Going to jail is least of Chee Siok Chin’s concerns
January 10, 2010
Source: Singapore Democrats
Friends and supporters of Ms Chee outside the Changi Women’s prisonMs Chee Siok Chin walked out from Changi Prison today after serving a one-week jail term for distributing flyers that were critical of the PAP.
Together with Mr Gandhi Ambalam and Dr Chee Soon Juan, Ms Chee was convicted for distributing flyers in a group of 5 or more persons without a permit outside the Raffles City Shopping Centre in September 2006 which was considered an illegal assembly.
District Judge Chng Lye Beng convicted the three in December last year. All three have appealed the conviction.
Ms Chee, however, chose to go to jail first. (In fact, she may be the first female inmate to enter the facility in 2010, her prison number is 00001-2010.) Judge Chng reminded her that if she served the prison term first the appeal would be academic because the authorities could not compensate her for her lost time if she won the appeal.
The Judge is wrong. Ms Chee is fighting not to avoid going to jail but to demonstrate how wrong the system is.
If opposition politicians cannot come together in groups of 5 or more to “demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government” then what good is the opposition.
It is common knowledge that Singapore is not a democracy, but the decision of this judge has taken the matter to a whole new level.
This is because the Prosecution took pains to emphasize on the phrase “intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government” in its charge (see below). It is unfortunate that Mr Chng has seen it fit to agree with the Executive on this point.
The Defendants contested vigorously that the charge itself of penalising citizens for criticising the actions and policies of the PAP Government is unconstitutional. How can it be an offence to criticise what the Government does? Isn’t the basis of a democracy one where an opposition exists to oppose the actions of the Government? Isn’t it only in a totalitarian state that forbids criticism of the powers-that-be?
More ominously, is the PAP becoming even more oppressive, if that’s possible?
This matter will be brought before the High Court when the appeal is heard in a few months time. It’s decision will be closely watched not just in Singapore but around the world.
Probably more around the world because most Singaporeans don’t know about this episode and the arguments surrounding it. Why? Because the local media has decided to completely blackout this news. It is clear that the PAP is bent on “winning” the argument by banning and keeping information from the public rather than having an open debate and allowing citizens to decide for themselves.
How is Singapore a First World country when its laws are so backward and the media is controlled? More importantly, can Singapore cope in the future when laws oppress Singaporeans to such a frightening degree?
Now can you see why going to jail is the least of Ms Chee’s concerns?
The chargeYou are charged that you, on the 10th day of September 2006 at about 12:15 pm, in the vicinity of Raffles City Shopping Centre, North Bridge Road, Singapore, which is a public place, together with 5 persons did participate in an assembly intended to demonstrate opposition to the actions of the Government, which assembly you ought reasonably to have known was held without a permit under the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) (Assemblies & Processions) Rules, and you have thereby committed an offence punishable under Rule 5 of the said Rules.
Mark Chua
Senior Investigation Officer
Central Police Division
29 December 2008
Rule 5 of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance)(Assemblies & Processions) Rules:
Any person who participates in any assembly or processions in any public road, public place or place of public resort shall, if he knows or ought reasonably to have known that the assembly or processions is held without a permit, or in contravention of any term or condition of a permit, be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.
Chee Siok Chin begins jail term
January 5, 2010
Posted on behalf of Chee Siok Chin
Source: Singapore Democrats
Ms Chee Siok Chin began serving her one-week jail sentence yesterday after District Judge Chng Lye Beng had found her guilty together with Mr Gandhi Ambalam and Dr Chee Soon Juan for distributing flyers without a permit.
A permit was required because, one, 5 or more persons were involved and, two, the police insist, the flyer was demonstrating “opposition to the actions of the Government.”
The Deputy Public Prosecutor had during the hearing emphasized that it was not the distribution of the flyers per se that was illegal but the content of the flyer which was critical of the policies of the Government was also illegal.
