Judging from an AFP report on the net which is about 4 hours old, Gopalan Nair’s original charge of insulting a public officer via sending her an email has not been substituted. The new charge is apparently one of insulting via the blog contents and it is now under the Penal Code as opposed to the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act.
In my earlier blog entry, ‘From Folly to Freedom’ dated 5th June, I had said the following:
I’m a little curious as to the precise wording of the charge against him. If the charge was worded in exactly the same manner as indicated in parenthesis above in the AFP report, then there is a serious slip in the charge.
If the charge is eventually amended to one involving the contents in the blog and not the alleged email, then there is likely to be an interesting jurisdiction issue.
My reason for stating the above was that from multiple reports both on the net as well as in the papers, I got the impression that the charge probably stated the email sent by Gopalan Nair contained the words ‘prostituting herself’. I thought it odd that he would have sent an email to her and used the word ‘herself’ instead of ‘yourself’. I couldn’t help but wonder if the person drafting the charge had made a mistake of quoting from the blog instead of quoting from any alleged email. Of course, given Gopalan Nair’s assertion that he did not send the alleged email to the judge, there arose the possibility that there was in fact no such email to quote from and hence the blog became the source of the wording in the charge. The inevitable slip might have occurred.
Of course, there is the legitimate possibility that the charge did not attempt to quote verbatim from the alleged email and that it had paraphrased the email to write in the 3rd person as ‘herself’ instead of the alleged email content which may have been ‘yourself’. Who knows?
Anyway, the story emanating from AFP is that the original charge has now been replaced. So, it is safe to assume that he is now facing one charge in relation to his blog comments about Justice Belinda Ang and another charge in relation to an email sent to Justice Lai Siu Chiu 2 years ago.
On another note: Gopalan Nair neither admits nor denies sending an email to Justice Lai Siu Chiu. But, he has been quite unequivocal in his denial of sending an email to Justice Belinda Ang. The following is from his blog entry:
As far as the Email to Judge Lai Sui Chu, this was more than 2 years ago. I cannot remember if I sent that Email. Even if I did, I was not in Singapore at the time. I was physically in Fremont, Northern California. If I sent the Email, it was from Fremont Northern California. From 2006 March to present I had traveled to Singapore on at least one occasion on November 2006 without incident.
So, he is saying that he may or may not have sent the email. Memory is not perfect. I guess that is a possible explanation. But, of course, the inevitable gut feeling that one gets here is that since he did not deny the email outright, he is either conscious of the fact that he has sent such an email or of the fact that he had composed such an email that he was contemplating the possibility of sending and did not in the end send it out (or he can’t remember if he in fact sent it). Who knows?
Monday, June 16, 2008
Thursday, June 12, 2008
Impeachment of Bush
Dennis Kucinich tabled an impeachment motion in the House of Representatives. By a vote of 251-166, the House was pushed the impeachment motion aside to the Judiciary Committee. That is going to be equivalent to sweeping it under the carpet. The motion that he brought against Dick Cheney last year has still been languishing in the Judiciary Committee wihtout any semblance of motion.
What is disgusting is that the Republican dominated House was eager to impeach Clinton for a lie in relation to his sexual escapades but the current Democrat dominated House is unwilling to impeach Bush for lies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and not to mention the unaccounted for civilian deaths in Iraq.
There are those who would argue that Bush is at the end of his term and it doesn't serve any useful purpose in impeaching him at this stage. But, it would serve a very useful purpose. It would send a clear message to all future Presidents that they cannot get away with the outright deception that the Bush administration practised.
Senate Intelligence Committee has itself recently concluded that the Bush administration had deliberately painted an inaccurate picture to justify launching the Iraq war.
Senator Jay Rockefeller (Chairman of the Committee): "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed." "There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
Anyway, it looks like Kucinich's valiant attempt is going to remain just that: an attempt.
Here are the Articles of Impeachment that he tabled in the House:
Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq
Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression
Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War
Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States
Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression
Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114
Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter
Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries
Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to " Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX
Imprisoning Children
Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws
Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency
Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change
Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders
What is disgusting is that the Republican dominated House was eager to impeach Clinton for a lie in relation to his sexual escapades but the current Democrat dominated House is unwilling to impeach Bush for lies that have resulted in the deaths of thousands of American soldiers and not to mention the unaccounted for civilian deaths in Iraq.
There are those who would argue that Bush is at the end of his term and it doesn't serve any useful purpose in impeaching him at this stage. But, it would serve a very useful purpose. It would send a clear message to all future Presidents that they cannot get away with the outright deception that the Bush administration practised.
Senate Intelligence Committee has itself recently concluded that the Bush administration had deliberately painted an inaccurate picture to justify launching the Iraq war.
Senator Jay Rockefeller (Chairman of the Committee): "In making the case for war, the administration repeatedly presented intelligence as fact when in reality it was unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent. As a result, the American people were led to believe that the threat from Iraq was much greater than actually existed." "There is no question we all relied on flawed intelligence. But, there is a fundamental difference between relying on incorrect intelligence and deliberately painting a picture to the American people that you know is not fully accurate."
Anyway, it looks like Kucinich's valiant attempt is going to remain just that: an attempt.
Here are the Articles of Impeachment that he tabled in the House:
Article I
Creating a Secret Propaganda Campaign to Manufacture a False Case for War Against Iraq
Article II
Falsely, Systematically, and with Criminal Intent Conflating the Attacks of September 11, 2001, With Misrepresentation of Iraq as a Security Threat as Part of Fraudulent Justification for a War of Aggression
Article III
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction, to Manufacture a False Case for War
Article IV
Misleading the American People and Members of Congress to Believe Iraq Posed an Imminent Threat to the United States
Article V
Illegally Misspending Funds to Secretly Begin a War of Aggression
Article VI
Invading Iraq in Violation of the Requirements of HJRes114
Article VII
Invading Iraq Absent a Declaration of War.
