Ladies and Gentlemen,
I continue in Court 6, Subordinate Courts, Singapore at 9.30 am on
Monday July 28, 2008. The story continues from the last blog.
I am writing as time permits. I have been in court nearly every day
with either this case or the Blogging case, having to work on them,
leaving little time to report. As time permits, I write these
blogs. Apologies to not being to be more immediate in the
reporting. But rest assured, it will be done.
I reported in my last blog, on the previous day of trial that I had
objected to the presence of Investigating Officer S Vikneshwaran
sitting in Court during the proceedings because in Dr. Chee Soon
Juan's previous cases, a valid objection was raised with the
Investigating Officer sitting in court and then being observed to
leave the court room and found to be coaching other police
prosecution witnesses who were yet to testify, enabling them to
tailor their evidence against Dr. Chee to secure convictions.
Today the Prosecutor, Mr. Peter Koy Su Hua, started the day by
making a lengthy but regrettably useless and time wasting speech by
explaining in detail that it was not proven in Dr. Chee's earlier
case that the police in fact misbehaved in this way, but
regardless, he will agree not to allow the Investigating Officer S.
Vikneswaran not to be present in court while he is not testifying
and to instruct the Police Officer Thien not to indulge in such
illegal activity by listening to the evidence in court and then
going out and telling the other police witnesses who are yet to
testify, what was said.
Next, I objected to the prosecution' list of witnesses. There were
supposedly several witnesses, all police officers, except for the
doctor who already testified. Except for their names and they speak
English, nothing was said in it as to what their role may be. I
understood from other cases that the list should not only state
their names and language spoken but also the gist of their
testimony. I do not know if this was another dirty trick played by
the Singapore Government prosecutor's office to obtain criminal
convictions against political opponents of the government, but upon
my raising this objection, Mr. Koy Su Hua did state orally what
their roles will be, but I am still left without a written
statement of their particular roles.
Next, Senior Staff Sergeant Kang Wei Chien takes the stand. He
claims to be part of the policemen who arrested me on the day in
question and the leader of them. He claims to have been in the
Police Force for 15 years etc. He goes into a narrative. He says
together with others he conducts anti crime patrols to collect
information and basic investigation. He says he and his men will
dress in civilian and not police uniforms, they will be in marked
police cars and sometimes on foot, they go in a group of 6
policemen and such general stuff. I had asked the court to dispense
with these background on the duties and practices of the Singapore
Police Force, not wanting to write a theses on it, and come
straight to point with the incident of my arrest, but the court
permitted this totally irrelevant background information which
served no purpose other than to waste everyone's time.
As background to this blog post, a leading question is one that
tends to elicit a particular answer, such as "The defendant stole
the purse, did he not"?, since it is almost certainly result in
your witness saying "He did". Such questions are disallowed in
cross examination. The prosecutor with this witness was almost
repeatedly asking such leading questions to which I naturally
objected. Mr. Koy then tried to justify them by saying they were
"specific questions" and not "leading questions". To that, I
pointed out that I have never heard the term "specific question" in
the law of examination of witnesses, to which the court took no
issue and the examination of Mr. Kang, the police officer went
on.
Finally Mr. Koy, the prosecutor decided to come to the point of the
actual case, namely the claim that I behaved in a disorderly manner
and insulted police officers on July 4th, 2008, at about 9 pm at
the junction of Race Course Road at Little India and Bukit Timah
Road.
Kang, the police officer claims that he went on patrol to Race
Course Road with 5 other police officers. He claims they were in
two marked police cars, with him and another policeman Seargent
Azar in the leading car and the others in another car some way
behind.
Kang, the police witness says that his task was "to look for
suspicious characters" and "also to visit such places like pubs and
clubs to look for trouble makers as there are lots of fights at
closing time".
He claims Seargent Azar was driving the vehicle, sitting on the
right (Singapore has right hand drive vehicles) with him on the
left front seat.
He claims that at about 10.30 pm, his car on Race Course Road drove
to the traffic signal lights at the junction of Bukit Timah Road
and stopped at the junction, being the first car at the junction,
the other police car with the other policemen being a few cars
away.
The prosecutor Peter Koy Su Hua then proceeds to refer him to some
photographs which were taken at the scene. I naturally objected to
him testifying on the photographs as the law requires the maker of
the photographs to testify in court on their authenticity before
anyone else can give testimony on them. Peter Koy's argument,
ingenious but without basis nevertheless, was that he should be
allowed to testify on them, and if subsequently it is proven that
they are unsubstantiated, his testimony can be ignored. I objected
to this argument. I demanded that the photographer be produced
first to confirm their authenticity before Kang testifies anymore
on these photographs.
