Yee, with bruised eye

11195273_10153801555168502_1225319976_n

The Community Action Network is deeply alarmed at the recent attack on Amos Yee.

Yee was assaulted, in broad daylight, outside the State Court yesterday. It appears no one attempted to stop or pursue the assailant. Photographs of Yee shortly after the attack show that he suffered some bruising to his eye. It is unclear if he was sent for a physical examination or offered medical support following the incident.

In addition to the physical attack, Yee has been subject to weeks of verbal abuse on the Internet. The language used is often aggressive and emotional. One commenter – allegedly, a grassroots leader – said Yee’s penis should be severed and stuffed into his own mouth. Others hoped he would be raped in prison. Still others have suggested that he deserves a beating. No government official has spoken up or condemned the violent language. It would not be a stretch to say that their refusal to do so might have contributed to yesterday’s assault.

Given the rhetoric against Yee, and the numerous threats to his safety, he should have been “committed to a place of safety or a place of temporary care and protection” under the Children and Young Persons Act. Instead, he is now back in remand, over his failure to abide by his bail conditions.

CAN believes that the conditions imposed on Yee are unnecessarily onerous. Apart from having to report to his Investigating Officer every day, he is also barred from posting anything online. This curtailment of Yee’s right to express himself doesn’t just infringe on his constitutional rights as a citizen, it is also disproportionate to the charges he is currently facing.

We would also like to respectfully remind authorities that under the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Singapore is required to explore measures other than judicial proceedings, when dealing with juveniles who might have breached the law.

We humbly suggest that the State might have overreached in its eagerness to prosecute Yee. We understand that the charge relating to harrassment has been stood down. We urge the State to withdraw it completely, and to do so with the other two charges as well.

Shelley Thio, Rachel Zeng, Jennifer Teo, Woon Tien Wei, Terry Xu, Roy Ngerng, Martyn See, Jolovan Wham, Lynn Lee, Kirsten Han, Vincent Law

Subscribe
Notify of
14 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

What would the government do for Singaporeans who can’t meet CPF Minimum Sum?

Last week (10 Jul), in response to an MP’s question, Manpower Minister…

老顾客为旧机场路小贩抱不平

一名常光顾旧机场路小贩中心的老顾客,在脸书上载贴文,表示自己和一名相熟小贩攀谈时,后者告知当前小贩面对的艰难处境。 名为Gary Ho的老顾客在得知职总富食客接管后,社会企业管理模式并没提升小贩的营生,甚至可能扼杀小贩文化,在帖文中他提到,一些老小贩可能不堪管理层强制规定长时间工作,可能就此结业,顾客们再也吃不到他们烹制的到底美食。 以下为Gary Ho英语原文大意: “熟识我的人都知道我有多爱旧机场路小贩中心!我把所有外国朋友都带到这里和牛车水市场。 昨日(22日)我到那里,一名相熟小贩告诉我近期的改革正扼杀小贩中心。职总富食客在接管小贩中心后,让小贩们签署以英语书写的可笑法律文件,而且也没有翻译内容给不谙英语的小贩。当小贩们问起内容写什么,这些人却回答“没什么啦”“签就对了”。小贩告诉我,职总富食客就好像请了一批“收数佬”来处理小贩事宜。 怎么可以没有翻译内容就让小贩们签字??? 小贩也提到,他们必须缴交每年近100元保费,为摊位外的公共空间买保险。 为何要让小贩们为小贩中心投保? 之后,清洁费就从每月约300,飙涨至超过500元。我还小时着小贩就在这里营业了。他们见证清洁费从四元起到80元、100元、到300元,最后到现在超过500元。卖打包食物的摊位,其实根本没有什么碗碟好洗,之前的承包商也会通融为清洁费打折。但是当问到职总管理层是否能折扣,就音讯全无。 我理解成本已提高,但这是否是在牟利?如果之前的承包商收300元就做到,怎么还要起清洁费?…

NTUC proposes conditional unemployment payouts for older workers which is similar to proposal made by WP in its GE2020 manifesto

The National Trades Union Congress (NTUC) has made a suggestion to provide…