Article VIII
Invading Iraq, A Sovereign Nation, in Violation of the UN Charter
Article IX
Failing to Provide Troops With Body Armor and Vehicle Armor
Article X
Falsifying Accounts of US Troop Deaths and Injuries for Political Purposes
Article XI
Establishment of Permanent U.S. Military Bases in Iraq
Article XII
Initiating a War Against Iraq for Control of That Nation's Natural Resources
Article XIIII
Creating a Secret Task Force to Develop Energy and Military Policies With Respect to Iraq and Other Countries
Article XIV
Misprision of a Felony, Misuse and Exposure of Classified Information And Obstruction of Justice in the Matter of Valerie Plame Wilson, Clandestine Agent of the Central Intelligence Agency
Article XV
Providing Immunity from Prosecution for Criminal Contractors in Iraq
Article XVI
Reckless Misspending and Waste of U.S. Tax Dollars in Connection With Iraq and US Contractors
Article XVII
Illegal Detention: Detaining Indefinitely And Without Charge Persons Both U.S. Citizens and Foreign Captives
Article XVIII
Torture: Secretly Authorizing, and Encouraging the Use of Torture Against Captives in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Other Places, as a Matter of Official Policy
Article XIX
Rendition: Kidnapping People and Taking Them Against Their Will to " Black Sites" Located in Other Nations, Including Nations Known to Practice Torture
Article XX
Imprisoning Children
Article XXI
Misleading Congress and the American People About Threats from Iran, and Supporting Terrorist Organizations Within Iran, With the Goal of Overthrowing the Iranian Government
Article XXII
Creating Secret Laws
Article XXIII
Violation of the Posse Comitatus Act
Article XXIV
Spying on American Citizens, Without a Court-Ordered Warrant, in Violation of the Law and the Fourth Amendment
Article XXV
Directing Telecommunications Companies to Create an Illegal and Unconstitutional Database of the Private Telephone Numbers and Emails of American Citizens
Article XXVI
Announcing the Intent to Violate Laws with Signing Statements
Article XXVII
Failing to Comply with Congressional Subpoenas and Instructing Former Employees Not to Comply
Article XXVIII
Tampering with Free and Fair Elections, Corruption of the Administration of Justice
Article XXIX
Conspiracy to Violate the Voting Rights Act of 1965
Article XXX
Misleading Congress and the American People in an Attempt to Destroy Medicare
Article XXXI
Katrina: Failure to Plan for the Predicted Disaster of Hurricane Katrina, Failure to Respond to a Civil Emergency
Article XXXII
Misleading Congress and the American People, Systematically Undermining Efforts to Address Global Climate Change
Article XXXIII
Repeatedly Ignored and Failed to Respond to High Level Intelligence Warnings of Planned Terrorist Attacks in the US, Prior to 911.
Article XXXIV
Obstruction of the Investigation into the Attacks of September 11, 2001
Article XXXV
Endangering the Health of 911 First Responders
Ron Paul drops out of Republican race
Ron Paul, the Libertarian leaning Republican, has officially dropped out of the Republican race. Although realistically he was not going to get the necessary delegates to vote for him at the Republican Convention later this year, Ron PAul kept the hopes of his supporters alive by keeping himself in the race.
There was a stage towards the end of last year and the beginning of this year when the net was abuzz with the Ron Paul Revolution. There appeared to be this new hope on the horizon. He was the most popular candidate on the internet. But, the MSM hardly gave him any credence. They won in the end. They succeeded in muzzling his voice and his message. He is, in my view, the person best suited to be President and the one person whose uncompromising and principled views would have done a great deal of good for America and the world.
Well, Ron PAul has announced that he will shift his focus now to maintain a long term campaign for liberty. I guess in the larger scheme of things the Presidential campaign is not the be all and end all.
There was a stage towards the end of last year and the beginning of this year when the net was abuzz with the Ron Paul Revolution. There appeared to be this new hope on the horizon. He was the most popular candidate on the internet. But, the MSM hardly gave him any credence. They won in the end. They succeeded in muzzling his voice and his message. He is, in my view, the person best suited to be President and the one person whose uncompromising and principled views would have done a great deal of good for America and the world.
Well, Ron PAul has announced that he will shift his focus now to maintain a long term campaign for liberty. I guess in the larger scheme of things the Presidential campaign is not the be all and end all.
Wednesday, June 11, 2008
What can I say? (without being charged?)
The Gopalan Nair saga (whatever the wisdom or lack of it that got it started) highlights another more important issue: The freedom to express one's views. How important is this right? What is the extent to which this right can be stretched?
Rights are the antidotes to power.
Often it has been stated that the freedom of speech cannot be unlimited; that freedom must be accompanied by responsibility. Whilst a person has the freedom to speak, he doesn’t have the freedom to hurt or harm. Instigating racial and religious hatred and creating social tensions in the name of free speech is a misguided use of the freedom. So far so good. I’m willing to concede.
What about the use of free speech against public officials?
Constitutional Rights are not rights operating in a vacuum. They are relational. The citizenry’s relationship with the state is spelled out in the form of rights. These are not weapons that we use against our fellow men nor are these empty propositions that we can claim as the badge of a free people. These rights are protections. Protections against potential abuse. Governance entails giving power to a few to administer the many. Societies are complex and governance of all by all is impracticable. So, for want of a better alternative, we confer authority upon those who govern to govern for out benefit. In recognition of the fragile and fallible nature of the human will, we have created systems. The objective and abstract system is intended to ensure that even if human fallibility were to creep into governance, the system would extract and terminate that virus. The Constitution is the anti-virus software running in the background and assisting us in isolating human failings as and when they crop up.
The Freedom of Speech is one such tool. This freedom’s purpose is not to enable an individual citizen to cause harm to others. Its purpose is, amongst others, to enable a citizen to call out and name officials who have allowed their personal frailties to compromise the responsibilities they bear as officials. To allege that an official is corrupt, derelict in his duties, lacking in independence or otherwise deficient in his role is not an invitation for chaos to visit the nation. To allege that an official is corrupt, derelict in his duties, lacking in independence or otherwise deficient in his role does not result in a riot. To allege that an official is corrupt, derelict in his duties, lacking in independence or otherwise deficient in his role is not even a case of tiptoeing onto the slippery slope leading towards the ‘Hock Lee Bus Riots’ (the caricature of chaos within our nation’s collective meta-narrative).
The very purpose of the constitutional right to free speech is to question the actions of those who govern; if necessary, to question the integrity of individual officials. There is no higher purpose that this right serves than to enable the citizen to speak truth to power. Of course, just as the citizen has the right to allege, the official has the right to defend himself against such allegation. The defence against such allegations ought to be conducted in the public sphere through clarifications by the official of the position he adopts.
Criminalization of criticism of public officials runs counter to the fundamental purpose behind the freedom of speech. A threat of force or a threat to the safety of a public official is not a legitimate exercise of one’s freedom of speech. But, an insult is nothing more than a forceful expression of one’s disgust with an official or a system. The Freedom of speech bestowed upon the citizenry is a mechanism for dissent and criticism to be voiced and accommodated within a system of consensual governance. To criminalise the criticism is to nullify the freedom.
I am not trumpeting this freedom as a religion here. (Yes, that is a reference to the Attorney General’s recent comment.) I am merely asserting that it is a practical tool in the hands of the citizenry to make sure that the human failings of those who govern do not compromise the collective good. Often there is a tendency to argue that the freedom of speech is an individual right and that sometimes it has to be compromised in the interest of the greater good of society. But, when the freedom is exercised as a critique of those who govern, it is in fact acting as a tool furthering the collective interest. It is the suppression of criticism that tends to serve individual interests and as a consequence fails to advance the collective good.
Salus populi est suprema lex. Public welfare is the highest law.
Rights are the antidotes to power.
Often it has been stated that the freedom of speech cannot be unlimited; that freedom must be accompanied by responsibility. Whilst a person has the freedom to speak, he doesn’t have the freedom to hurt or harm. Instigating racial and religious hatred and creating social tensions in the name of free speech is a misguided use of the freedom. So far so good. I’m willing to concede.