Court agrees that photographers be called before any further
testimony by Policeman Kang.
Mr. Quek Kim Nguan, police photographer takes the stand. An elderly
man who does not know much English. To the question from Peter Koy
Su Hua, he confirms he took the photographs.
My turn to cross examine him. He said he took the photographs of
the street on July 22, 2008.
To the question from me "Do you know what a junction is?", his
answer was "traffic light junction". Again to the question "do you
know what a junction is" he says he cannot answer. He did not know
the meaning of the word "junction". On the whole, it was clear that
the poor man had hardly any English. Since the pictures did appear
to show the scene, it was not necessary to make too big an issue of
this man. He was released after testimony.
Next came another police witness Staff Seargent Tan Kim Kiang, a
photographer, as well as a scene of crime officer, specializing in
taking fingerprints. This time he took photos of the 2 police
vehicles in question. He said he took photographs of the 2 police
cars, a set of which I had been given. He said he took the
photographs at the basement parking lot of the disused market at
Little India and that he took fingerprints on the car. He then says
he sent the fingerprints to the Criminal Investigation Department
for results and that they "were unable to confirm that the
fingerprints were mine" because, listen to this, "they don't have
any records of the accused person"!
Another ingenious mind boggling statement by a government desperate
to defend the indefensible. The long and short of it was that there
were no fingerprints on the police car, and if there were, they
were not mine. Someone else who hates in Little India at the time
who hates the police like many do, may have decided to "knock" the
police car and scoot off. Instead of that " they come out with this
gibberish that "they were unable to compare any fingerprint with
the accused person because they don't have any records of the
accused person". The simple point of it all is that they cannot
prove that I ever touched any police car, keeping in mind that
their contention for stopping me was that I had touched their
police car!
July 29, 2008/ Court 6/ Subordinate Court
Senior Staff Seargent is seen by Mr. Yap Keng Ho, another civil
rights activist who happened to be in court that Mr. Kang, the
police witness was in the court eavesdropping, while the 2 police
photographers were testifying, from the from within the witness
room, since according to Mr. Yap, this was possible. Mr. Yap is in
court and I ask that he be permitted to testify as to this wrong
doing.
Mr. Peter Koy Su Hua, the prosecutor objects on the ground that Mr.
Yap was not in the witness room at the time, second that Mr. Kang
was within the witness room and never came out and therefore there
is no basis for him to say this. According to Mr. Yap however, it
is possible to do this since the witness room is not sound proof. I
inform the court that Mr. Yap has proof that this has happened in
other occasions.
I then ask the court, Judge James Leong Kui Yiu sitting, that I be
permitted 5 minutes to speak to Mr. Yap who is in court.
Application to do so is denied.
Mr. Peter Koy Su Hua then addresses the court claiming that I have
made unsubstantiated allegations against police officers of the
Singapore Police Force, that this is part of my defense and that he
hoped that the Judge would direct me not to make unsubstantiated
allegations against policemen again. The judge then asked me not to
make unsubstantiated allegations to which I replied that if I have
personal knowledge of some fact, it is not unsubstantiated and I ma
entitled to complain if that is the case. Matter was left at
that.
I now cross examine Mr. Tan Kim Khiang, the witness who is a police
photographer and a scene of crime expert who took the
fingerprints.
There is some unintelligible testimony from his that my
fingerprints were not found on the car because they did not have
records of my particulars even though I was arrested that very
night and my fingerprints were taken at the police station. When
people who want to hide the truth usually end up with gibberish and
that was what he was saying. The judge made no attempt to clarify
his nonsense ordering that whatever he said made sense. It may have
made sense to the judge, the Singapore prosecutor bent on
prosecuting Singaporean dissidents but certainly not on an rational
bystander. We have just to leave it that there were no fingerprints
of mine on that police car regardless of whatever fairy tale
reasons there may be.
Mr. Kang, the police officer then gives evidence from the witness
box (the stand). Mr. Koy the prosecutor now tenders a sketch plan
of the scene and asks Mr. Kang to testify as to the position of his
car in the plan. Of course I object. Koy is trying the same trick
he did with the photographs. Again the rule is when a person has
made a plan of a sketch place or scene, if anyone else is made to
give evidence on it, the maker of the plan has first to confirm
that it was he who made the sketch plan. Mr. Kang, not having drawn
the sketch plan has no authority to give evidence on it without
this. Court upholds my request.
