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,

Notify of
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

Security guards’ stats – something for Desmond Choo to ponder over

Leong Sze Hian/ I refer to the article “’I understand how the…

绝迹27载 马国重现小儿麻痹症

马来西亚婴儿被诊断出患有脊髓灰质炎病毒,俗称小儿麻痹症,马国卫生部表示,这也是自27年以来,该国首例病例。 马来西亚沙巴斗亚兰的3个月大婴儿, 因发烧四肢无力而被送入加护病房治疗,于上周五证实患有脊髓灰质炎病毒。 马国卫生部总监拿督诺希山表示,该名病患目前已被隔离接受治疗,情况尚算稳定,但仍需依靠呼吸器呼吸。 据当局表示,马来西亚自2000年开始,便宣布该国成为无小儿麻痹症国家,最后一宗案例则是发生在1992年。 诺西山透露,该名婴儿所检测出的脊髓灰质炎病毒,与菲律宾所检测到的病例是由遗传联系,而且婴儿所在地中的199名两岁至15岁的儿童,其中23名并未注射相关疫苗。 今年9月,菲律宾卫生部门通报,该国南部一名未曾接种过脊髓灰质炎病毒疫苗的3岁儿童感染脊髓灰质炎病毒,在接受救治后已基本痊愈。 “这是令人担忧的情况,因为疫病的传播只有通过疫苗才能遏制,因此疫苗接种率必须达到95巴仙以上,才算有效防止。” 脊髓灰质炎,即小儿麻痹症,是一种由病毒引起的高传染性疾病。它侵入神经系统,若不及时就医,并可以在数小时内导致不可逆转的瘫痪。脊髓灰质炎通过人与人之间的接触传播。当儿童感染野生脊髓灰质炎病毒时,病毒通过口腔进入人体并在肠道内繁殖。 目前,诺西山表示,卫生局已从儿童的家人与其他接触者和周围地区收集了粪便样本,并采取了急性迟缓性麻痹(AFP)病例监测。 诺西山也呼吁家长确保孩子注射疫苗,防止小儿麻痹病例发生。

NUS top rank – not necessarily a reflection of teaching quality

Media reported last week that the National University of Singapore has topped…

Man caught on video wakeboarding at War Memorial Park pond; passer-by lodges police report

A man was caught on video wakeboarding at the War Memorial Park…