What about the use of free speech against public officials?
Constitutional Rights are not rights operating in a vacuum. They are relational. The citizenry’s relationship with the state is spelled out in the form of rights. These are not weapons that we use against our fellow men nor are these empty propositions that we can claim as the badge of a free people. These rights are protections. Protections against potential abuse. Governance entails giving power to a few to administer the many. Societies are complex and governance of all by all is impracticable. So, for want of a better alternative, we confer authority upon those who govern to govern for out benefit. In recognition of the fragile and fallible nature of the human will, we have created systems. The objective and abstract system is intended to ensure that even if human fallibility were to creep into governance, the system would extract and terminate that virus. The Constitution is the anti-virus software running in the background and assisting us in isolating human failings as and when they crop up.
The Freedom of Speech is one such tool. This freedom’s purpose is not to enable an individual citizen to cause harm to others. Its purpose is, amongst others, to enable a citizen to call out and name officials who have allowed their personal frailties to compromise the responsibilities they bear as officials. To allege that an official is corrupt, derelict in his duties, lacking in independence or otherwise deficient in his role is not an invitation for chaos to visit the nation. To allege that an official is corrupt, derelict in his duties, lacking in independence or otherwise deficient in his role does not result in a riot. To allege that an official is corrupt, derelict in his duties, lacking in independence or otherwise deficient in his role is not even a case of tiptoeing onto the slippery slope leading towards the ‘Hock Lee Bus Riots’ (the caricature of chaos within our nation’s collective meta-narrative).
The very purpose of the constitutional right to free speech is to question the actions of those who govern; if necessary, to question the integrity of individual officials. There is no higher purpose that this right serves than to enable the citizen to speak truth to power. Of course, just as the citizen has the right to allege, the official has the right to defend himself against such allegation. The defence against such allegations ought to be conducted in the public sphere through clarifications by the official of the position he adopts.
Criminalization of criticism of public officials runs counter to the fundamental purpose behind the freedom of speech. A threat of force or a threat to the safety of a public official is not a legitimate exercise of one’s freedom of speech. But, an insult is nothing more than a forceful expression of one’s disgust with an official or a system. The Freedom of speech bestowed upon the citizenry is a mechanism for dissent and criticism to be voiced and accommodated within a system of consensual governance. To criminalise the criticism is to nullify the freedom.
I am not trumpeting this freedom as a religion here. (Yes, that is a reference to the Attorney General’s recent comment.) I am merely asserting that it is a practical tool in the hands of the citizenry to make sure that the human failings of those who govern do not compromise the collective good. Often there is a tendency to argue that the freedom of speech is an individual right and that sometimes it has to be compromised in the interest of the greater good of society. But, when the freedom is exercised as a critique of those who govern, it is in fact acting as a tool furthering the collective interest. It is the suppression of criticism that tends to serve individual interests and as a consequence fails to advance the collective good.
Salus populi est suprema lex. Public welfare is the highest law.
Friday, June 06, 2008
Of Rice and Rights
The price of rice is so high
My mom decided not to buy anymore.
But, how could I survive
Without any rice?
“Men shall not live by rice alone”
she preached sagely.
Right!
And I suppose I have to wait for the miraculous appearance of gunnysacks in my kitchen tonight.
My rabble-rousing cousin had another take on it.
“You are bitter about rice?
Get yourself some rights!”
“You can’t eat those,”
retorted by mom.
Age often breeds wisdom
And I should have listened to her.
Article 14 was hard to chew.
Tasteless and soaked in saliva,
I had a tough customer in my mouth.
In the end, a glass of water and a quick gulp
Was all it took to flush it down.
It didn’t seem all that bad.
So, I went in search of more rights.
I wasn’t disappointed.
There were plenty of those
And I could print an endless supply.
God bless the Internet!
Papa splashed a smirk
From the side of my hospital bed.
“You should have listened to your mother,”
the smirk seemed to say.
My cousin’s blog entry for that day read:
“He failed to digest what I said.”
My mom decided not to buy anymore.
But, how could I survive
Without any rice?
“Men shall not live by rice alone”
she preached sagely.
Right!
And I suppose I have to wait for the miraculous appearance of gunnysacks in my kitchen tonight.
My rabble-rousing cousin had another take on it.
“You are bitter about rice?
Get yourself some rights!”
“You can’t eat those,”
retorted by mom.
Age often breeds wisdom
And I should have listened to her.
Article 14 was hard to chew.
Tasteless and soaked in saliva,
I had a tough customer in my mouth.
In the end, a glass of water and a quick gulp
Was all it took to flush it down.
It didn’t seem all that bad.
So, I went in search of more rights.
I wasn’t disappointed.
There were plenty of those
And I could print an endless supply.
God bless the Internet!
Papa splashed a smirk
From the side of my hospital bed.
“You should have listened to your mother,”
the smirk seemed to say.
My cousin’s blog entry for that day read:
“He failed to digest what I said.”
Thursday, June 05, 2008
The Long Ride
The First African slaves were introduced into what is today the United States in the year 1619.
In 1641, Massachusetts legalised slavery.
In 1808, the American Congress abolished the slave trade.
In 1865, slavery was abolished
In 1868, Afican Americans received full citizenship
In 1870, African men received the right to vote
In 1909, the NAACP was formed
In 1948, the US Army was desegregated
In 1963, the famous speech by Martin Luther King... 'I have a dream' (one of my personal favourites)
In 1964, the Civil Rights Act
In 1965, the Voting Rights Act
In 1968, to quote from U2.... Early morning, April 4th... A shot rings out in the Memphis sky... Free at last... they took your life. They could not take your pride...
Martin Luther King was assassinated.
40 years later... In 2008, Barack Obama has become the presumptive Presidential nominee for a major political party.
History is sometimes very poetic... It is exactly 200 years since the slave trade was abolished. The Democratic National Convention is scheduled for the 28th of August. That is the 45th Anniversary of Martin Luther King's famous 'I have a dream' speech. Barack Obama will be officially accepting the Democratic Party's nomination.
Well... I watch in awe as history sculpts another poetic page.
In 1641, Massachusetts legalised slavery.
In 1808, the American Congress abolished the slave trade.
In 1865, slavery was abolished
In 1868, Afican Americans received full citizenship
In 1870, African men received the right to vote
In 1909, the NAACP was formed
In 1948, the US Army was desegregated
In 1963, the famous speech by Martin Luther King... 'I have a dream' (one of my personal favourites)
In 1964, the Civil Rights Act
In 1965, the Voting Rights Act
In 1968, to quote from U2.... Early morning, April 4th... A shot rings out in the Memphis sky... Free at last... they took your life. They could not take your pride...
Martin Luther King was assassinated.
40 years later... In 2008, Barack Obama has become the presumptive Presidential nominee for a major political party.
History is sometimes very poetic... It is exactly 200 years since the slave trade was abolished. The Democratic National Convention is scheduled for the 28th of August. That is the 45th Anniversary of Martin Luther King's famous 'I have a dream' speech. Barack Obama will be officially accepting the Democratic Party's nomination.