Wednesday, 3oth July 2008/ Court no. 6/ Subordinate courts/ Trial
continues
Mr. Koy Su Hua now wastes time again. Since the last time the court
sat, today, he produces 2 cases heard in the Singapore High Court
apparently to prove that the sketch plan can be admitted in
evidence merely to be identified and someone other than the maker
can give evidence on it, and if subsequently it is proven that the
sketch plan is false, we can then ignore the earlier evidence! All
this even if it is very easy for him just to call Mr. S
Vikneshwaran to court and confirm he drew the sketch plan! And he
takes about half hour or so to give large explanations of what he
thought this case from the court even though I have never heard of
these cases before and this is then first time that I have been
handed copies of this case! And what is more these 2 cases are
lengthy and consist of nearly 200 pages of small print about
matters that have nothing to do with criminal law at all! They are
shipping cases, where contractors had negligently repaired a
ship!
Naturally I object to this time wasting. To this totally irrelevant
case to prove a point which is totally unnecessary when all they
had to do is to just call Mr. S Vickneshwaran to court!
You would have thought the judge would have put a stop to this
nonsense. Nothing of the sort. Mr. Koy is permitted to make his
academic pedantic but totally unnecessary rendition of what the law
was. The case he refers to is Jet Holdings vs Cooper, both the High
Court and the Appeal case. Naturally I ask for sufficient time to
read the lengthy case, but the judge allows mew only 30 minutes to
read nearly 200 pages in fine print about a complicated shipping
case and not only that, understand it!
So Mr. Koy stands up to start his long academic speech as to what
the law about whether the court can rely on a document even without
calling the maker of it to prove it. And to everyone's surprise, at
the end of that totally unnecessary speech, he says that he admits
that the cases he has referred does not entirely prove his point
and that if necessary, he is prepared to call the maker of the
plan, Mr. S Vickneswaran to confirm that he did it!
After all this, I point out to the court that firstly, the case
actually confirms the rule that in the case of documents, the maker
of the document has in fact to be called to confirm its
authenticity before it can be used as evidence! End of jet Holdings
vs Cooper and any reference to it. Mr. Koy after all is prepared to
call Mr. S Vickneshwaran to testify!
The Court now calls to the stand a man who wishes to be known as S
Vicki. Mind you, this is not his name at all! He says he is S
Vicki. He states that he wrote the sketch plan of the scene.
It is now my turn. I ask him what is his full name. To that he says
it is Vikneshwaran son of Sockalingam, which in Singapore is
written Vikneshwaran s/o Sockalingam. Viola, finally we have now
found out his real name, which he and others like him in this case
were so desperately keen to conceal. He is a Tamil of South Indian
descent. Not very educated and appeared grateful that he has a job
as a policeman in the Singapore Police Force for lack of any
better.
Mr. Vickneshwaran s/o Sockalingam now leaves and back comes the
prosecutor to continue his examination in chief of Mr. Kang.
Mr. Kang refers to the sketch plan, where he was in the sketch plan
and the layout of the junction of Race Course Road and Bukit Timah
Road.
Mr. Kang says that his vehicle stopped at the first line of the
traffic line junction, as the signal was red. In other words his
was the first car at the traffic light junction. He claims he heard
a "continuous and loud" knocking sound on his car while he and his
driver Sergeant Azar was in it, and saw a "male Indian walk past
his side towards Bukit Timah Road". "Sergeant Azar and myself made
a quick check on the left hand side of the car to see if there was
any damage". "The male Indian's back was facing us. Sergeant Azar
shouted at the male Indian "Hello Sir" "Hello Sir" for a few times,
and at the same time we were walking towards him but there is no
response from the male Indian". (The language is not grammatically
correct, written verbatim. Mr. Kang does not know English well) he
claims his intention of approaching the male Indian (me) was to ask
him why he knocked his car and to take his particulars so that if
the car was damaged, he "he will have someone to fall back
on".
Mr. Koy's examination in chief of Mr. Knag continues. He says when
he reached the male Indian (me), he touched me, Sergeant Azar
touched me on the shoulder. Mr. Kang then claims, I shouted back
"Who are you?", "think you are all policemen, so what?", " You all
policemen go and do your job and go catch thieves, don't bother me,
I have done nothing wrong".
