A clear case of discrimination & persecution ;)
PDF File URL
The NSP Sec Gen Mr. Goh Meng Seng recently informed the public via Internet that his party was harassed by LEEgime complaining to NEA when they sold their news letter North Star similarly.
IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
In the Matter of PS730-2006
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
YAP KENG HO
YAP KENG HO
Defendant Yap Keng Ho's submission are as follows:
The defense proved that the prosecution demanded Strict Liability against the defendants while there is no such liability applicable to other entities conducting similar activities which defendant had modeled his own activities in accordance with. While denying the admission of evidence gathered by defendant Yap from Xin Ming Daily regarding SPH promoting their news papers at MRT station, the court already indicated that it took notice of similar hawking activities are commonly existing in Singapore.
Defendant would like to raise the Notes of Evidence from PS718 & &21 & &26 & 729of 2006 from DJ Tian Yee Zi, to support that both BEFORE & AFTER the incident at Bangkit Road in this case, the police had done similar enforcement against the same defendants, and the evidence captured on police video proved undisputed by prosecution that many other street hawkers and fund-raisers were at the same location, side by side with the defendants, at the same time and place doing the same things, all recorded within the same police video. And It was abundantly clear that the police were only selectively enforcing PEMA specifically just against the defendants alone.
It is in evidence that Defendant Yap had observed and collected evidence of other fund raising and sales activities, and modeled his own activities in accordance with these other activities after confirming that PEMA license requirement had not been enforced against these activities. The prosecution have not contested against such facts.
It is in evidence that Defendant Yap had told various officers that he was not providing nor intended to provide any public entertainment, nor wanted to violate any laws, was merely promoting publications for the SDP to raise fund for the election expenses. Further he indicated that he was willing to be fully cooperative with the police, and asked for direction and guidelines from the police which he was willing to comply with. The police was not cooperative however, and no instructions what so ever was given. The prosecution have not contested against such facts.
It is in evidence also uncontested by prosecution, that Defendant Yap had demanded Equal Treatment from the police, and reasoned that other hawkers and sellers are doing the same sales & fund raising etc, which were deemed legitimate and did not faced enforcement under PEMA.
There is no dispute from the prosecution regarding the defense's position in this case, that the defendants were merely promoting the sales of publications and the activities took the same form as other street hawking and promotional and fund-raising activities. There is no challenge from the prosecution against defense position that police will not film nor charge the persons from these common street hawking & promotional activities for providing public entertainment without license under PEMA.
The prosecution only on the weak ground of relevancy objected against the admittance of various relevant evidence, that were raised by defense, which proved that police were satisfied that similar activities by others were NOT DEEMED TO BE PROVIDING ANY PUBLIC ENTERTAINMENT, especially when Defendant Yap called the police to check on the licenses and proved that there were no PEMA license hold by SPH as they were promoting Xin Ming Daily News Paper at Bugis MRT on 15th May 2010. The defense insist that is relevant and will apply Criminal Motion to High Court to ask for ruling to allow these evidence to be raised in this case.
The 1st ground of defense for defendant Yap will be that, STRICT LIABILITY IS NOT APPLICABLE, based on constitutional providence of Equality. As the same liability had not been applied to so many other instances and entities, even as defendant had repeated demanded, and proved to the police at scene (in case PS718 & &21 & &26 & 729of 2006) that others were conducting the same activity, (defendant Yap told DSP Chan Peng Kuan at scene as recorded in police video, & DSP Chan admitted under cross-exam). Defendant are entitled to equal protection by law under constitutional article 12. When the other similar activities of other persons are not deemed to be providing public entertainment without license, the activities in this case by defendant Yap, should be treated in no difference by law, and hence found not guilty, as these alleged activities should not be deemed to be amounted providing any public entertainments.
I challenge the prosecution to show any difference between my activity on the 15 April 2006, apart from any common street sales or promotional activities. I further challenge the prosecution to show any case law that street sellers other than Opposition Political Activists were convicted by court Under PEMA, for holding street sales of publications. I am confident that there is no other cases other than the same defendants and late Mr. JBJ's case within case law, and that Mr. JBJ's case was addressing an official opening speech for Workers Party's new office, and he was not selling anything at that time.
The second ground of defense for defendant Yap is the validity of law, the PEMA.
The relevant legislation had already been since the cases amended, this indicated that legislator discovered the necessity to regulate political activities apart from entertainment industries. The POA had been introduced at date after these cases. Defendant's argument regarding this legislation is that it is on it's face unreasonable and invalid to legislate and regulate political activities with the mixture among entertainment activities which is entirely different in nature.