Well... I watch in awe as history sculpts another poetic page.
The Sedition Charge
After having written the last post, I visited Chia Ti Lik's Blog. He has updated it with today's events. It appears that a cautioned statement was taken from his client. The matter has been adjourned to 12th June as the DPP had requested for an adjournment to 'finalise the charges'. Well, I guess this would mean that a Sedition charge may well be on its way.
A Folly and a Freedom
Mr Gopalan Nair, a US citizen, a lawyer, a blogger, an ex-Singaporean and former member of the Workers’ Party has been charged for insulting/threatening a public servant.
I read the blog. The line between bravery and foolhardiness is not always very clear. But, I’m sorry Mr Nair, this is one occasion when I would venture that your dare was just a little over the top. I do hesitate to classify what you did as bravery for it seems more likely to be otherwise. In order not to humiliate you I shall not classify it at all.
I guess you figured that you’d be served with a Writ for defamation and then you would scoot off to the US and never return again. Let there be a default judgment. Let there be an order for damages. They can’t get it enforced in the US.
Talk about a colossal miscalculation. When you open your gap in Singapore, you are navigating a minefield. You, sir, have hit a mine.
Has an offence been committed? It appears that Mr Nair has been charged under s.13D(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. S.13D(1) is as follows:
13D. —(1) Any person who in a public place or in a private place —
(a) uses any indecent, threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant; or
(b) distributes or displays to a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant any writing, sign or other visible representation which is indecent, threatening, abusive or insulting,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.
I believe that it is not too difficult to fit his comment about Justice Ang ‘prostituting herself’ within the requirements of s.13D(1).
The offence can be made out very easily. As for the evidence…. its out there in cyberspace. The remarks are clearly on his blog. There were, allegedly, emails sent by Mr Nair to the Solicitor General and the Attorney General.
I wasn’t too surprised to find out that Mr Nair was arrested and questioned. But, it was certainly a surprise to find out that he was remanded for a further 7 days. Prosecution had invoked s.198 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Judging from the blog of Mr Chia Ti Lik, Mr Nair’s Counsel, the argument, inter alia, advanced on the Defendant’s behalf was that s.198 was of no application as it dealt with adjournment of inquiries and trials. With respect, I have to disagree on that point. S.198 is the relevant provision under which a matter mentioned in court for the first time is adjourned. The Defendant was obviously not pleading guilty on that day and clearly the matter could not proceed for trial for want of readiness of the parties and witnesses, if any.
S.198 further facilitates the holding of an accused in remand for a further period of 8 days. It is with regard to the reasons for the remand that I would take issue. What was the need for remanding him in custody. What was the reason for construing that bail was in the first place appropriate and fixing bail in the morning of the hearing and then rescinding the bail and applying for further detention? Mr Chia Ti Lik’s blog alludes to the fact that the investigating officer was on hand to lay the evidence before the court as to the reason for further remand. The Court was, apparently, satisfied as to the reasons for further remand.
This is the part that is really puzzling. The explanatory provision within s.198 is as follows:
‘Explanation..—If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand this is a reasonable cause for a remand.’
What more evidence did the Prosecution intend to secure through the further detention of Mr Nair. Whatever necessary evidence was already freely available.
As it has turned out, according to Mr Chia Li Tik’s blog, prosecution was planning to add another charge: SEDITION. Now, that is a scary word. It is quite a serious offence to allege against any person. My instinctive reaction was: it would take a great deal of legal creativity to make that one stick based on the stuff that appears on Mr Nair’s blog.
It appears that Mr Nair has been released on bail today and no new charge was added. Sedition would really have been stretching the law.
Incidentally, (and this is the danger with the news in the internet age: speed at the expense of truth), on 4th June 2008, Reporters without Borders reported on their website that Mr Nair had been charged for sedition. Talk about being premature. They must have relied on information from the defendant’s lawyer. Mr Chia states in his blog that Mr Nair told him via phone yesterday that he would be brought to court and he was told that another charge would be added. How’s that for the credibility of Reporters Without Borders! They didn’t do a simple fact check. They could have just reported that he may be charged for sedition. This is how they opened the article:
‘Reporters Without Borders today condemned a case brought by the authorities under the Sedition Act against blogger Gopalan Nair, a 58-year-old American lawyer, who criticised the Supreme Court’s handling of a defamation case.’
Anyway, it is going to be interesting to see how this case unfolds. Based on an AFP report, the charge faced by Mr Nair is of insulting Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean by sending an email to her with the prostituting comment. After reading numerous online stuff, I’m a bit confused now as to what Mr Nair’s position is on the email allegation.
An AFP report states the following:
According to a court document, Nair is charged with insulting Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean last week by sending an email which said she "was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders".
Chia said the comments essentially repeated those Nair made in a recent blog about a defamation case filed by Singapore's leaders against an opposition party and its members.
Based on the above, I have two possible interpretations:
a) the defendant denies sending an email and the words contained in the charge are extracted from a blog written by the defendant
b) the defendant admits sending an email but asserts that the comments were essentially of a non-threatening nature as they were repetitions of what appeared on the blog.
I believe that it is more logical to conclude that his defence would be (a).
The less credible source, that Reporters Without Borders article that I cited above, states as follows:
‘Nair denied having emailed the judge and said that all his publications on the trial hearings were posted on his blog.’
On the assumption that he denies sending the email, the case would proceed on technical evidence. There has to be proof of the server/pc from which the email originated. Did Mr Nair have access to that PC? Could his email have been hacked into? Digital evidence of the received email, etc. etc.
I’m a little curious as to the precise wording of the charge against him. If the charge was worded in exactly the same manner as indicated in parenthesis above in the AFP report, then there is a serious slip in the charge.
If the charge is eventually amended to one involving the contents in the blog and not the alleged email, then there is likely to be an interesting jurisdiction issue.
But, above all there is going to be the legal issue of Article 14 of the Constitution.
I read the blog. The line between bravery and foolhardiness is not always very clear. But, I’m sorry Mr Nair, this is one occasion when I would venture that your dare was just a little over the top. I do hesitate to classify what you did as bravery for it seems more likely to be otherwise. In order not to humiliate you I shall not classify it at all.
I guess you figured that you’d be served with a Writ for defamation and then you would scoot off to the US and never return again. Let there be a default judgment. Let there be an order for damages. They can’t get it enforced in the US.
Talk about a colossal miscalculation. When you open your gap in Singapore, you are navigating a minefield. You, sir, have hit a mine.
Has an offence been committed? It appears that Mr Nair has been charged under s.13D(1)(a) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. S.13D(1) is as follows:
13D. —(1) Any person who in a public place or in a private place —
(a) uses any indecent, threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour towards a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant; or
(b) distributes or displays to a public servant in the execution of his duty as such public servant any writing, sign or other visible representation which is indecent, threatening, abusive or insulting,
shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $5,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.
I believe that it is not too difficult to fit his comment about Justice Ang ‘prostituting herself’ within the requirements of s.13D(1).