The police witnesses had testified during the trial that distibuting flyers was a common and normal activity. They could not say what offence the Defendants had committed. One even said that in his opinion, the SDP leaders were not committing an offence.
Furthermore, the licensing officer testified that distributing flyers for a commercial cause did not require a permit whereas one was needed if the cause was political. This, of course, is not true because the law (Miscellaneous Offences Act) does not make such a provision.
The Defendants also argued that the fact that the flyer criticised the Government was irrelevant to the charge.
Despite all these, Judge Chng sided with Prosecution and convicted Ms Chee, Mr Ambalam, and Dr Chee, sentencing them to the maximum fine of $1000, or one-week jail in default. (See here)
The three have appealed the conviction. Ms Chee has chosen to serve her sentence first but will continue with her appeal because it is important that the High Court renders its decision and grounds if it upholds the conviction.
Even as she begins serving her sentence, Ms Chee will be brought to court daily for the on-going hearing before District Judge Toh Yung Cheong for a separate charge for “attempting to take part in a procession” during the WB-IMF meeting in 2006.
Immediately after Mr Chng made his decision on 18 Dec 09, Ms Chee stood up and told him:
“I continue to say that what we did was not a crime. Criticising one’s government is a right guaranteed in a democratic society. By finding us guilty you are as good as saying that we do not have this right. By pronouncing us guilty you are also saying that Singapore is not a democratic society and that this government is an undemocratic one.”
Judge agrees that it is illegal to criticize Govt without permit
December 20, 2009
Source: Singapore Democrats
District Judge Ch’ng Lye Beng found Mr Gandhi Ambalam, Dr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin guilty of distributing pamphlets criticising the PAP Government without a permit and fined the three SDP leaders the maximum amount of $1,000 each with one week’s jail in default.
The Judge agreed with the Prosecution that distributing flyers in a group of 5 or more persons criticising the PAP Government’s policies is an offence. He gave the decision in court yesterday morning, adding that most of the evidence submitted was irrelevant. The group had distributed flyers at the Raffles City Shopping Centre on 10 Sep 06 questioning the ministers’ salaries as well as the denial of political rights to Singaporeans (see here).
Judge Ch’ng did not give reasons for his verdict. The Defendants will appeal the conviction whereupon the Judge will then have to give his grounds of decision. The sentence will be held in abeyance pending the appeal.
The SDP leaders argued that to make illegal criticism of the Government is itself unlawful under the Constitution and a breach of the principles of the rule of law.
In particular they emphasized that the Miscellaneous Offences Act under which they have ben charged has been abused by the police to target and criminalise legitimate political activity conducted by the opposition.
After the sentence was passed Ms Chee rose to tell the Judge:
“I continue to say that what we did was not a crime. Criticising one’s government is a right guaranteed in a democratic society. By finding us guilty you are as good as saying that we do not have this right. By pronouncing us guilty you are also saying that Singapore is not a democratic society and that this government is an undemocratic one. That is all.”
Judge dismisses complaint against police
July 20, 2009
Source: Singapore Democrats
District Judge Christopher Goh dismissed a Magistrate’s Complaint filed by Ms Chee Siok Chin and Mr John Tan last week.
Ms Chee and Mr Tan had filed the complaint in February this year for unlawful detention and selective use of the law by the Singapore Police Force when the two were walking along Orange Grove Road in 2007 (watch video Part I and Part II).
In her complaint, Ms Chee stated that during the ASEAN Summit that year, police officers along Orange Grove Road harassed and stopped her and Mr Tan from walking to Shangri-la Hotel. The police had told them that the area was under gazette at that time.
Ms Chee argued that if that was the case, why were other pedestrians and vehicles allowed in the vicinity while she was being prevented from proceeding.
Mr Tan also said that he had been assaulted by the police officers in the the van.
The SDP leaders stated that after they were forced into the van, the police officers told them that they were not being arrested but refused to answer repeated questions about where they were being taken.
