Protesting the unfairness of court hearing

8^th November 2006

MEDIA RELEASE

In the ongoing trial of Public Prosecutor vs Mr. Gandhi Ambalam; Dr Chee Soon Juan & Mr Yap Keng Ho under Public Entertainment and Meetings Act. The defense have the followings to state.

1. Under Article 12 of Republic of Singapore Constitution, citizens are ensured Equality and Fair Trial, the defendants being opposition members are being discriminated against in violation of their constitutional rights to be treated fairly and equally by the law enforcement. And in our trial, the judge ruled dozens of times against our cross-examination of witnesses to prevent us from adducing evidence to prove the political inequality. Thus compromising our rights to a fair trial in this politically motivated charge.

2. Under same article of constitution, the defendants being opposition members are being discriminated unfairly by regulatory authority of Public Entertainment Licensing Unit, that we can never be granted any approval of such license applications. And in our trial, the judge ruled and prevented Dr Chee from adducing evidence from the Officer In-Charge of Public Entertainment Licensing Unit, who stood as witness on stand, regarding this unfairness which violated our constitutional rights under Article 12.

The defendants are protesting against such unfairness in the court room today, 8th Nov 2006 in seek of better fairness and justice, and to persist such protest until fairness becomes acceptable.

Yap Keng Ho is preparing to file following criminal motion against the unfairness suffered on 7th Nov 2006:

1. Article 9 of constitution had been serious violated in that applicant's hearing had been unduly restrained physically and legally and tortured mentally.
2. The principal of natural justice had been grossly and encroached upon by the undue interference by the trial judge in favor.
3. The adversarial system guarantied under the constitution had not been complied with and the trial judge has misdirected himself on the criminal process of the trial.
4. The trial process in the court below had threatened all the basic guarantees enshrined for the accused under the constitution under article 9 & 12 & 14.
5. The trial process adopted by the court below violate all the basic norm of international customary law provided by UN under UDHR.
6. The elected president of Singapore be directed to convince a constitutional court under article 100 of constitution to seek an advisory opinion of the constitutional court of 3 judges in the event that this court does not apply it's mind and powers on the determination of 1 & 5 above. As the all accused in Singapore who are tried politically suffer a state of emergency calling for UN intervention.