The offence can be made out very easily. As for the evidence…. its out there in cyberspace. The remarks are clearly on his blog. There were, allegedly, emails sent by Mr Nair to the Solicitor General and the Attorney General.
I wasn’t too surprised to find out that Mr Nair was arrested and questioned. But, it was certainly a surprise to find out that he was remanded for a further 7 days. Prosecution had invoked s.198 of the Criminal Procedure Code.
Judging from the blog of Mr Chia Ti Lik, Mr Nair’s Counsel, the argument, inter alia, advanced on the Defendant’s behalf was that s.198 was of no application as it dealt with adjournment of inquiries and trials. With respect, I have to disagree on that point. S.198 is the relevant provision under which a matter mentioned in court for the first time is adjourned. The Defendant was obviously not pleading guilty on that day and clearly the matter could not proceed for trial for want of readiness of the parties and witnesses, if any.
S.198 further facilitates the holding of an accused in remand for a further period of 8 days. It is with regard to the reasons for the remand that I would take issue. What was the need for remanding him in custody. What was the reason for construing that bail was in the first place appropriate and fixing bail in the morning of the hearing and then rescinding the bail and applying for further detention? Mr Chia Ti Lik’s blog alludes to the fact that the investigating officer was on hand to lay the evidence before the court as to the reason for further remand. The Court was, apparently, satisfied as to the reasons for further remand.
This is the part that is really puzzling. The explanatory provision within s.198 is as follows:
‘Explanation..—If sufficient evidence has been obtained to raise a suspicion that the accused may have committed an offence and it appears likely that further evidence may be obtained by a remand this is a reasonable cause for a remand.’
What more evidence did the Prosecution intend to secure through the further detention of Mr Nair. Whatever necessary evidence was already freely available.
As it has turned out, according to Mr Chia Li Tik’s blog, prosecution was planning to add another charge: SEDITION. Now, that is a scary word. It is quite a serious offence to allege against any person. My instinctive reaction was: it would take a great deal of legal creativity to make that one stick based on the stuff that appears on Mr Nair’s blog.
It appears that Mr Nair has been released on bail today and no new charge was added. Sedition would really have been stretching the law.
Incidentally, (and this is the danger with the news in the internet age: speed at the expense of truth), on 4th June 2008, Reporters without Borders reported on their website that Mr Nair had been charged for sedition. Talk about being premature. They must have relied on information from the defendant’s lawyer. Mr Chia states in his blog that Mr Nair told him via phone yesterday that he would be brought to court and he was told that another charge would be added. How’s that for the credibility of Reporters Without Borders! They didn’t do a simple fact check. They could have just reported that he may be charged for sedition. This is how they opened the article:
‘Reporters Without Borders today condemned a case brought by the authorities under the Sedition Act against blogger Gopalan Nair, a 58-year-old American lawyer, who criticised the Supreme Court’s handling of a defamation case.’
Anyway, it is going to be interesting to see how this case unfolds. Based on an AFP report, the charge faced by Mr Nair is of insulting Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean by sending an email to her with the prostituting comment. After reading numerous online stuff, I’m a bit confused now as to what Mr Nair’s position is on the email allegation.
An AFP report states the following:
According to a court document, Nair is charged with insulting Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean last week by sending an email which said she "was throughout prostituting herself during the entire proceedings, by being nothing more than an employee of Mr Lee Kuan Yew and his son and carrying out their orders".
Chia said the comments essentially repeated those Nair made in a recent blog about a defamation case filed by Singapore's leaders against an opposition party and its members.
Based on the above, I have two possible interpretations:
a) the defendant denies sending an email and the words contained in the charge are extracted from a blog written by the defendant
b) the defendant admits sending an email but asserts that the comments were essentially of a non-threatening nature as they were repetitions of what appeared on the blog.
I believe that it is more logical to conclude that his defence would be (a).
The less credible source, that Reporters Without Borders article that I cited above, states as follows:
‘Nair denied having emailed the judge and said that all his publications on the trial hearings were posted on his blog.’
On the assumption that he denies sending the email, the case would proceed on technical evidence. There has to be proof of the server/pc from which the email originated. Did Mr Nair have access to that PC? Could his email have been hacked into? Digital evidence of the received email, etc. etc.
I’m a little curious as to the precise wording of the charge against him. If the charge was worded in exactly the same manner as indicated in parenthesis above in the AFP report, then there is a serious slip in the charge.
If the charge is eventually amended to one involving the contents in the blog and not the alleged email, then there is likely to be an interesting jurisdiction issue.
But, above all there is going to be the legal issue of Article 14 of the Constitution.
Monday, May 05, 2008
Contemplating the rule - thoughts in draft - 2
The law as an impersonal device – the impersonality adds neutrality for the diffusion of conflict.
By ordering society through an impersonal medium we are better able to rationally resolve disputes without the dispute lingering on.
Any personalised attempt at resolution of the conflict/dispute where one party perceives a less than favourable outcome constitutes an affront to that party and results in a continuation of hostilities. An impersonal resolution through the medium of rules where the rules have been set out and agreed to beforehand may still result in a resolution which the party may find unpalatable or less than desirable. But, at least the party would be rationally obliged to accept the resolution as the outcome of a process that he had agreed to be a party to.
Can this process of impersonal nature of a rule be used as a device to test the ‘proper’ nature of a law. A law that is personal is ‘improper’ and ought to be repealed or reformed. A law that is ‘proper’ may remain, subject to other ethical considerations. Is this a workable model for testing the desirability of a law? And, to take it a step further, is this a workable model for testing the validity of a law?
The proposition is this: if rules serve the function of being a medium for the impersonalisation of a dispute, then, unless the rule is impersonal, it does not have the pedigree of a rule.
By ordering society through an impersonal medium we are better able to rationally resolve disputes without the dispute lingering on.
Any personalised attempt at resolution of the conflict/dispute where one party perceives a less than favourable outcome constitutes an affront to that party and results in a continuation of hostilities. An impersonal resolution through the medium of rules where the rules have been set out and agreed to beforehand may still result in a resolution which the party may find unpalatable or less than desirable. But, at least the party would be rationally obliged to accept the resolution as the outcome of a process that he had agreed to be a party to.
Can this process of impersonal nature of a rule be used as a device to test the ‘proper’ nature of a law. A law that is personal is ‘improper’ and ought to be repealed or reformed. A law that is ‘proper’ may remain, subject to other ethical considerations. Is this a workable model for testing the desirability of a law? And, to take it a step further, is this a workable model for testing the validity of a law?
The proposition is this: if rules serve the function of being a medium for the impersonalisation of a dispute, then, unless the rule is impersonal, it does not have the pedigree of a rule.
Friday, May 02, 2008
virgin birth
Did the first thought originate from a virgin birth?
or was she mere excrement and not a child?
and did subsequent ones arise from a copulation of thoughts?
how do I make sense of this orgy in the city of nought?
or was she mere excrement and not a child?
and did subsequent ones arise from a copulation of thoughts?
how do I make sense of this orgy in the city of nought?