It is clear that the Lee Kuan Yew Regime had intended to block challenging opposition parties from holding activities especially those held out-door, this is proven by parliamentary records raised by defendants in this case. However, within the statutes and by-laws, there is absolutely nothing that binds the court to incriminate opposition parties apart from other legal entities to hold legitimate activities out-door and not enclosed within a stadium for example.
The police officers and obviously been implementing the policy against political parties out-door activities, in this case. This is Unlawful Discrimination by the police.
The Third Ground of defense for Defendant Yap is an reinforcement of the 1st, which is there is no evidence at all that entertainment had been provided by defendant Yap, from the perspective that is NO AUDIENCE in this case. There is no one proven to be receiving or accepting any form of public entertainment in this case. Even if the defendants could be alleged to be intending to provide entertainment to the public, (which is not the charge of attempt in this case) the charges in these cases, alleged that public entertainment had been provided instead of attempted, therefore a necessary element must be RECEPIANTS, which the prosecution had not proven at all. In evidence there is no one paying attention to the allegedly provided entertainment except for police officers who were ordered to be at the scene by their Divisional HQ, and they were not at all there for purpose of receiving any public entertainment.
There was no crowd built up before SDP's sales booth, the people at the pavilion where neither audience as they were engaging in their own normal activities, there is no responses (cheers, applause etc) to any alleged entertainments, if they had purchase from the defendants that was sales and purchase transactions not amounting to entertainment, as they paid for publications and wasn't paying for entertainment. The prosecution did not alleged that any one had paid to be entertained by defendants.
The reporters were not doing any video nor voice recording nor were copying down anything said by defendants, the reporters' interest were not in anything said by defendants but rather they were interested about police officers' enforcement against defendants. The reporters did not even behaved as if they were covering any speech event. The female reporter took photos at police officers engaging the defendant, but did not take picture of defendant Yap as he held and spoke through the microphone.
The charges of providing public entertainment can not be convicted because there is no evidence of public entertainment received by any person. Entertainment is no provided unless it is received. No one in the video appeared to be entertained at all.
I challenge the prosecution to point out any recipients that were at the scene staying and paying attention to any entertainment and appears to be entertained.
The evidence showed that there were no complains about nuisance. Even if there were, nuisance will only indicate that complainants felt the disturbance and had not been amused nor entertained by what the defendant provided. In other words there is still no recipient of entertainment to cause entertainment to become provided.
The 4th ground of defense is that defendants were fully aware of police stands and enforcement present, and were cautiously and actively preventing and avoiding any violation of law in particular the PEMA. This is proven and undisputed by prosecution. Defendant Yap had actively and constantly checked on other similar street sales activities and strictly keeping his own activities within the same style and models like the other legitimate activities. He had even asked the police officer to provide a clear guide to him in order to avoid any unintended and unnecessary violation. That is to say, all efforts and best possible efforts on the part of defendant had been rendered to uphold and observe PEMA. The officers had provided no assistance to defendants even after being asked for and told about intention of cooperation, however the officers had only deliberately picked on defendants activities by constantly recording – even after defendant had packed up and left to car park. The conducts of enforcement officers is clearly to incriminate defendants; by picking on and; dis-cooperation; and bad faithed; this amounted to entrapment and inducing or force-extracting any incriminating act from the defendants. This is exactly like the defendant was struggling to stay within the law and the enforcement officer instead of help, just cornered the defendant at the fringe of law and intended cause the defendant unnecessary difficulties to keep his activities within the law, and the unlawful pressure from the enforcement officers could had cause defendant to slip in moments of negligence and be caught on the outer-fringe of law.
Thus if there were any violation under PEMA, the police officers' conducts and unlawful enforcement had only caused them, and the defendants can not be held accountable for.
The defense proved that the entire activity on 15th April 2006 was planed and executed lawfully and had no intention nor substance to provide any form of public entertainment, and had been rendering strongest efforts to prevent any unnecessary and unintended violation against PEMA, and the enforcers were influenced by a ministerial policy which unlawfully discriminated against only opposition political parties, and the enforcers were harassing the lawful activities of defendants as defendants were struggling hard to stay within the law. The acts conducted by defendant Yap was merely promotion of publication's sales, identical to other street sales activities, and that Yap had prevented any audience from building up in a public place, and kept speaking duration short and interrupted by intervals as well as change of languages and subject frequently, and adhered to introducing the publications on sale, more strictly observing & respecting PEMA than common street hawkers, as he knew that police were filming and all-out to get him under PEMA. There is no violation of law in this case but a shameful case of political discriminations and persecution victimizing the defendants, who should all be acquitted.
N THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE REPUBLIC OF SINGAPORE
In the Matter of PS730-2006
THE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR
YAP KENG HO
YAP KENG HO