High Court Hearing
Debates Controversial Issues on what Constitutes Contempt of Court,
Freedom of Speech and Political Persecution amongst
others
Date of Hearing: 16th & 17th March 2006
The hearing of Attorney General versus Singapore Democratic Party
(SDP) secretary general, Dr Chee Soon Juan for contempt of court
over his bankruptcy statement which he submitted on 10th February
opened in the High Court yesterday before Justice Lai Siu
Chiu.
Starting slightly later than the scheduled 10 am, the hearing was
first addressed by M Ravi, who also acts as counsel to Dr Chee. He
explained that he was not the solicitor in record and that the
submissions would be addressed in two sections, the first part from
himself and the other by the defendant. He explained that he could
not deliver the second part as it may impute him if he were to make
those comments. AG Chambers, which was represented by Second
Solicitor General Lee Seiu Kin did not have any problems with the
representation after Justice Lai queried the prosecution.
M Ravi started off by distinguishing contempt in the face (or not)
of the court and continued to argue that Dr Chee's conduct does not
constitute contempt. He said that since the assistant registrar,
who had the power to allege Dr Chee for contempt had not done so
during the bankruptcy petition, henceforth, AG's pressing charges
on Dr Chee constitutes as a procedural defect amongst other
contentious issues.
Confusion broke out when Mr Lee said that Dr Chee had been served
with an affadavit on 13 February of whom the latter had denied
receiving. Nevertheless, the hearing adjourned for a 15 minutes
break for Dr Chee and counsel to read the lost statements.
The prosecution argued that AG has pressed the charges according to
order 52 Rules of The Court citing respondent for contempt. He
argued subsequently that Singapore courts does not distinguish
between contempt in the face (or not) of court after M Ravi cited
precedent cases in Malaysia and Canada. He also argued that
commonwealth countries have developed in different directions with
regards to what constitutes contempt, hence inadmissible in
Singapore's situation.
During the hearing, the prosecution read the bankruptcy statement
(which was also posted on the Singapore Democratic party website -
of which there was only minimal difference between the two, the
latter containing the Canadian Oakwell case) that Dr Chee delivered
during the bankruptcy petition and cited specific sections which
Lee claimed were scurrilous attacks on the judiciary that
undermine the integrity and independence of the courts and the
judiciary. The prosecution further posited that Dr Chee was being
selective in singling out Jeyaretnam and other Opposition and
that his statements were baseless and malicious. He went on to
refute the claims Dr Chee made in his bankruptcy statements.
After the lunch break, M Ravi touched on issues of freedom of
speech; and that Dr Chee's statements were based on fair comments
which henceforth does not constitute contempt of court. He argued
that there is a need for a balance of approach. He said that the
Singapore judiciary needs to be open to criticism in the balance of
public interest. The current system in Singapore which lacked a
parliamentary ombudsmen or an independent human rights commission
effectively meant citizens had no channels of redress. He opined
that there is a need to raise the threshold of judicial tolerance
and adverse comments on judiciary independence.
Dr Chee who represented himself for his last part of the submission
was stopped half-way when Justice Lai felt he was not focusing on
rebutting the points made by Mr Lee. He was allowed to proceed
after he argued that he was only trying to provide the background
for making those comments. Besides narrating the personal reasons
and observations, of which he believed he was politically
persecuted by the PAP government, he also quoted from the United
States Department 2005 Human Rights Record that commented on the
Singapore judiciary.
Mr Lee further argued towards the last hour of the first hearing
that it will be a sad state of affairs if Dr Chee is not held in
contempt as Singapore needs to adopt to local sensitivities. He
said that allowing precedents with Dr Chee case would slowly erode
the basic foundations of the judiciary.
Justice Lai ended the session at 5 pm and remarked that Dr Chee and
M Ravi had not addressed the issue of contempt. She has however
reserved sentence and adjourned the case until the next
morning.
The hearing which re-opened at 10 the next morning concluded within
an hour.
Mr Lee, the prosecutor said that Dr Chee has not shown remorse but
instead compounded his contempt for court during yesterday's trial
and by giving an interview with Straits Times. He suggested that
the nature and extent of Dr Chee's case warranted imprisonment
though it will be a first for contempt of court in Singapore. He
added that if Dr Chee thought being a politician would immunize
and gave him unlimited freedom of speech, then he is wrong. He
added that changes to the constitutional system should stay within
the parliament and political arena, not the courts.
Besides summarizing yesterday's arguments, M Ravi added that Dr
Chee should also be protected under the clause of Article 12, the
Equation Clause of the Constitution which states that All persons
are equal before the law and entitled to the equal protection of
the law. He made this reference to the fact that Dr Chee was
merely citing quotations from various bodies (not plucking out from
thin air). He also used the analogy of foreigners being allowed to
protest during the upcoming IMF-World Bank Protest whereas
Singaporeans are denied this freedom to highlight Dr Chee's
situation.
At the end of the hearing, the court sentenced Dr Chee to a day's
jail and an additional jail term of seven days if he did not pay
the fine of 6,000 Singapore dollars (3,700 US) by 5:00 pm (0900
GMT). He is also to pay for the AG costs tax on standard
basis.