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
For Eli
I just heard a really powerful poem. It's called 'For Eli'.
It's a the following link: http://www.andreagibson.org/poems/poems_foreli.html
It is on youtube as well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCOb2YlTJkw
truly incredible stuff.
It's a the following link: http://www.andreagibson.org/poems/poems_foreli.html
It is on youtube as well... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCOb2YlTJkw
truly incredible stuff.
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Of Rice and Lies
Concerning Former American President Jimmy Carter's visit to the Middle East and in particular his meeting with Hamas, the American Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice said this:
"We counseled President Carter against coming to -- against going to the region, and particularly against having contacts with Hamas." "We wanted to make sure that there would be no confusion and that there would be no sense that Hamas was somehow a party to peace negotiations."
The Carter Centre has now released the following official statement:
Jimmy Carter is a man I admire a great deal. A rare politician who has his heart in the right place. He works tirelessly for the common good of humanity even though he is not in office.
Rice, on the other hand, is mixing with the wrong crowd.
I guess it is clear as to which of their statements, I think, is the truth.
"We counseled President Carter against coming to -- against going to the region, and particularly against having contacts with Hamas." "We wanted to make sure that there would be no confusion and that there would be no sense that Hamas was somehow a party to peace negotiations."
The Carter Centre has now released the following official statement:
President Carter has the greatest respect for Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and believes her to be a truthful person. However, perhaps inadvertently, she is continuing to make a statement that is not true. No one in the State Department or any other department of the U.S. government ever asked him to refrain from his recent visit to the Middle East or even suggested that he not meet with Syrian President Assad or leaders of Hamas.
Before leaving on the extended visit to monitor an election in Nepal and then to visit Israel, the West Bank, Egypt, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan, President Carter placed a telephone call to Ms. Rice to describe his itinerary and to inform her of his intended conversations. She was in Europe and her deputy returned his call. They had a very pleasant discussion for about fifteen minutes, during which he never made any of the negative or cautionary comments described above. He never talked to anyone else.
Jimmy Carter is a man I admire a great deal. A rare politician who has his heart in the right place. He works tirelessly for the common good of humanity even though he is not in office.
Rice, on the other hand, is mixing with the wrong crowd.
I guess it is clear as to which of their statements, I think, is the truth.
Olympics & Politics
There are many of us sports fans and purists who just love to see a sporting event unfold dramatically with lots of on the field and off the field stories to digest. But, there is one sporting event that always seems to attract off-the-field drama of a different kind. The Olympic games seem to be pursued by politics all the time.
Now, it is China's turn to face the music. Hosting the Olympics is a matter of pride for any nation. Certainly in the case of this emerging power, it is an opportunity to showcase the arrival of China as a nation of significance economically and politically. But, it was inevitable that in this Olympic year some political issue would have grabbed the limelight.
I was having a conversation the other day with a friend about mixing politics with sport. This friend was insistent that the Tibetan issue should be kept out of the Olympics and the torch relay should not have been marred by the disrespectful pro-Tibet groups.
I believe that we are not in a position to dictate which way politics would flow. Whenever there is an issue that deserves to be highlighted it is inevitable that groups involved in politics would pick whichever medium enables them to exhibit their message as widely and as effectively as they can. There is simply no point in insisting that politics should not be mixed with sports. Whether the organizers of the sporting event like it or not and whether fans like it or not, the political groups will simply attempt to hijack the event in the desparate attempt to get media attention.
The torch relay presented the perfect opportunity for pro-Tibet activists to make a point about their cause all around the world. If the Olympic committee intended to avoid politics, they should have simply cancelled the relay. This wouldn't have been a case of losing out. It would simply have been a security issue. And the political issue that they are so worried about would not have received the kind of airing that it got.
The point i'm making is that we cannot keep politics out of the Olympics or plead that it be kept out. It is going to always seek the platform that would give it the most limelight. The Olympics is the most ideal sporting event for that.
Now, it is China's turn to face the music. Hosting the Olympics is a matter of pride for any nation. Certainly in the case of this emerging power, it is an opportunity to showcase the arrival of China as a nation of significance economically and politically. But, it was inevitable that in this Olympic year some political issue would have grabbed the limelight.
I was having a conversation the other day with a friend about mixing politics with sport. This friend was insistent that the Tibetan issue should be kept out of the Olympics and the torch relay should not have been marred by the disrespectful pro-Tibet groups.
I believe that we are not in a position to dictate which way politics would flow. Whenever there is an issue that deserves to be highlighted it is inevitable that groups involved in politics would pick whichever medium enables them to exhibit their message as widely and as effectively as they can. There is simply no point in insisting that politics should not be mixed with sports. Whether the organizers of the sporting event like it or not and whether fans like it or not, the political groups will simply attempt to hijack the event in the desparate attempt to get media attention.
The torch relay presented the perfect opportunity for pro-Tibet activists to make a point about their cause all around the world. If the Olympic committee intended to avoid politics, they should have simply cancelled the relay. This wouldn't have been a case of losing out. It would simply have been a security issue. And the political issue that they are so worried about would not have received the kind of airing that it got.
The point i'm making is that we cannot keep politics out of the Olympics or plead that it be kept out. It is going to always seek the platform that would give it the most limelight. The Olympics is the most ideal sporting event for that.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
I missed the century
What a pity! When I viewed my profile yesterday morning, there were 97 views: 2 more than the last time that I checked and blogged about it. So, there was someone else who had checked it out.
So, I thouhgt to myself.... 3 more to go and I will hit the century. Guess what, my profile views hit 109 last nght when I checked again. 12 views - by persons other than myself. There are people out there reading my rants? Interesting.
But, I have been deprived of my bat raising opportunity. All I can do now is throw my hands up in the air because of the fact that the century has gone totally unnoticed by me. :-(
So, I thouhgt to myself.... 3 more to go and I will hit the century. Guess what, my profile views hit 109 last nght when I checked again. 12 views - by persons other than myself. There are people out there reading my rants? Interesting.
But, I have been deprived of my bat raising opportunity. All I can do now is throw my hands up in the air because of the fact that the century has gone totally unnoticed by me. :-(
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
95 times
My profile has been viewed 95 times. That must be the number of times that I have hit my own profile to view how many times my profile has been viewed. I am going to hit a century (just five steps away).... I must not forget to raise my bat and salute the crowd (in this case, my self-congratulatory ego).
Public and International Law Committee
Following closely on the heels of my blog's renaming from the clumsy 'withandwithouteyes' (that nobody was really reading) to the succinct 'article14' (an attempt at cyber CPR for that unrealised Constitutional right), the Law Society of Singapore has announced the formation of the Public and International Law Committee.... a sort of Human Rights Committee minus teeth and any other sharp objects or objects that, though not sharp, may be sharpened or though not sharpened, may be able to inflict the damage (or a fraction thereof) that could be inflicted by sharp objects or any damage.
Ok... That's clearly not in keeping with the plain English drive...