On Tuesday last week, the judge told both complainants that in response to the complaint, the Internal Investigation Department of the Singapore Police Force had come to the conclusion that Ms Chee and Mr Tan were removed from the vicinity under the Protected Area and Places Act. The report was sent to the Attorney-General’s Chambers who decided that there was no case for the police to answer. The judge thus dismissed the matter.
Ms Chee pointed out that the investigation was carried out by the same body against whom the report was made.
Mr Tan argued that the two main issues highlighted in the complaints were not being addressed by the investigation. He asked the judge to demand answers to the questions raised, but was rejected. The selective application of the law and the wrongful detention of the aggrieved persons were dismissed by the district judge.
Judge Goh responded by saying that he had no powers to initiate prosecution. In other words, he could only act on the direction of the AGC.
Despite much explicit reasoning, the judge could not see the absurdity of an investigation carried out by the perpetrators and the decision not to carry out further action by their accomplices.
The PAP has for decades used public institutions against its political opponents and dissenters. This is a serious misuse of power. Unfortunately, Singaporeans have been subjected to such abuse for so long that many have come to accept it as normal.
Is this the Singapore-styled democracy to which Mr Lee Kuan Yew is referring when he rejects “liberal democracy?” Is this the kind of democracy that Singaporeans have pledged to uphold? The answer is clear. The function of all government agencies or public institutions is to serve the people, not the party in power.
This is why the Singapore Democrats and Friends continue with the struggle for democracy and pursuit of justice and equality for all.
Source: Singapore Democrats
The following letter by Ms Chee Siok Chin was sent to the Straits Times Forum in reply to Assistant Official Assignee Mr Malcolm Tan’s letter dated 5 Aug 08.
Mr Malcolm Tan’s distorted version of my meeting with the OA’s office is misleading (see letter below).
He says that I had refused to give my passport for verification. This is a lie. One of the officers had asked to go through my passport. As the majority of my travels had taken place before my bankruptcy, she had no right to peruse it.
I therefore flagged the pages of my passport which contained my travels that took place after my bankruptcy and went through these with the officers. None of them objected.
One officer said that she merely wanted to confirm if I had gone on the trips where the travel permits were approved. I confirmed that I had gone on each of those trips.
It is clear that Mr Tan is not telling the truth.
Mr Tan also accuses me of not telling them who was paying for my trip. Again, this is an outright lie.
I had submitted to the OA’s office on no less than four occasions the letter from Stanford University telling me that the university was paying for my trip. In part, the letter read:
“As mentioned, CDDRL (Centre on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law) will cover the cost of your air and ground transportation. We will also buy a health insurance on your behalf …You should not really need much money since all of your meals, transportation, and housing are covered by the program.”
Contrary to what Mr Tan said in his letter, I never refused to answer who was paying for my trip to Stanford. Mr Tan is quite shameless in covering up the fact that the OA had full knowledge of this matter.
Mr Tan also says that I had refused to verify information of my income and expenditure statement. At the meeting, one of the officers told me that my creditors had wanted to know who was helping me financially. She said that if they wanted to remain anonymous, all I had to do was to put that in writing. That was done in my email to the officers on 9 July 2008.
How have I refused to verify the information requested?
The officers at the OA must come clean about why it refused my travel application to Stanford University. The initial reason they gave was that my previous trips had not benefited my creditors.
But after I sent them the letter from Stanford saying that the university would pay me an honorarium so that I could use that to pay the creditors, the OA changes tack and now says that the reason I was refused the travel permit was that I had been uncooperative.
Such flip-flopping is offensive.
To add insult to injury Mr Tan reveals the figures owed to my creditors. I remind Singaporeans that I was made bankrupt by the AG’s Chambers over a court challenge on a Constitutional matter, not because of my own private dealings.
Still, it is wholly unethical for the OA’s office to make public what they have been privately entrusted to manage. What has the information anything to do with this case? Even then, Mr Tan cannot get the figures right which adds to his unprofessionalism.