To Mr. Koy's questions, Kang says he showed his police pass and
that he verbally told me that he was a policeman. He than claims he
asked for my particulars and that I said I had none, and that I had
shouted expletives at him. Kang then says he asked me why I knocked
his car. He then says that I shouted to the Malay officer that he
is a "Malay bastard". He then claims that I had had accidentally
knocked his car (although how a man can accidentally "continuously
and loudly" knock a car is mind boggling).
To Mr. Koy's question, Kang then says that while shouting I was
"gestilating" with my hands. Not knowing the English word, what he
meant to say that I was gesticulating with both my hands!
Now he says something very strange indeed!. He says that 2
uniformed policemen appeared at the scene from Tanglin Police
Station saying that they received a 999 emergency call stating that
there was a "dangerous man" in the scene and asked him whether I
was attending to him? Not being sure, Mr. Kang asks the 2 men from
Tanglin Police Station to check with their Operations Room!
It is now my turn to cross examine Mr. Kang the policemen. You will
see how incredible Mr. Kang's testimony is!
Nair: Are you saying someone knocked your car many times
correct?
Kang: Yes. I did not say many times. I said "continuously" and
"loudly"
Nair: When you said "continuously" what did you mean by that?
Kang: I said someone knocked my car continuously. It means
continuously. I cannot tell how many times. That is why I said
continuously.
Nair: How many times is "continuously"
Knag: I do not know how many times and I do not wish to commit
myself.
Nair: You were in your car at the time of the incident on the 4th
of July 2008, is that right?
Kang: Yes sir.
Nair: You say your car was knocked "continuously". Why is it that
you cannot even guess how many times?
Court: Interjects.
Nair to Court: I am entitled to cross examine this witness on this
material point. This is a question that goes to the root of this
case. I am entitled to ask this question as to why he cannot state
even a guess as to how many times his car was knocked even though
he was in the car. I am asking that I be entitled to put this
crucial question to him.
Koy Su Hua, the Prosecutor objects to my question on the ground
that the question has been asked and answered.
Nair to Court: Koy's objection is invalid as this is cross
examination and the accused is entitled to full opportunity to
defend himself in a criminal case where the burden of proof is on
the prosecution on the basis of proof beyond reasonable
doubt.
The point here is this. Kang says he was inside the car. He says he
heard his car being knocked continuously and loudly. Yet he is not
even prepared to say how many times was "continuously" even though
according to him, it was not only "continuously" but also
"loudly".
Nair: Was the continuously knocking on your car by someone; was it
a very hard knocking or a very slight knocking?
Knag: I wish to state that I cannot tell whether it was hard or
soft knocking because I was inside the car.
Nair: I realize that you were inside the police car. From the
inside, did you hear a loud knocking, slight or what?
Knag: It was a "loud" " continuous" knock.
Nair: If it was a loud continuous knock, did you turn to see who
was knocking your car?
Kang: I turned and saw the accused walk past my car on the left
side.
Nair to Court: I am asking the court to for assistance to advice
the witness to answer the question because witness is refusing to
answer it.
Nair: let me ask this question to you again and please answer the
question. I am not asking whether anyone walked past your car. I am
asking whether when you heard continuous loud knocking on your car,
did you turn to look at who it was?
Kang: I did turn and I saw a male Indian walk past my car.
Nair: This continuous knocking on your car about which you claim
you are unable even to guess how many times it was, even though you
were in the car, and even though it was loud as you state, for what
period of time did the continuous knocking last? Was it 1 minute,
or 2 minutes or 5 minutes?
Knag: I do not know how long it was because I did not have a watch
to time how long it lasted.
Nair: I am not asking for an exact period of time. For example if
someone had asked me how long have I been in this court today, I
can guess perhaps 10 minutes? Coming back to you Mr. Kang, even
without a watch, how long do you think the continuous knocking
lasted?
Kang: I do not wish to commit myself to the timing, as I do not
know.
Nair: You are a police officer.
Kang: Yes.
Nair: Do you know that it is a criminal offense under the Penal
Code for someone to continuously and loudly knock a police
car?
Kang did not provide a response.
Nair: Was that male Indian that you claim walked past your car
running away?
Kang: No he was walking past my car
Nair: Did you see me continuously and loudly knock your car.
Kang: I did not see you continuously and loudly knock your
car.
Nair: You say that you saw a male Indian walk past your car. Did
you see that male Indian continuously and loudly knocking your
car?
Kang: No I did not.
Nair: Why is it that if someone continuously and loudly knocked
your car, while you were in the car, you do not know who it
was?
Kang: Your honor, I never saw, how do I know who it is?