Incidentally, my blog's name change did not in any way, shape or form (or formless form) influence the Law Society. I have no idea what motivated the Law Society.
Let us hope some constructive work from the Committee.. For now, although it has not been launched yet, this is my favourite committee within the Law Society. That does not say much since I haven't thought of any committees with the Society that I can think of as a point of comparison.
Somehow, I don't think the Committee is going to be all that great. Judging from the inaugral lecture that they have arranged, I can't help but suspect that it will serve as a forum for a competing thesis for human rights based on the less than human values as evisaged by the 'uniquely' Asian perspective. A thesis that human rights is not for us because we are Asians. :-) presumably, the result of that equation would be that we Asians are not humans... well, whatever, nevermind
Anyway, it always helps to be hopeful... that is the way to keep one's sanity... It also helps to be cynical.... that is the way to avoid disappointment... The key to dealing with the work of this Committee and how it would unfold is to follow the middle path between hope and cynicism.
Good luck to the Committee. I wonder what their views are on indefinite detention without trial. That's a good place to start.
Ok... That's clearly not in keeping with the plain English drive...
Incidentally, my blog's name change did not in any way, shape or form (or formless form) influence the Law Society. I have no idea what motivated the Law Society.
Let us hope some constructive work from the Committee.. For now, although it has not been launched yet, this is my favourite committee within the Law Society. That does not say much since I haven't thought of any committees with the Society that I can think of as a point of comparison.
Somehow, I don't think the Committee is going to be all that great. Judging from the inaugral lecture that they have arranged, I can't help but suspect that it will serve as a forum for a competing thesis for human rights based on the less than human values as evisaged by the 'uniquely' Asian perspective. A thesis that human rights is not for us because we are Asians. :-) presumably, the result of that equation would be that we Asians are not humans... well, whatever, nevermind
Anyway, it always helps to be hopeful... that is the way to keep one's sanity... It also helps to be cynical.... that is the way to avoid disappointment... The key to dealing with the work of this Committee and how it would unfold is to follow the middle path between hope and cynicism.
Good luck to the Committee. I wonder what their views are on indefinite detention without trial. That's a good place to start.
Walter Woon - Attorney General
I'm rather late in posting this. But, the appointment of Walter Woon as the Attorney General warrants some comment. This is a legal mind within the Singapore landscape that I admire deeply. I view him as a man of tremendous intellectual honesty from what little I have read about him over the years and the comments that have emanated from him.
Definitely, congratulations are in order. My only hope is that his intellectual honesty would engender the introduction of some fresh air into Singapore's legal climate.
Of course, I can't help but note some irony in all of this. If I remember correctly (and I may be wrong as I am working purely from memory, which is not too efficient these days), there was long time ago that Professor Walter Woon made a remark about the then Attorney General's statement regarding an alleged offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act.
Chan Sek Kiong was then the Attorney General. During the 1997 elections, the Workers' Party had alleged that Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and BG Lee Hsien Loong had been inside a polling station on polling day and had thereby committed an offence. Surprisingly, the PAP leaders did not deny their presence there (realising, I presume, the futility of attempting to deny the undeniable). It was then left to the Attorney General to diligently lay down an interpretation of the offence of loitering under the Parliamentary Elections Act that is perhaps the furthest that the elasticity of logic be pushed to without losing its pedigree as logic.
The AG stated as follows:
7. Section 82 (1)(d) provides that - "No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote".
8. Plainly, persons found waiting inside the polling stations do not come within the ambit of this section. Similarly, those who enter or have entered the polling station cannot be said to be waiting outside it. Only those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence under this section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast their votes.
9. Section 82 (1)(e) provides that -
"No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day."
10. The relevant question is whether any person who is inside a polling station can be sad to be "within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station". The answer to this question will also answer any question on loitering inside a polling station.
11. Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station. A polling station must have adequate space for the voting to be carried out. Any space has a perimeter. The words "within a radius of 200 metres" ' therefore mean "200 metres from the perimeter of" any polling station. This point is illustrated in the diagrams in the Appendix. (Editor's note: Diagrams not available).
12. The above interpretation is fortified by the context of the provision. The polling station, as a place, is distinguished from a street or public place. It is not a street or a public place. Hence, being inside a polling station cannot amount to being in a street or in a public place. By parity of reasoning, loitering in a street or public place cannot possibly include loitering in the polling station itself and vice versa.
The full text is available here:
http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm
I must say that the argument of the AG is not without logic. I'm merely saying that I am reminded of Professor Kingsfield from Paper Chase: "Man has an infinite capacity for rationalization".
Now, for the reason why brought this up (and here I may actually be mistaken and might add my own quotable quote: man has an infinite capacity to be mistaken): If memory serves me right, Professor Walter Woon made a remark about the AG's argument... as being either intellectually dishonest or unintelligent.... something to that effect... the 'intellectually dishonest' bit has stuck in my head... i do remember that he said 'either ______ or intellectually dishonest' or 'either intellectually dishonest or ________.'
maybe the comment has been immortalised by being grafted onto the net somewhere... I must google it to find out.
Anyway, the point of this exercise is this... What an irony. Walter Woon is now the AG. Chan Sek Keong is the Chief Justice. How would the intellectually honest perform? We shall watch as it unfolds.
Definitely, congratulations are in order. My only hope is that his intellectual honesty would engender the introduction of some fresh air into Singapore's legal climate.
Of course, I can't help but note some irony in all of this. If I remember correctly (and I may be wrong as I am working purely from memory, which is not too efficient these days), there was long time ago that Professor Walter Woon made a remark about the then Attorney General's statement regarding an alleged offence under the Parliamentary Elections Act.
Chan Sek Kiong was then the Attorney General. During the 1997 elections, the Workers' Party had alleged that Mr Goh Chok Tong, Dr Tony Tan and BG Lee Hsien Loong had been inside a polling station on polling day and had thereby committed an offence. Surprisingly, the PAP leaders did not deny their presence there (realising, I presume, the futility of attempting to deny the undeniable). It was then left to the Attorney General to diligently lay down an interpretation of the offence of loitering under the Parliamentary Elections Act that is perhaps the furthest that the elasticity of logic be pushed to without losing its pedigree as logic.
The AG stated as follows:
7. Section 82 (1)(d) provides that - "No person shall wait outside any polling station on polling day, except for the purpose of gaining entry to the polling station to cast his vote".
8. Plainly, persons found waiting inside the polling stations do not come within the ambit of this section. Similarly, those who enter or have entered the polling station cannot be said to be waiting outside it. Only those who wait outside the polling station commit an offence under this section unless they are waiting to enter the polling station to cast their votes.
9. Section 82 (1)(e) provides that -
"No person shall loiter in any street or public place within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station on polling day."
10. The relevant question is whether any person who is inside a polling station can be sad to be "within a radius of 200 metres of any polling station". The answer to this question will also answer any question on loitering inside a polling station.
