This blog MAY be contempt of court!
I had to attend a funeral wake last night after court, and returned home so late, and this morning again have to rush to court, thus I lack time to post anything much on internet, about yesterday's court. But indeed there are much to be said.
SDP had posted 2 articles about yesterday's court. Pse click First & Second to read.
Basically, DPP wanted judge to order me to take this & this down from my blog here, and in addition she wanted to cite my blog postings as contempt of court. I earlier in the morning told the court that I posted questionable doubts regarding mata's video on my blog, as the court was asking us weather any new questions found with the problematic video. I told that to the court voluntarily and openly, while both the DPP & judge raised no objection when I said I posted on internet.
SDP had posted 2 articles about yesterday's court. Pse click First & Second to read.
Basically, DPP wanted judge to order me to take this & this down from my blog here, and in addition she wanted to cite my blog postings as contempt of court. I earlier in the morning told the court that I posted questionable doubts regarding mata's video on my blog, as the court was asking us weather any new questions found with the problematic video. I told that to the court voluntarily and openly, while both the DPP & judge raised no objection when I said I posted on internet.
After we all returned from lunch, DPP Lee immediately applied for order of court to make me remove my blog postings, and cite me contempt. Obviously some instructions had reached her during lunch time from above.
My stands remains unchanged that I will not take down the contents, and I will still post the MPEG video on internet, and I will fight my rights to do so all the way to court of appeal. I gave the following reasons:
My stands remains unchanged that I will not take down the contents, and I will still post the MPEG video on internet, and I will fight my rights to do so all the way to court of appeal. I gave the following reasons:
- For trial transparency, and that media & public already in court as video was played.
- My blog posting will be able to assist my appeal for witnesses from members of public, as this become necessary later, when court decicded that the prosecution have a valid case against us, and it became necessary for us to enter a defence. At the moment we have not reach this stage yet.
- The people of Singapore are the highest judge I am answering my charges to, I present evidence to the people. All judiciary power in Rep of Singapore belongs to our citizens and are only assigned to courts for a collective action of arbitration.
- We have no jurry in Singapore, unless judges very actively participate in our blog or online forum discussion, there is actually not much of sub-judiciary problem. 146th are also reporting massively, so why blame this sub-judiciary problem on my little blog?
- famiLEE LEEgime have lots of things to hide about this video. They changed their mind many times about using this video, they wasted so much time to prevent us from getting a copy of it. And now even more obviously, they want the public NOT to be able to see the truth via internet!
- The DPP compared this video using the ironical example of a murder weapon evidence in court. What murder? What WEAPON? They are admitting that this video will kill the famiLEE LEEgime leathally or what?
- There are no secret nor privacy nor obscene within the video, only very opened election activities.
- There is no law broken by posting these evidence.
Judge reserved his ruling on DPP's applications regarding my postings. And judge ADVICED me to take away the posting as IT MIGHT BE CONTEMPT OF COURT which he would decide on it at the end of the case.
Both CSJ & myself press for the judgement on this, because we are still going to post on internet, and there is no clear decision made known to us until now as we go along without knowing weather law allow us to do it or not. I said, I prefer a ruling made, and if ruled against me I can immediately appeal against it to high court and all the way to the highest court of appeal if needed.
I am going to tell the court that this exactly is the kind of problem we Singaporean citizens faced with the law and that the judge is just doing exactly like the mata at scene on 22.Apr.06 just before the GE2006, when he INVESTIGATED our speeches. Because even the mata's video captured my conversation with themselves, that I am not intending to break any law there, only to meet voters and sell SDP publications, and I express clearly that I am willing to cooperate with mata, if they will tell me how I can conduct my election activities without infringing the law. The mata were to scared to suggest or reply with anything, just want to warn us not to speak, and just film us, and then later decided to charge us in court. The judge is just the same, that he won't rule on the application now regardless we asked him to do so, and to keep us in the blinded toward the law as we proceed ahead further, then later at the end of trial be sentenced to contempt of court.
If for example Ah Beng took out a cigarratte and lighter, and the law enforcement just film him while warned him about smoking here MIGHT BECOME an illegal act. And Ah Beng asked officer how and what to do or what not to do, gets no reply. Then where is law's stand? Or at least the enforcement officer's stand. It isn't it necessary to inform the citizens clearly, that you can not smoke when seated near the no smoking sign, and that you can smoke if you sit within that YELLOW BOX, so that citizens can decide accordingly on what to do? Why just go on and on without a decision, and film us citizens, and then single-sidedly decide that we are gilty later, after we did a lot of things in the time they kept us in the dark about the law's stand?
The matas were NOT there to prevent law being broken, not to help the citizens, not to even take an official stands regarding the activities SDP were doing at Chong Pang Village market. Just film us and gave useless official warnings, and then refuse to answer our questions of doubts, refuse to guide citizens how to do activities legally. And just as if want to frame us only and find us guilty.
This is the FIRST WORLD famiLEE LEEgime which they claimed to be ruled by rules of law? Or a police state that is out to just frame the citizens who have no intention to break law?
Both CSJ & myself press for the judgement on this, because we are still going to post on internet, and there is no clear decision made known to us until now as we go along without knowing weather law allow us to do it or not. I said, I prefer a ruling made, and if ruled against me I can immediately appeal against it to high court and all the way to the highest court of appeal if needed.
I am going to tell the court that this exactly is the kind of problem we Singaporean citizens faced with the law and that the judge is just doing exactly like the mata at scene on 22.Apr.06 just before the GE2006, when he INVESTIGATED our speeches. Because even the mata's video captured my conversation with themselves, that I am not intending to break any law there, only to meet voters and sell SDP publications, and I express clearly that I am willing to cooperate with mata, if they will tell me how I can conduct my election activities without infringing the law. The mata were to scared to suggest or reply with anything, just want to warn us not to speak, and just film us, and then later decided to charge us in court. The judge is just the same, that he won't rule on the application now regardless we asked him to do so, and to keep us in the blinded toward the law as we proceed ahead further, then later at the end of trial be sentenced to contempt of court.
If for example Ah Beng took out a cigarratte and lighter, and the law enforcement just film him while warned him about smoking here MIGHT BECOME an illegal act. And Ah Beng asked officer how and what to do or what not to do, gets no reply. Then where is law's stand? Or at least the enforcement officer's stand. It isn't it necessary to inform the citizens clearly, that you can not smoke when seated near the no smoking sign, and that you can smoke if you sit within that YELLOW BOX, so that citizens can decide accordingly on what to do? Why just go on and on without a decision, and film us citizens, and then single-sidedly decide that we are gilty later, after we did a lot of things in the time they kept us in the dark about the law's stand?
The matas were NOT there to prevent law being broken, not to help the citizens, not to even take an official stands regarding the activities SDP were doing at Chong Pang Village market. Just film us and gave useless official warnings, and then refuse to answer our questions of doubts, refuse to guide citizens how to do activities legally. And just as if want to frame us only and find us guilty.
This is the FIRST WORLD famiLEE LEEgime which they claimed to be ruled by rules of law? Or a police state that is out to just frame the citizens who have no intention to break law?
posted by uncleyap at 7:32 AM
<< Home