Nair: Are you trying to say that you are inside a car; someone
knocks your car continuously and loudly. Why did you not turn to
look who it was?
Knag: When I heard someone knock the car, I only saw the male
Indian walk past the car, and therefore as such I cannot see who
knocked the car.
Nair: I put it to you that your claim that someone knocked your car
continuously and loudly is a figment of your imagination.
Kang: Your honor, what is a figment?
Nair: I rephrase. I put it to him that you are lying about someone
continuously and loudly knocking your car
Kang: I disagree
Nair: Put to him that if someone continuously and loudly knocked
his car, he would have known who it was.
Kang: I already said I did not see. I disagree.
Nair: if someone had continuously and loudly knocked your car, you
would have immediately arrested the person
Kang: I never saw who knocked the car. When I turned the knocking
already stopped, the accused already walked past my car.
Nair: Do you know any reason why I would want to continuously and
loudly knock your car?
Kang: I do not know why and the accused should know it.
Nair: Can you imagine why someone would want to knock a police car
with police markings continuously and loudly and just walk beside
your car? Can you imagine why someone would want to do that?
Kang: I do not imagine anything in this court. I only tell the
truth.
Nair: Can you not agree that if someone were to knock your car
continuously and loudly for no apparent reason, which is incredible
by itself, would you not expect that person to run away, instead of
leisurely walking past your car?
Court: Disallows question. Orders that I move on.
Nair: Do you have any reason why I would want to knock your police
car continuously and loudly?
Kang: I do not wish to commit myself because I do not know
that.
Nair: After the continuous and loud knocking you said you came out
to see if your car was damaged.
Kang: Me and Sergeant Azar made a quick check on the left hand side
of the vehicle.
Nair: How long did your examination of the car take?
Kang: I cannot commit myself how long it was.
Nair: Was it 10 mins, 15 mins, 20 mins, how long?
Kang: I do not want to guess or imagine things in this court.
Nair: You are not prepared to say how long the examination
took.
Kang: I already said I am not prepared to commit myself.
Nair: Is it because you are refusing to do so or unable to do so.
You are duty bound to answer questions.
Kang: I am unable to do so as I do not know how long it took.
Nair: Are you saying that while you were checking the car, this
male Indian was leisurely way
Kang: yes.
Kang then says that he had to check on the vehicle first and later
to call out to me to ask if I knocked the car. He says that while
he was checking the car the male Indian continued to walk away. He
said the male Indian was walking to Bukit Timah Road. That when
Sergeant Azar started calling out "Hello Sir" the male Indian was a
distance from us, that he cannot tell what the distance was. He
cannot tell but it was 20 to 30 meters away. He repeats that the
male Indian walked past his car but did not see him knocking
continuously and loudly. He repeats again that he did not see
anyone knock his car. To the question that if indeed the male
Indian had walked 20 to 30 mothers toward Bukit Timah Road while he
was stationary at the traffic light junction, being the first car,
the male Indian would have been in the middle of the Bukit Timah
Road and would have been knocked down by a car and died, his answer
is now that in his opinion it was 20 to 30 meters. He then says it
could have been 10 meters.
I had put it to him that he had no probable cause to have stopped
me on that day. I put it to him that he had instructions from above
to look out for me and have me arrested. I put it to him that I
have not been charged for knocking anyone’s car. He admits that he
never saw me knock the car and that his purpose was to conduct a
search and to question me on whether I knocked the car.
He says that Singapore police can stop anyone for a consensual
conversation. That if the suspect is suspected of having committed
an offense, they can check on him.
He admits that none of them were in police uniforms. He claims that
he cannot say that Race Course Road and Bukit Timah junction is a
crowded place on July 4th 2008 at night because he does not have
any statistics. He refuses to answer the question. I put it to him
that perhaps the male Indian did not stop because he thought that
perhaps the calls of "Hello sir" were from thieves and gangsters,
to which he says he cannot comment as he cannot speak on behalf of
other people. He disagrees that the location at that time is a
crowded place. He then admits that he never identified himself as
police officers at all but later changes to say that he identified
himself later.
I put it to him that I thought they were gangsters and thieves as
they were in civilian clothes and did not identify themselves. I
put it to him that I had no obligation to respond to any questions
in those circumstances.
Case continues in Court 6 Subordinate Court 9.30 am on Aug 6, 2008.
Future dates are August 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 2008.
See you there if you want too witness the proceedings.
http://singaporedissident.blogspot.com/2008
