Dec 8, 2005
Court dismisses protesters' suit against minister, police
chief
By Ken Kwek
THE High Court has thrown out a suit by three protesters against
the Home Affairs Minister and the Commissioner of Police, saying
they were 'misguided' in their claims.
In his judgment yesterday, Justice V.K. Rajah said the police had
not behaved unreasonably in breaking up what the trio called a
'peaceful protest', which they staged with a fourth person outside
the CPF building in August this year.
They were Ms Chee Siok Chin, Ms N. Gogelavany and Mr Yap Keng Ho.
The fourth person was Mr Tan Teck Wee.
Justice Rajah said the trio were 'misguided' in thinking they could
attack the integrity of public institutions and undermine civic
order while evoking their rights to free speech and public
assembly.
'The applicants have persistently attempted to elevate the present
proceedings to a 'constitutional motion' to protect the public
right of assembly. They claim that the protest was 'peaceful',' he
said.
'This cannot mask the fact that the contents of their T-shirts and
the placard are...more incendiary than an ordinary affray or
localised breach of peace.'
On Aug 11, the four protesters wore white T-shirts with the names
of public institutions such as the CPF and HDB emblazoned in red.
They held a placard which called on the Government to be more
transparent.
The police, acting on complaints they received, asked them to
disperse, saying they were causing a 'public nuisance'. Their
T-shirts and placard were also later seized.
In October, Ms Gogelavany, Mr Yap and Ms Chee, who is the sister of
opposition leader Chee Soon Juan, initiated proceedings in the High
Court against the Home Affairs Minister and police
commissioner.
They said they had been unlawfully disbanded and that the police
infringed on their rights to freedom of speech and assembly.
The Attorney-General's Chambers, on its part, asked the High Court
separately to dismiss the trio's application.
Justice Rajah indicated yesterday he could not simply agree to
dismiss the application, noting the court had a duty to assess and
accord proper and serious consideration where an applicant
genuinely seeks its help. This is even if the applicant may have a
political agenda.
But in assessing the trio's suit, he nevertheless dismissed their
case, saying they had not exercised their rights responsibly. The
police had also not acted inappropriately against them.
'What the applicants are in fact contending is that...they are at
liberty in groups of four or less to picket public institutions,
question their integrity and cast a slur on their reputation
without any restraint and responsibility for what they may wish to
say,' he said.
The law deems it illegal to hold a public gathering of five or more
people without a police permit.
The judge also criticised the trio for their lack of effort in
justifying their actions.
'I can only conclude from this that they either did not think it
necessary to justify the basis of their 'protest' or could not
possibly substantiate it,' he said.
'Putting it as charitably as possible, the applicants have shown a
manifest lack of conviction in their assertions.'
Obviously, the PAP owns the law and the law belongs to the PAP, as
from this kangeroo show. So all those who keep bitching abt Melvyn
Tan getting off lightly from the law, you might want to start
bitching here instead!