11. Plainly, a person inside a polling station cannot be said to be within a radius of 200 metres of a polling station. A polling station must have adequate space for the voting to be carried out. Any space has a perimeter. The words "within a radius of 200 metres" ' therefore mean "200 metres from the perimeter of" any polling station. This point is illustrated in the diagrams in the Appendix. (Editor's note: Diagrams not available).
12. The above interpretation is fortified by the context of the provision. The polling station, as a place, is distinguished from a street or public place. It is not a street or a public place. Hence, being inside a polling station cannot amount to being in a street or in a public place. By parity of reasoning, loitering in a street or public place cannot possibly include loitering in the polling station itself and vice versa.
The full text is available here:
http://www.singapore-window.org/ag0721.htm
I must say that the argument of the AG is not without logic. I'm merely saying that I am reminded of Professor Kingsfield from Paper Chase: "Man has an infinite capacity for rationalization".
Now, for the reason why brought this up (and here I may actually be mistaken and might add my own quotable quote: man has an infinite capacity to be mistaken): If memory serves me right, Professor Walter Woon made a remark about the AG's argument... as being either intellectually dishonest or unintelligent.... something to that effect... the 'intellectually dishonest' bit has stuck in my head... i do remember that he said 'either ______ or intellectually dishonest' or 'either intellectually dishonest or ________.'
maybe the comment has been immortalised by being grafted onto the net somewhere... I must google it to find out.
Anyway, the point of this exercise is this... What an irony. Walter Woon is now the AG. Chan Sek Keong is the Chief Justice. How would the intellectually honest perform? We shall watch as it unfolds.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Contemplating the 'rule' - thoughts in draft
A rule is a tool for the diffusion of conflict. It is an impersonal external reference point, which eliminates the emotional dimension of a dispute between individuals. This impersonalisation of a dispute assists in the creation of order, stability and tranquillity. It does not ensure the creation of the same but merely prods the social organism in that direction.
A retrospective law does not appear fair or just because it fails to some degree to provide an impersonal external reference point. A nagging suspicion that the rule has specifically targeted an individual or group of individuals for the behaviour introduces a personal dimension to the rule.
The personalisation of a rule occurs when the rule is intended to target or perceived to target an individual or a group. The rule then does not operate as a rule and acquires the character of an order (with the accompanying lack of moral legitimacy) directed at an individual.
This personalisation renders the rule questionable. If rules were, to begin with, intended to diffuse conflict and secure tranquillity, any rule that doesn’t impersonalise the conflict must surely be questionable in terms of its pedigree as a rule.
A retrospective law does not appear fair or just because it fails to some degree to provide an impersonal external reference point. A nagging suspicion that the rule has specifically targeted an individual or group of individuals for the behaviour introduces a personal dimension to the rule.
The personalisation of a rule occurs when the rule is intended to target or perceived to target an individual or a group. The rule then does not operate as a rule and acquires the character of an order (with the accompanying lack of moral legitimacy) directed at an individual.
This personalisation renders the rule questionable. If rules were, to begin with, intended to diffuse conflict and secure tranquillity, any rule that doesn’t impersonalise the conflict must surely be questionable in terms of its pedigree as a rule.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Indonesian Prophecy
Prophesies are always fascinating. Whether or not one is willing to accept the likelihood of prophetic statements having any truth in them, one must say that they have some amusement value.
Here is something I came across in Wikipedia...It seems that there was this priest by the name of Sabdapalon during the reign of the last Majapahit king. The king, Brawijaya the Fifth converted, to Islam in 1478 and was cursed by his priest Sabdapalon.
Sabdapalon then promised that he would return 500 years later (that would be 1978). At the time of his return there is supposed to be political turmoil, etc, etc... (the usual apocalyptic stuff contained in prophesies, i guess). He would return and usher in an era when Islam would be wiped off the majapahit lands and hinduism would be restored.
There is then the assertion in the wikipedia post that some of the first new Hindu temples were built around 1978 (e.g. Pura Blambangan ). There is also the assertion that Mt Semeru erupted around the same time.
I'm having some difficulty verifying the date of construction of Pura Blambangan. I shall check it out at a later date. As for Mt Semeru, there is a wikipedia post that states that since 1818, 55 eruptions have been recorded. From 1967 to the present the volcano has been in a 'near constant state of eruption'. The last eruption is stated as 2008 (continuing). presumably, it is erupting as i blog right now.... let me check on that.... i don't see anything on google news
1967... that's the year that my sister was born... maybe she is the reincarnation of Sabdapalon. :-) but, what is she doing globetrotting with her husband instead of ushering in a hindu revival in indonesia. :-)
And then, there is another Indonesian prophesy. THis concerns a person referred to as Joyoboyo or Jayabaya; a king who reigned from 1135 to 1157 in East Java. Javanese believe him to be a model king; an embodiment of the qualities of a just ruler: A Ratu Adil. According to wikipedia:
'Many believe that the time for the arrival of a new Ratu Adil is near (as the prophecies put it, "when iron wagons could drive without horses and ships could sail through the sky"), and that he will come to rescue and reunite Indonesia after an acute crisis, ushering in the dawn of a new golden age.'
so, now that we have cars and aircrafts, a new Ratu Adil is upon us. :-)
Here is something I came across in Wikipedia...It seems that there was this priest by the name of Sabdapalon during the reign of the last Majapahit king. The king, Brawijaya the Fifth converted, to Islam in 1478 and was cursed by his priest Sabdapalon.
Sabdapalon then promised that he would return 500 years later (that would be 1978). At the time of his return there is supposed to be political turmoil, etc, etc... (the usual apocalyptic stuff contained in prophesies, i guess). He would return and usher in an era when Islam would be wiped off the majapahit lands and hinduism would be restored.
There is then the assertion in the wikipedia post that some of the first new Hindu temples were built around 1978 (e.g. Pura Blambangan ). There is also the assertion that Mt Semeru erupted around the same time.
I'm having some difficulty verifying the date of construction of Pura Blambangan. I shall check it out at a later date. As for Mt Semeru, there is a wikipedia post that states that since 1818, 55 eruptions have been recorded. From 1967 to the present the volcano has been in a 'near constant state of eruption'. The last eruption is stated as 2008 (continuing). presumably, it is erupting as i blog right now.... let me check on that.... i don't see anything on google news
1967... that's the year that my sister was born... maybe she is the reincarnation of Sabdapalon. :-) but, what is she doing globetrotting with her husband instead of ushering in a hindu revival in indonesia. :-)
And then, there is another Indonesian prophesy. THis concerns a person referred to as Joyoboyo or Jayabaya; a king who reigned from 1135 to 1157 in East Java. Javanese believe him to be a model king; an embodiment of the qualities of a just ruler: A Ratu Adil. According to wikipedia:
'Many believe that the time for the arrival of a new Ratu Adil is near (as the prophecies put it, "when iron wagons could drive without horses and ships could sail through the sky"), and that he will come to rescue and reunite Indonesia after an acute crisis, ushering in the dawn of a new golden age.'
so, now that we have cars and aircrafts, a new Ratu Adil is upon us. :-)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)