Lest the OA’s office forgets, the Insolvency and Public Trustee’s Office is a body that is supposed to serve citizens. It is not a vehicle to further the agenda of the ruling party.
Chee Siok Chin
Singapore Democratic Party
Official Assignee’s letter published in the Straits Times:
Why Chee’s sister denied Stanford visit
5 Aug 08, Straits Times ForumI refere to last Saturday’s article, ”No’ to Stanford trip for Chee’s sister’. It contains a number of serious errors. It is regrettable that The Straits Times did not seek to verify the facts with us, unlike Lianhe Zaobao which did verify, and therefore published a more accurate article.
Ms Chee Siok Chin applied to the Official Assignee (OA) on June 17 for permission to travel to Stanford University in the United States from July 26 to Aug 20. She met officers of our department on July 3. At the meeting, as is the general practice, our officers asked her about her previous travels and requested to inspect her passport, since she needed permission of the OA to travel. She refused to give her passport for verification. She was also asked how she would be paying for her trip. It was important to establish this. But she refused to answer. Our officers also asked her to verify information she had given previously in her income and expenditure statements. She again refused to answer. Ms Chee was under a legal duty to cooperate but quite cynically refused to do so. Thus her application to travel was rejected.
Ms Chee owes a total of more than $59,000 to two creditors – Maybank ($15,896.44) and the Attorney-General ($43,364.17). To date, she has paid only $550.
The ST report states that Ms Chee would be given an honorarium for a public speech while attending her course at Stanford University. She did not mention this to the OA’s office during the interview on July 3. It surfaced only after her application was rejected. By then, she had clearly demonstrated her unwillingness to cooperate.
We have checked and would like to clarify that the Minister for Law did not receive any letter from Stanford University, contrary to what was reported.
Malcolm B.H. Tan
Assistant Official Assignee
for Official Assignee
Source: Singapore Democrats
Even though it’s her first experience in jail, Prisoner 5925 is in good spirits at Changi Women’s Prison. Ms Chee Siok Chin, who was jailed for contempt of court on Wednesday, 4 June, is lodged in a cell together with two women from China, spending time for overstaying offences.
On the second day, Ms Chee who is tagged as Prisoner 5925, was allowed a family visit yesterday afternoon. Dr Chee’s three children with their mother Dr Huang Chih Mei were able to interact with Ms Chee through video conferencing for close to thirty minutes.
The prison authorities, who had refused to let Ms Chee have her books in the cubicle on the first day, returned them just before the family visit. Prisoner 5925 is also being treated for her tooth infection that had dogged her throughout the three-day hearing to assess damages in a defamation suit by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and Lee Hsien Loong against the SDP, Dr Chee and Ms Chee.
On the last day of the hearing on 28 May, Justice Belinda Ang committed both Dr Chee and Ms Chee for contempt of court, including that of having acted “vigorously” in their cross-examination of the Lees. Subsequently Dr Chee and Ms Chee were found guilty by Justice Ang and sentenced to 12 days and 10 days in jail respectively.
Last night, more than 30 activists, SDP members, friends and well-wishers held a candlelight vigil outside the prison where Ms Chee is being detained. Among them was Mr Gopalan Nair, who is presently on bail for seditious charges.
Tonight, a similar vigil will be held at the Queenstown Remand Prison where Dr Chee Soon Juan is incarcerated. The public is encouraged to turn up and light a candle for democracy.
Ms Chee is expected to be released on next Friday, 13 Jun.
Source: Singapore Democrats
Dr Chee Soon Juan and Ms Chee Siok Chin were convicted of contempt of court by High Court Judge Belinda Ang and sentenced to 12 and 10 days imprisonment respectively.
The Judge had said that the two defendants had scandalised the court and impugned its integrity.
At the beginning of the hearing this morning counsel for Ms Chee, Mr M Ravi, argued that the transcript Judge Ang used for citing instances of contemptuous conduct came from Merrill Legal Solutions, a company contracted to record and transcribe proceedings.
