu, will be processing his application based on the 2nd Charter of Justice which was issued on 27 November 1826.

In his originating summons against the Attorney General Chambers and the Hindu Endowment Board in face of the recent controversial Thaipusam rulings, he asserts that the abovementioned guidelines “violate the fundamental rights to freedom of speech, assembly and expression, of the Hindu devotees participating in Thaipusam, which are guaranteed under Article 14 of the Commission.”

To be able to fully comprehend the meaning behind Thaipusam and appreciate the beauty and significance of the festival, Ravi asserts that one must track its roots back in history. He argued that since the 1800s, Malaysian states like Kuala Lumpur, Penang, Selangor, Johor Bahru are used to having Thaipusam declared as a public holiday. However, why is this not the case in Singapore?

The originating summons also clearly states that the guidelines are “in breach of Article 9 of the Constitution in that the said rules fail to safeguard the lives and liberties of the Hindu devotees and their supporters, whilst in trance during the ‘Kavadi’ procession.”

He explains that interrupting a person whilst in trance can be dangerous to the person himself/ herself. “We have to stop this brutality,” he said resolutely.

In response to speculation that the government decision might be a result of a fear of gang violence, he quotes the peaceful yet lively celebrations that took place in 1976 in Kuala Lumpur (see video below) which saw thousands of people congregating in a single place for the processions. He then questioned the need for police officers to send Hindu devotees to jail just because they are expressing themselves during the celebrations in which music is an integral part.

Thaipusam is not only a celebration, but a form of “personal expression” according to Ravi. He also posed the questions to reporters at the press conference: “Can you ask the lion dances not to have drums?”

Video description: Filmed in 1976, this video documents Thaipusam celebrations in Singapore and the Batu Caves, Malaysia during that period. As you will observe in the video, the smashing of coconuts on the ground signifies the destruction of personal egos.

Note that a large portion of the celebrants are not of Indian ethnicity, especially the Chinese and Peranakans.

“Are you creating terrorists out of them? Who is engineering this violence? It’s the state,” he said.

Ravi said that he wants “this injunction to be stopped by Monday.”  Ravi will also bring this case up to the ASEAN inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights.

Thaipusam

Thaipusam is an annual Hindu festival that takes place on the full moon day of the Tamil month Thai (Jan-Feb).  Thaipusam is derived from the words ‘Thai’ which means the 10th, and ‘pusam’ which means when the moon is at its brightest.

This festival honours Lord Subramaniam, also known as Lord Murugan, the deity of youth, power and virtue, which is best demonstrated through the carrying of ‘kavadi’ in a 4 km procession.

This festival is a time for repentance for devotees with celebrations carried out mainly at the temple. Devotees prepare themselves spiritually with extensive prayer and fasting before performing acts of penance or thanksgiving like carrying a kavadi from one temple to another. Often, sharp skewers are pierced through their tongues, cheeks and bodies as a practice of self-mortification. Offerings include fruits, flowers and pots of milk.

Video description:

This video is based on the true story that occurred in 1812. The story begins with a man. His name was Rous Peter, collector of Madurai. (Madurai, now more than 2,500 years old, was once the capital of the ancient pandya kingdom.)

He was also known as Peter Pandian to many. One night, thunder roared and lightning struck. Out of the blue, a little girl appears and woke Peter in his bedroom. She hurriedly leads him out of his house. Then, at that moment, the lightning destroyed his room.

Just as suddenly as she appeared, the girl disappeared. Peter believed that sree Meenakshi presented a pair of golden stirrups embedded with precious stones.

*The actual temple used in this film is still standing today in Madurai. To read more, click here.

The following is the full version of M Ravi’s originating summons:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE

Originating Summons                     of 2010

In the Matter of Article 9, 12, 14 and 15 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore

And

In the Matter of Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ASEAN Human Rights Commission and ASEAN Inter-Governmental Commission on Human Rights

And

In the Matter of the Federation of Malaysia, 1948 and 1963-65

And

In the Matter of the Independence of the Republic of Singapore, 1965

And

In the Matter of the Second Charter of Justice 1826 governing the local customs and traditions of the Indian British Subjects under the Colonial Administration of Singapore

And

In the Matter of Ravi S/O Madasamy

(NRIC No. S6913333I)

… Plaintiff

v

1. Attorney General

(I.D Does not exist)

2. Hindu Endowment Board

(I.D Does not exist)

… Defendants

ORIGINATING SUMMONS

LET ALL PARTIES concerned attend before the judge on the ___ day of    _________ 2011 at ___ AM/PM for the hearing of an application by The Plaintiff for the following orders that:

  1. The guidelines pertaining to the festival of Thaipusam, imposed by the Government of the Republic of Singapore through the Hindu Endowment Board, on the Hindu devotees participating in the said festival to be held on 20th January 2011, are in breach of the Minority Rights guaranteed under Article 12 of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.
  1. The Thaipusam guidelines which violate Article 12 of the Constitution violate the rights of religious minorities guaranteed under the auspices of the Presidential Council of Minority Rights.
  1. A declaration that the abovementioned guidelines are in breach of Article 9 of the Constitution in that the said rules fail to safeguard the lives and liberties of the Hindu devotees and their supporters, whilst in trance during the ‘Kavadi’ procession; since in accordance with the said guidelines , they are not allowed to beat drums, play music or chant loudly during the 4 kilometre procession. The enforcement of the Thaipusam guidelines endanger the safety and personal liberty of devotees who seek music and dance from their supporters during the 4 kilometre procession.
  2. The abovementioned guidelines violate the fundamental rights to freedom of speech, assembly and expression, of the Hindu devotees participating in Thaipusam, which are guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution.
  1. The said guidelines are in breach of the constitutional right of the Hindu devotees, to practice and profess one’s religion, guaranteed under Article 15 of the Constitution.
  1. The Government of the Republic of Singapore and/or its agents be injuncted including the Elected President who is advised by the Presidential Council of Minority Rights from imposing the said guidelines and therefore allowing the Hindu devotees their rights to peaceful enjoyment of the Thaipusam procession and hence protect them from police brutality.

Dated this         day of January 2011

This originating summons is filed by Ravi S/O Madasamy, NRIC No. S6913333I, of 81 Kovan, Road #02-03, Singapore 548173 .

_________________________

M. Ravi

Note: This summons may not be served more than 6 calendar months after the above date unless renewed by order of the Court.

If a defendant does not attend personally or by his counsel or solicitor at the time and place abovementioned such order will be made as the Court may think just and expedient.

Unless otherwise provided in any written law, where the plaintiff intends to adduce evidence in support of an originating summons she must do so by affidavit, and must file the affidavit or affidavits and serve a copy thereof on every defendant not later than 7 days after the service of the originating summons.

To:      The Defendants

Attorney – Generals Chambers

1 Coleman Street #10-00

Singapore 179803

Tel: 6336 1411

Fax: 6339 0286

The Defendants

Hindu Endowments Board (HEB)
397 Serangoon Road
Singapore 218123

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
2 Comments
Subscribe
Notify of
2 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Current Affairs

Reforming Singapore’s defamation laws: Preventing legal weapons against free speech

Opinion: The tragic suicide of Geno Ong, linked to the financial stress from a defamation lawsuit, raises a critical issue: Singapore’s defamation laws need reform. These laws must not be weaponized to silence individuals.

Published

1 week ago

on

9 September 2024

By

by Alexandar Chia

This week, we hear the tragic story of the suicide of Geno Ong, with Ong citing the financial stress from the defamation lawsuit against her by Raymond Ng and Iris Koh.

Regardless of who’s right and who’s wrong, this Koh/Ng vs Ong affair raises a wider question at play – the issue of Singapore’s defamation laws and how it needs to be tightened.

Why is this needed? This is because defamation suits cannot be weaponised the way they have been in Singapore law. It cannot be used to threaten people into “shutting up”.

Article 14(2)(a) of the Constitution may permit laws to be passed to restrict free speech in the area of defamation, but it does not remove the fact that Article 14(1)(a) is still law, and it permits freedom of speech.

As such, although Article 14(2)(a) allows restrictions to be placed on freedom of speech with regard to the issue of defamation, it must not be to the extent where Article 14(1)(a)’s rights and liberties are not curtailed completely or heavily infringed on.

Sadly, that is the case with regard to precedence in defamation suits.

Let’s have a look at the defamation suit then-PM Goh Chok Tong filed against Dr Chee Soon Juan after GE 2001 for questions Dr Chee asked publicly about a $17 billion loan made to Suharto.

If we look at point 12 of the above link, in the “lawyer’s letter” sent to Dr Chee, Goh’s case of himself being defamed centred on lines Dr Chee used in his question, such as “you can run but you can’t hide”, and “did he not tell you about the $17 billion loan”?

In the West, such lines of questioning are easily understood at worse as hyperbolically figurative expressions with the gist of the meaning behind such questioning on why the loan to Suharto was made.

Unfortunately, Singapore’s defamation laws saw Dr Chee’s actions of imputing ill motives on Goh, when in the West, it is expected of incumbents to take the kind of questions Dr Chee asked, and such questions asked of incumbent office holders are not uncommon.

And the law permits pretty flimsy reasons such as “withdrawal of allegations” to be used as a deciding factor if a statement is defamatory or not – this is as per points 66-69 of the judgement.

This is not to imply or impute ill intent on Singapore courts. Rather, it shows how defamation laws in Singapore needs to be tightened, to ensure that a possible future scenario where it is weaponised as a “shut-up tool”, occurs.

These are how I suggest it is to be done –

  1. The law has to make mandatory, that for a case to go into a full lawsuit, there has to be a 3-round exchange of talking points and two attempts at legal mediation.
  2. Summary judgment should be banned from defamation suits, unless if one party fails to adduce evidence or a defence.
  3. A statement is to be proven false, hence, defamatory, if there is strictly material along with circumstantial evidence showing that the statement is false. Apologies and related should not be used as main determinants, given how many of these statements are made in the heat of the moment, from the natural feelings of threat and intimidation from a defamation suit.
  4. A question should only be considered defamatory if it has been repeated, after material facts of evidence are produced showing, beyond reasonable doubt, that the message behind the question, is “not so”, and if there is a directly mentioned subject in the question. For example, if an Opposition MP, Mr A, was found to be poisoned with a banned substance, and I ask openly on how Mr A got access to that substance, given that its banned, I can’t be found to have “defamed the government” with the question as 1) the government was not mentioned directly and 2) if the government has not produced material evidence that they indeed had no role in the poisoning affair, if they were directly mentioned.
  5. Damages should be tiered, with these tiers coded into the Defamation Act – the highest quantum of damages (i.e. those of a six-figured nature) is only to be reserved if the subject of defamation lost any form of office, revenue or position, or directly quantifiable public standing, or was subjected to criminal action, because of the act of defamation. If none of such occur, the maximum amount of damages a plaintiff in a defamation can claim is a 4-figure amount capped at $2000. This will prevent rich and powerful figures from using defamation suits and 6-figure damages to intimidate their questioners and detractors.
  6. All defendants of defamation suit should be allowed full access to legal aid schemes.

Again, this piece does not suggest bad-faith malpractice by the courts in Singapore. Rather, it is to suggest how to tighten up defamation laws to avoid it being used as the silencing hatchet.

Continue Reading

Current Affairs

Man arrested for alleged housebreaking and theft of mobile phones in Yishun

A 23-year-old man was arrested for allegedly breaking into a Yishun Ring Road rental flat and stealing eight mobile phones worth S$3,400 from five tenants. The Singapore Police responded swiftly on 1 September, identifying and apprehending the suspect on the same day. The man has been charged with housebreaking, which carries a potential 10-year jail term.

Published

2 weeks ago

on

3 September 2024

By

SINGAPORE: A 23-year-old man has been arrested for allegedly breaking into a rental flat along Yishun Ring Road and stealing eight mobile phones from five tenants.

The incident occurred in the early hours on Sunday (1 September), according to a statement from the Singapore Police Force.

The authorities reported that they received a call for assistance at around 5 a.m. on that day.

Officers from the Woodlands Police Division quickly responded and, through ground enquiries and police camera footage, were able to identify and apprehend the suspect on the same day.

The stolen mobile phones, with an estimated total value of approximately S$3,400, were recovered hidden under a nearby bin.

The suspect was charged in court on Monday with housebreaking with the intent to commit theft.

If convicted, he could face a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.

In light of this incident, the police have advised property owners to take precautions to prevent similar crimes.

They recommend securing all doors, windows, and other openings with good quality grilles and padlocks when leaving premises unattended, even for short periods.

The installation of burglar alarms, motion sensor lights, and CCTV cameras to cover access points is also advised. Additionally, residents are urged to avoid keeping large sums of cash and valuables in their homes.

The investigation is ongoing.

Last month, police disclosed that a recent uptick in housebreaking incidents in private residential estates across Singapore has been traced to foreign syndicates, primarily involving Chinese nationals.

Preliminary investigations indicate that these syndicates operate in small groups, targeting homes by scaling perimeter walls or fences.

The suspects are believed to be transient travelers who enter Singapore on Social Visit Passes, typically just a day or two before committing the crimes.

Before this recent surge in break-ins, housebreaking cases were on the decline, with 59 reported in the first half of this year compared to 70 during the same period last year.

However, between 1 June and 4 August 2024, there were 10 reported housebreaking incidents, predominantly in private estates around the Rail Corridor and Bukit Timah Road.

The SPF has intensified efforts to engage residents near high-risk areas by distributing crime prevention advisories, erecting alert signs, and training them to patrol their neighborhoods, leading to an increase in reports of suspicious activity.

Continue Reading

Trending