Amos Yee

amosyee

16-year old blogger, Amos Yee, has been found guilty of the two charges brought against him by the Attorney General’s Chambers.

District Judge Jasvendar Kaur delivered her much anticipated verdict on Tuesday afternoon at the State Court.

She found the teen guilty of the charge of 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.

Amos Yee was also convicted of the second charge of 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.

A third charge of having harassed those who had viewed the video was earlier stood down by the prosecution, but it was withdrawn altogether on Tuesday, which was effectively a discharge amounting to an acquittal, the judge ruled.

However, after almost one and a half months since he was arrested for the offences, and having spent a total of 18 of those days in jail on remand, the teenager still does not know what his fate is, as far as sentencing is concerned.

This is because Judge Jasvendar has called for a “suitability for probation” assessment to be made by a probation officer with the help of a state-appointed psychologist.

A pre-sentence report by the probation officer is to be presented to the courts on 2 June.

The courts will then decide on sentencing.

The prosecution also agreed to a reduced bail sum of S$10,000, down from S$30,000; that the restrictions on Amos Yee on posting anything online be removed; and that there would no longer be any daily reporting to the police station for the teenager.

However, Amos Yee would have to remove the video and the blog post for which he was charged.

He has agreed to do so by midnight, Tuesday.

Amos Yee will also not be allowed to travel overseas.

In his submission in court, deputy public prosecutor Hay Hung Chun said the teenager’s “actions are far from being ‘noble’ or imbued with good intentions.”

“It was a calculated course of conduct undertaken for the sake of publicity and without regard to the damaging effects on the community.”

However, he added, given Yee’s age and profile, “it is clear that neither a sentence of a fine nor a term of imprisonment would be suitable in the circumstances.”

“At 16, 17-years old, I don’t think one should be holding the odium of a conviction,” DPP Hay told the courts.

“What he urgently needs is counselling and appropriate probation,” he added.

He said the focus should be on Yee’s “reintegration into society for his good and benefit”.

“It is not in our interest to keep him in remand.”

However, Amos Yee’s lawyer, Alfred Dodwell, told the courts that the teenager did not want probation and instead has instructed his lawyers that he would like to be sentenced to jail.

Mr Dodwell then took the courts through the teenager’s years as a student in school to show that his client was in fact not a troublemaker but was a good student.

Mr Dodwell said Amos Yee’s teachers in his schools have praised him for being “excellent in studies and conduct”, for getting along well with his classmates, was conscientious and disciplined in his studies, and that he had “displayed much creativity”.

Amos Yee was also praised for being a “responsible class monitor” in secondary school.

Mr Dodwell emphasised that his client had also been very cooperative with the courts – attending all hearings on time – and with the police.

Amos Yee had spent a total of 36 hours being interviewed by the police during its investigations and had been cooperative.

The defence then called on the courts to impose a fine or two weeks’ jail, taking into consideration the 18 days that Yee had already spent in remand.

After the lawyers had spoken, Judge Jasvendar called both sides, along with the teenager’s parents, into chambers.

After a lengthy delay, court proceedings resumed, and the judge ordered the pre-sentencing assessment to be conducted by the probation officer by 2 June.

“He has now agreed to the calling of the probation report, which is good,” Mr Dodwell said, referring to his client. “We’ll see what the conditions are and Amos will decide whether to accept the probation.”

“The judge was really trying hard to ensure that Amos does not end up with a criminal record,” Mr Dodwell said.

“In a sense, I do feel we have succeeded in setting him free,” he added, referring to how Amos Yee had always rejected bail conditions because they gagged him from expressing himself through his blog and other online platforms.

“He has no restrictions now save he can’t travel out of Singapore. I feel a sense of relief. But I am disappointed with the results. We are studying the written grounds and we shall consider [whether] to appeal or not.”

As for the teenager himself, he emerged after being released from custody at about 7pm, and was greeted by his parents, friends and supporters.

He was dressed in a dark blue t-shirt and shorts, with flip-flops.