The Lees’ lawyers of Drew & Napier had paid for Merrill’s services. A copy of the transcript was then extended to Judge Ang.
Mr Ravi pointed out that documents that were relied on by the court had to be made available to all parties. The defendants were not provided copies of the full transcript.
When Dr Chee approached Merrill earlier, he was informed that because Drew & Napier had applied for the transcription servicess, a copy could not be given to him. The defendant was told he would have to contact the Lees’ lawyers.
Judge Ang ordered Mr Ravi to proceed to make submissions on Ms Chee’s punishment. When counsel finished, the Judge sentenced Ms Chee to ten days imprisonment.
It was then Mr J B Jeyaretnam’s turn to make submissions on Dr Chee’s behalf. Mr Jeyaretnam had earlier agreed to act for the SDP secretary-general.
Mr Jeyaretnam made two preliminary applications. The first was to invite Judge Ang to recuse herself from the matter.
“It’s a question of whether a judge should act in her own cause,” the veteran opposition politician pointed out. “You have been so much a party in the proceedings that public perception of your participation in it is important.”
Mr Jeyaretnam also wanted more time to study the facts of the case. He had received the Judge’s citations only during the weekend and have not had the time to prepare the case.
The Judge rejected both applications.
Because of the lack of time to properly brief Mr Jeyaretnam, Dr Chee said that it was not fair to expect his lawyer to argue his case effectively.
“I couldn’t leave Singapore because of my bankruptcy and Mr Jeyartenam was in Johor Barhru over the weekend,” Dr Chee cited, adding that this made it difficult to get the transcripts to his counsel.
Dr Chee accordingly discharged Mr Jeyaretnam as counsel and said that he would not be defending the charges. He would accept whatever punishment the Judge ordered.
Judge Ang then sentenced him to 12 days imprisonment. She also directed that if the defendants did not file their Notices of Appeal by the close of business day on Wednesday, 4 Jun 08, Dr Chee and Ms Chee would be jailed starting 5 Jun 08.
The defendants have applied for the $10,000 security costs to be waived in order to appeal Judge Ang’s decision. She has reserved judgment on the amount of damages the defendants have to pay to the Lees.
Source: Singapore Democrats
Ms Chee Siok Chin called on Members of the European Parliament (MEP) not to ignore the the abuses of human rights in Singapore even as it continued to trade with the city-state.
Ms Chee made this point at the 2008 ALDE-CALD Meeting held in Brussels, Belgium last week.
ALDE is the Allaince for Liberals and Democrats in Europe and CALD is the Council for Asian Liberals and Democrats. ALDE and CALD alternate their annual meetings between Asia and Europe. The meeting was held in Jakarta, Indonesia last year.
Following that conference, a delegation of ALDE and CALD stopped by in Singapore to speak at a public forum organised by the SDP. The PAP Government banned the forum, however, and threatened to arrest the European Parliamentarians. (Contrast this with the Institute of Policy Studies who recently invited Malaysian bloggers and MPs to speak at the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy.)
Dr Chee Soon Juan, chairman of CALD, was scheduled to give an opening speech and a welcome address to the participants. However, his application to travel was again rejected by the Government.
Ms Chee attended the meeting in his place and gave a brief opening address (see below). The SDP Central Executive Committee member pointed out that commercial interests and business relations between the European Union and Singapore seemed to overshadow the abuses of human rights by the Singapore Government.
As a result, the political situation in Singapore was brought up several times during the conference. Parliamentarians from Asia and Europe noted especially of Dr Chee’s prohibition from travelling even to preside over meetings.
Mr James Moran, Director-General for External Relations, whose portfolio includes the appointment of European Commissioners (ambassadors) around the world, spoke at one of the discussions.
Responding to the incident in Singapore last year, Mr Moran said that he “regretted” the incident and said that the European Commission had sent a letter of protest to the Singapore Government.
