Judge won't allow questions on police
discrimination
Monday, 10 November 2008
Singapore Democrats
In court last Friday, Dr Chee Soon Juan queried police witness,
Station Inspector Yeo Kok Leong, on why he took so long to reply to
Dr Chee's application for a permit for a protest on 15 Mar
08.
Mr Yeo, OC of the Compliance Management Unit at the Police Central
Division, was under cross-examination in the on-going trial of the
Tak Boleh Tahan (TBT) protesters. He is in charge of
processing applications for permits for assemblies and
processions.
Dr Chee had made an online application on 28 Dec 07. SI Yeo did not
reply until 25 Jan 08 – 28 days later. The unit had stated in its
acknowledgment slip that “The normal processing time for an
application is 7 working days.” (emphasis
theirs)
“Was my application a normal one?” Dr Chee asked.
“This is confidential,” SI Yeo replied.
“Are you running a police department or the mafia? A simple
question of whether my application is a normal one or not is
shrouded in such secrecy,” Dr Chee said.
(Earlier, the SDP secretary-general had noticed that the police
printout of his computerised application form, which the
prosecution submitted as evidence, included his date of birth. But
Dr Chee had not entered this piece of data as the online
application did not ask for an applicant's birthdate.
“How did my date of birth get onto your computer printout when I
did not give the information?” the SDP secretary-general
enquired.
“This is confidential,” the witness replied.)
Judge Chia Wee Kiat stepped in and wanted to know the relevance of
Dr Chee's question.
“When my application takes such an abnormally long time to process,
surely you must be interested in knowing if it was treated
normally, especially since I am part of the political opposition”
Dr Chee answered.
Dr Chee explained further that he intended to show that the police
had acted in bad faith and deliberately delayed replying so that
there would be no time for him to appeal the decision and, if the
appeal fails, take up a judicial review.
"The question of mala fide (dishonest intent) on the part
of the police must surely be relevant,” Dr Chee explained. “The
word 'fixed' comes to mind. Are we going to be convicted based on
the machinations of the police?”
The Judge was unmoved and disallowed the question.
Dr Chee added: “Your Honour, with your ruling you are in fact
encouraging the police to abuse their powers. In future instead of
taking one week to reply as they stipulate why not take four weeks,
eight weeks to process an application or, worse, reject the
application just the day before the event?”
Lawyer and co-defendant Mr Chia Ti Lik pointed out that the DPP
seemed to be very protective of the witness. Mr Chia explained that
he would normally allow his opponent some leeway to establish his
intent through the questions.
“By the DPP's protectiveness it almost seems as if there is
intentional effort to help the police cover up the things they did
and not let the public see the truth.” Mr Chia explained. “I urge
you to allow the question because if the prosecution has nothing to
hide, the subject will amount to nothing.”
The defendants stood up to register their unhappiness over Judge
Wee's decision not to allow the defence to determine if there was
political discrimination on the part of the police when it rejected
the application and then dragged their feet in replying to Dr
Chee.
The protesters have consistently argued that while the police allow
political activities by the ruling party and its supporters, it
denies such permission to the opposition. Such inequality before
the law is forbidden by the Constitution. And yet judges, in this
and past trials, will not allow defendants to show how the police
and the Executive have been abusing their powers and politically
discriminated against the opposition.
The hearing was scheduled from 23 Oct - 7 Nov. The next earliest
date for its continuation will be 26 Feb 09 because some of the
defendants have other trials in the coming weeks.
http://www.yoursdp.org/index.php/news/singapore