He looked surprised by the attention but soon was smiling as he headed out to the taxi-stand, pursued by a posse of reporters and media cameramen.

When asked how he felt, the teenager said, “I don’t know if I should celebrate my release or mourn my sentence”.

———————–

Human Rights Watch issued the following statement following Amos Yee’s conviction:

“Criminalizing free expression by anyone who dares mock the powers that be is a tried and true practice of the Singapore government, and Amos Yee is the latest victim.  Singapore excels at constructing excuses to justify its gagging exercises but the charges that were brought against Yee are a stretch even by Singapore’s usual practice. From an international rights perspective, nothing Amos Yee said about religion in his famous video about Lee Kuan Yew justified these criminal charges against him.  Given what circulates on the internet these days, convicting Yee with transmitting an obscene representation is laughably arbitrary and a new low for restricting freedom of expression. Yee was right to point out that even the bail terms that barred him from using social media are a gag order were designed to strip him of his right to free expression.  

“The reality is convicting Amos Yee was all about publicly punishing a youthful dissident who dared besmirch the image of the recently passed leader, and intimidating anyone else who might think of doing the same in the future.  Singapore’s actions to criminalize Yee’s statements run contrary to international human rights standards and are a dangerous affront to freedom of expression.  Singapore has once again proved that those who speak their minds in the city state do so at their own risk.  No wonder the youth of Singapore are increasingly worried about their future – since their government seems doggedly determined to gag their words on social media, and shut down news portals putting out stories that doesn’t agree with the government’s political line.  This is a dark day for freedom of expression in Singapore.”  

 

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

Netizens denounce light sentence for NUS student who assaulted an ex, but lawyer says it was a just verdict

There was public outcry when it was reported that a National University…

New HIV leak by Brochez of data obtained during or after his imprisonment; Prison service files police report

The Singapore Prison Service (SPS) said in a statement on Sunday (17…

Singapore ranked 26th happiest country in the world, falling four spots from previous year

Singapore has been ranked 26th out of 155 countries in the 2017…

强制国民加入终身护保计划 网民抗议政府独断不为人设想

《终身护保和长期护理法案》于9月2日在国会通过,1980年或之后出生的国人必须在明年开始强制支付有关保单,这让网民表示难以接受,因为政府并没有征询国民的意见,也质疑政府如有能力负担得起国际生奖助学金,也理应能承担国民保险的赔付额。 终身护保计划(CareShield Life)每年保费分别为男性260元和女性253元,并且必须投保至67岁。若投保者遭受严重残疾,凡是需要护理,将会在每月获得至少600元的赔偿。 有民众反映每月600元赔付根本不足,卫生部长颜金勇表示,长期护理是共同责任,民众也可购买其他私人保单作为补足。 乐龄健保索赔,仅占总保费四巴仙 强制性加入终身护保计划旨在逐步取代人们可选择投保的乐龄健保(ElderShield),并且保护国人在面对严重残疾时,仍有一些生活费。乐龄健保于2002年开始实施,让面临严重残疾者可在5至6年期间,每月获得400元。 去年媒体报导曾指出,130万公民参与乐龄健保,缴纳超过33亿元保费,但是至今只支付了1亿3300万元的索赔,仅占所收保费的四巴仙,可能还剩下约32亿元和基金所获利息。 对此,网民表示难以了解,为何需要强制国民投保终身护保计划。 有者则质疑在乐龄健保的大笔收入资金,但是只要微薄的支出,而且想知道终身护保计划是否也会有类似做法,从国人处收取大笔资金并赚取利息,却仅对真正有需要者支付微薄的索赔。 负担得起国际生奖助学金,却不能承担国民索赔? 有一名网友特别指出,新加坡政府有能力为外国学生,每年提供提供约2亿3800万元的奖学金和学费津贴。但是,却无力为民承担约1亿3300万元的乐龄健保索赔?“总感觉哪里不对。” 其实在上个月(8月5日)工人党非选区议员贝理安(Leon…