He said that the Commission is working hard to make sure that such embarrassing incidents will not happen again. He also assured Ms Chee that the EU’s trade with Singapore will not be done at the expense of the rights of Singaporeans.
Dr Paul Lim, the ex-deputy director of the European Institute for Asian Studies, also spoke about how little the general public knows about the nature of EU-ASEAN relations and the cooperation between them.
Dr Lim was accused by the Singapore Government of being a Marxist conspirator in the 1987 arrests and has been living in Brussels for 20 years.
Ms Chee’s opening address
Dr Chee Soon Juan would have dearly liked to be here to catch up with old friends and also meet new ones. Unfortunately, the chairman of CALD has not been allowed to leave Singapore for two years now. He is virtually under city arrest.
The last time he attended an ALDE-CALD event was when it was held in Singapore almost exactly year ago where MPs from ALDE and CALD were to speak about democracy in Asia and Europe at a public forum. Unfortunately, the event was banned by the Singapore Government at the last minute and the foreign parliamentarians were threatened with arrests.
Dr Chee had written a message for this opening, but advanced technology has failed us and I am unable to obtain a copy of his message to read it out to you.
But I know that Dr Chee would very much have liked to be here in the company of liberals and democrats. As the Chair of CALD, I know he is determined to work with CALD, ALDE and LI (Liberal International) to advance democracy and justice all over the world. As he is prohibited from travelling, Dr Chee is especially grateful to the CALD Secretariat to help him fulfill his duties as Chair.
The recent elections in Thailand, Taiwan and Malaysia have had a significant impact on CALD, especially when three of our member parties were involved in the elections and have been directly affected by the results. However, these events have proven that democracy is well and alive in some of the Asian countries. Although democracy may not always bring about the results that politicians desire, the voices of the people were heard and their choices respected.
Those of us in Singapore, Burma, Cambodia and by and by the Philippines are hopeful that democracy, good governance and the rule of law will materialise in our countries. We are struggling to make this happen. It can be achieved with the support of and solidarity action from regional and international communities. This is where I want to thank ALDE and LI for having stood solidly with us through our struggles.
Dr Chee would want to meet all of you again and I know that he hopes that Singapore will be the venue of choice in the next joint conference. Despite bankruptcy, lawsuits, arrests and imprisonments, he is determined to continue working with all of you to perhaps one day free the world of dictators.
Thank you.
Source: Singapore Democrats
Ms Chee Siok Chin called on the world’s democratic leaders to band together even as the autocrats learn from one another how to make repression more effective.
The SDP leader was speaking at the Fifth World Movement for Democracy (WMD) Assembly held last week in Kyiv, Ukraine. Dissident-turned-President Victor Yuschenko was at hand to welcome the participants.
The WMD is a global network of democrats, including activists, practitioners, academics, policy makers and funders who come together to cooperate in the promotion of democracy.
Ms Chee spoke about how the PAP Government uses its trade, business and investment relations to dissuade the international community from paying attention to the violation of basic rights in the country.
She pointed out how regimes in Russia, China, Vietnam, Cambodia, Singapore and Africa were learning from each other in using trade to fend of democratic development.
She was invited in a plenary session on Defending Civil Society together with prominent dissidents such as Venezuela’s Carlos Ponce (right in photograph), Egypt’s Saad Ibrahim (second from right) and Russia’s Yuri Dzhibladze (fifth from right). (Looking on are Paul Graham of the Council of Community of Democracies, third from right, and Doug Rutzen from the International Centre for Not-for-Profit Law, left)
As the world’s dictators are learning from each other, Ms Chee urged the democrats to stand together to “stop this tumour from spreading” by paying more attention to the tactics used by the Singapore’s ruling People’s Action Party.
She told the audience about the oppression in Singapore, adding that the system in Singapore is a threat to democracies around the globe.
At one of the workshops, Ms Chee presented the Singapore case on the best strategies to counter government restrictions on assembly, association and advocacy. She told the participants about how the government abuses the rule of law to prohibit peaceful assemblies.
