by Moby
I would like to raise a question to the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) on the relatively lighter sentence meted out to the Briton, Benjamin Glynn for breaking the law, especially in the light of his continuous aggravating actions and disregard for the local law and local authorities. This can be especially seen when contrasted with the sentence the two South Asian Permanent Residents (PRs) received for breaking the law.
Let’s consider the aggravating circumstances for Mr Benjamin Glynn.
- He blatantly refused to wear a mask in a train. He even told the other persons in the train not to wear a mask.
- When the police went to interview him at his residence, he verbally threatened them and then attempted to physically assault them, then ran around the compound and the police had to chase and tackle and get him arrested.
- He refused to wear the mask even when coming to the court for his appearances. He was seen to be without masks on multiple occasions.
- He tried to get his ‘friend’ to be his lawyer, when the friend was clearly not authorised to practice law at the bar in Singapore. His friend was also not appropriately attired to be his lawyer. He was wearing a polo shirt. This was a mockery of the legal system in Singapore. Have you seen any lawyers appearing in the courts in the UK, wearing polo shirts? Obviously you cannot do that even in the UK. In this case, why will Mr Glynn and his ‘friend’ think it will be acceptable to the Singapore courts if he is represented by someone wearing a polo shirt in court? Are they not mocking our legal system?
- He had his group of supporters, who constantly belittled the court, and one who later called the court a ‘kangaroo court’. Isn’t that contempt of court?
- He did not choose to plead guilty and wasted the court’s time to conduct a shambolic defence. His defence amounted to him being a ‘living person’. This was an utter waste of the court’s time.
- He chose to verbally attack the prosecutor during the proceedings.
He was sentenced to six weeks’ jail and with time served and one-third remission, he was out the day after he finished the shambolic trial he conducted himself. Half of that jail time was not spent in jail but in the Institute of Mental Health (IMH). Far cushier than being in prison.
Contrast that with the case of the two South Asian PRs.
- They met for half an hour in the room of one of them. They were not out in public like Benjamin Glynn was.
- They lied to authorities but pleaded guilty. They did not waste the court’s time in conducting shambolic defences. They did not have their supporters fill the court and heckle and jeer the court and call the court a ‘kangaroo court’.
The two were sentenced to three weeks jail each.
Consider the aggravating circumstances of the case of Benjamin Glynn and contrast it with the circumstances of the cases of the 2 Singapore PRs. While the sentence for Mr Glynn seems to be double to that of the two PRs, if you look at it closely, he has many more aggravating circumstances.
In previous cases, the judges had noted that not wearing a mask in public is a serious matter as there is a pandemic and they are putting other people in public at risk too. My Glynn did exactly that and he encouraged others not to wear masks.
He wasted the court’s time by conducting a shambolic defence in that being a living person, he does not come under the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts? Usually, conducting a shambolic defence is considered a waste of the court’s precious time.
And add to the fact that his supporters, on more than one occasion, belittled the court and mocked it.
The maximum jail time is 6 months for that offence. Shouldn’t the prosecution have asked for a more serious sentence, say at least 3 months, in the light of all the aggravating circumstances of the case, to send a message to others that such blatant disregard for the law in Singapore is not tolerated, whether you are a local or foreigner?
The authorities in Singapore have always wanted to send a message to the public by meting out punishments that deter crime. What sort of a message does the sentencing of Mr Benjamin Glynn send to the public?
Carrying a placard that said ‘No’, in front of the Ministry of Education, is considered by the local authorities as being detrimental to public peace. Yet, continuously refusing to wear a mask and threatening the police officers is not a serious offence?
The bigger issue here is if this is part of a pattern of white privilege in Singapore. Many expats have continuously and blatantly acted in disregard for the laws we have in Singapore. Whether they are pub crawling in Clarke Quay or having parties on yachts. They have brought the attitude with them that they are ‘different’ from us locals and they are judged by a set of different rules.
They might get away lightly for the same offence in their own country and expect the same from the local authorities in Singapore. They fail to appreciate or refuse to appreciate that we are an independent country with independent laws, and we no longer are bound by the laws of our previous colonial masters. I think it is an issue that has been in the minds of Singaporeans for some time, at least those I have talked to.
Unfortunately, in this case of Mr Benjamin Glynn, that perception is only perpetuated by the relatively light punishment that was called for by the AGC. Especially when compared with the sentence that was given to the 2 South Asian Singapore PRs.
My point in raising this issue is to ensure that expats or foreigners should not think that they are above the law here and can get away with harassing our local authorities and belittling our courts.
This is an opinion piece from a member of the public, and does not reflect TOC’s position on any matter.