Even when protesters abide by keeping assemblies to four persons or less, the police will bend the law and make arrests or threats. Ms Chee said that Singaporeans must distinguish between just and unjust laws; laws that are meant to protect the people and laws that are meant to perpetuate those in power.
As such, the only viable strategy is to defy unjust laws by engaging in peaceful protests. She said that democracy and human rights advocates were encouraged by their counterparts in Malaysia and Burma. A participant form Bahrain echoed Ms Chee’s call, noting the similarity in his country.
Ms Chee also conducted a press conference attended by local journalists with democracy advocates from Egypt, Zimbabwe, Venezuela and Russia. She was asked about how active opposition political parties are in Singapore. Ms Chee said that the Singapore Democrats were vocal against the many injustices in the country. That is why other than harassment from the police, the party is being sued by Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his son, PM Lee Hsien Loong, for defamation.
Many participants commended Ms Chee for her presentation and expressed their support for the local activists. One described her speech as “awesome.” They said that they would follow developments in Singapore.
Ms Ayo Obe, the Chair of the WMD, pointed out in her opening speech that Singapore is a country that has a facade of a modern and free society but was a repressive one in reality.
Mr Larry Diamond, a professor at Stanford University and author of several acclaimed books on democracy, presented his latest one entitled The Spirit of Democracy to the SDP leader. Professor Diamond was in Singapore last year to give a lecture at the Institute of Policy Studies. He also met with Mr Lee Kuan Yew during his visit.
Ms Chee also spoke to the Malaysian participants at the Assembly and discussed how Singapore the civil societies could cooperate to make progress in the development of democracy in the two countries.
The Assembly also saw the award of of the Democracy Courage Tributes to the Monks of Burma, the Legal Community of Pakistan and the Journalists of Somalia.
To police: Produce evidence or retract statement
March 18, 2008
By Chee Siok Chin
The allegation made by the police that I had “tried to bite a female police officer when the
latter tried to arrest her” and that I had “attack(ed)” her is a serious one. It is also a lie.
The statement made it look as if I had resisted arrest by trying to bite one of the police officers as they were leading me to the police van. The numerous clips that have been posted on the Internet have proven that this never took place.
The press statement issued by the police is malicious. Its intent is obvious.
If the police have evidence that I had attacked or even attempted to attack an officer, then they should produce it.
Otherwise they must retract the slanderous and scandalous statement, failing which I shall consider taking action against them.
Chee Siok Chin
CEC Member
Singapore Democratic Party
Monkey see, monkey do
In 2007 Mr Tian Chua, Chief Information Officer of the Parti KeAdilan Rakyat was also accused of biting an officer when he was arrested during a protest in Malaysia. Mr Chua, now a member of parliament, documented the lie in his blog.
Now it is the Singapore police’s turn to fabricate such lies to demonise protesters.
Just who is trying to hurt whom?
Singapore
Malaysia
Police (back)biting by Tian Chua
This young man who claimed to be a police officer alleged that I bit him on his arm.
Later I discovered in a video record that he actually hit my head while I was being forcefully taken by the police.
It is most ridiculous that I could be accused of assaulting anyone under those circumstances.
I am amazed that the BN propaganda machine could spin such an incredible story to defame me.
The NST (New Straits Times, Dec 12) not only reported this unverified story [so did the Straits Times and Channel News Asia on Ms Chee Siok Chin], it even carried the issue of biting in the headlines of the front page.
I have no hatred towards ordinary policemen and women. Despite many unhappy incidents, I hold no grudges against the police force.
In fact, I deeply sympathize with the predicament faced by my fellow-citizens in uniform.
The mass arrest at Parliament on December 11 last week was shameful for all rational thinking Malaysians.
Razak Ismail and I, who arrived at the entrance to Parliament at about 10:30hr, were the first to be arrested. Our arrest was recorded on video by many people.
Two versions of the arrest have been posted online:
