SDP to present three reasons why POFMA case should be heard in open court

 

The SDP will argue before the Judge in chambers tomorrow morning to transfer the hearing to open court. We have asked the AGC whether it objects to our application but have not had a reply. Our argument is three-fold:

Unlike other cases between private entities over domestic disputes that have limited interest to the public, this matter involves a government ministry no less and a political party that will be contesting in the next GE engaged over the subject of job security of Singaporeans – a subject which survey after survey show are of great concern to the public.

Even the MOM has acknowledged in its response that: “Given the current uncertain economic climate, it is understandable that some Singaporeans feels anxious about employment prospects and retrenchments. This makes it all the more critical that public debate on the important issue of jobs is based on accurate facts, and not distortions or falsehoods.”

Two, Law Minister K Shanmugam, in addressing the enactment of POFMA, said: “Trust in institutions is important for society’s well-being and prosperity.” This includes the Courts.

In this regard, a hearing that members of the public can attend and listen to the arguments for themselves is critical.

Three, there is legal precedence for the court to order the hearing in open court. The SDP will cite at least two such cases.

Minister Josephine Teo has made serious allegations against the SDP. We are confident of our arguments and, as such, we are prepared to have them scrutinised by the court and the public. We hope that the MOM feels the same way about its case.

 

Singapore Democrats

 

 * Editor’s note: Expectedly, SDP’s application to have an open-couert hearing has been rejected on the same day.

 

 

yyy
SPONSORED ADVERTISEMENT
Loading...

31 Responses to “SDP to present three reasons why POFMA case should be heard in open court”

  • Guru:

    SDP is in Lee’s court. Hope justice prevail if this case is heard in open court cos of public interest.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • patriot of TUMASIK:

    The Sham is a Sham and will bark and wag chasing its tail whenever told to do so NOT knowing why his tail will NOT stop wagging for him in order to BITE himself for being that STOOPID!!!…he needs a Hair wig to keep his brain intact

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    HOW TO MAKE POFMA WORKS when the lunatic/drunk architects DO NOT KNOW the difference between a sword and a shield in law application?

    POFMA IS BOTH THE CAUSE AND THE EFFECTS of its self-fabricated “offending”.

    IT IS THE PINNACLE OF POLITICAL INCOMPETENCE.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • RDB:

    GOD BLESS YOU SDP! AMEN

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Harder Truths:

    Can swallow one durian whole – no sweat.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Bapak:

    Breaking news – now open court hearing. Win already, no need to go through it.

    How the public going to know there is no tok cok, tok cok inside? Are the data on the charts so sensitive? Woh, it is getting very scary.

    All the more, we have to kick PAP and all their stooges out!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Gongkias will vote pap again:

    Aiyah! SDP’s application has already been rejected as expected lah. Can give whatever reasons until the cow comes home also no use.

    We know in sg who is boss. Who calls the shot. And who is above the ‘lor’. Even Dr Tan’s appeal on PE was dismissed. Even lky’s grandson also kena charged. Anyone fighting against the loong kor’s gang will never be able to win as long as he keeps winning the GE and remain in power.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • REGIME CHANGE is the solution:

    Get back to basics. POFMA itself is a compelling reason for regime change.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ SDP

    If those were the reasons the SDP has argued in Court for proceedings to be heard in open court, those reasons are NOT GOOD ENOUGH
    .

    I have pointed out to John Tan of the SDP regarding Section 8(1) of the Supreme Court Judicature Act (SCJA) which states as follows:

    8.—(1) The place in which any court is held for the purpose of trying any cause or matter, civil or criminal, shall be deemed an OPEN and PUBLIC court to which the PUBLIC generally MAY HAVE ACCESS.

    Section 8 (2) is as follows:

    (2) The court shall have power to hear any matter or proceeding or any part thereof IN CAMERA IF the court is satisfied that it is expedient in the INTEREST OF JUSTICE , public safety, public security or propriety, or for other sufficient reason to do so.

    The ONUS is therefore for the Attorney-General’s Sri Kumar to submit to or argue in Court and or for Justice Ang to justify hearing be made in close court where the public and media are excluded.

    The SDP’s POFMA court challenge must be DISTINGUISHED from all other cases before the court, notwithstanding section 8(1) and 8(2) of the SCJA, because the Govt. has invited critics of POFMA including the New York Times, Economist, Bloomberg, South China Morning Post, Human Rights Watch etc to a dialogue during which the Govt would want to defend its position on POFMA.

    By rejecting the SDP’s application to have the hearing in open court without giving any “special reason”, only gives rise to the conclusion that what the govt has said in regards to POFMA and foreign critics being invited to a dialogue, to be PURE HUMBUG, and HYPOCRISY & brings the judicial system into disrepute.

    I suggest the SDP appeal Justice Ang’s ruling in the matter of the SCJA & the First Schedule (Form 6) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore – the judge’s oath of office, as Justice Ang had failed without good judicial arguments, the legal principle of stare decisis or binding legal precedent.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Dr Tan Tai Wei:

    Besides, this is the first of such a hearing, a test case to ascertain the claimed sincerity, truthfulness and fairness of the scheme. Hence, government should want all to see and hear.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Expected outcome:

    Hearing in open court rejected today.
    Who’s paying the judges ?
    Big bullies backed by you- know-whos.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • I'm Halimah Indian => Malay:

    AG used to be the Loony’s personal counsel, was appointed AG when Loony’s siblings challenged Loony wrt the Oxley saga.
    Ass AG is a PAPIG Crony.
    Ownself protect ownself, how to win the case when they have all their own people in the Legal

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Yahoo has reported that the SDP FAILED to have proceedings heard in open court; see link below with the headline:

    https://sg.news.yahoo.com/singapore-judge-denies-sdp-pofma-case-heard-open-court-040043733.html

    Judge denies SDP application for POFMA case to be heard in open court

    Nicholas Yong
    Assistant News Editor
    Yahoo News Singapore16 January 2020

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • N.Jungne:

    Alarmak, shiok sendiriw.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • ShamYewCum:

    Now you all can understand why I swear never to have any of my child be educated in Singapore.
    This response from the MIW is very intellectually insulting. Who do they think we are? Dafts?

    And the worse are those who support them fanatically. Totally absolutely intellectually dishonest people.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • NotMyProblem:

    The court should give reason why this case is to be held in chamber (excluded the public), it should be an open court hearing. That’s the law.

    Is there something to hide? The purpose of the court is to reveal the truth, nothing to hide!!

    Did you hear this, very commonly said in court; “to tell the truth, nothing but the truth”. Or it is when the case was held in closed chamber, there is no sure thing?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Harder Truths:

    We all know what the outcome will be – open court or closed court or marsupial court. Why are we expecting open court to be better. Through the Internet we will know all.

    So there is no excuse for not voting wisely this time other than they belong with the circus.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Susu:

    Parliament pass law to

    Bypass law.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ SDP

    “SDP to present three reasons why POFMA case should be heard in open court”

    The SDP fails to distinguish between LEGAL ARGUMENTS and the “reasons” why POFMA should be heard in open court.

    What the SDP fails to understand is that there is a STATUTE LAW called the Supreme Court Judicature Act section 8(1) where the DEFAULT hearing is in OPEN COURT unless the opposing party ie the Attorney-General’s Chamber, represented by Sri Kumar, or Justice Ang himself can show that the hearing merits a closed court hearing, ie the ONUS is on the AGC and or Justice Ang to show that there is a “special reason” for a closed court hearing, which is contrary to the Singapore Govt inviting critics from the New York Times, Economist, Bloomberg, South China Morning Post, Human Rights watch etc to observe and witness Justice Ang’s decision which must be based on fundamental legal arguments and the law whether to decide in favour or dismiss the SDP’s application.

    As I hv said on the Yahoo artilce, the SDP should appeal Justice Ang’s decision as a breach of his oath of office pursuant to the First Schedule (Form 6) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Harder Truths

    I agree with Harder Truths, open court closed court, tennis court or whatever court would not have mattered because SDP can always relate the minutes of the hearings after the case (unless the court issues a shut-up order, which I am sure it will if there is a legal ground to do so).

    Instead of wasting everybody’s time and money focusing on a 101% lose case, SDP should just go through the motion, lose the case and then concentrate on the coming GE.

    .

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Susu:

    Maybe like last time friend told me

    At small cliam the presiding mediator is not a full pledge magistrate.which law book indicate must be.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Realistically

    Wake up!

    Chambers or open or shut court has the same weight lar. The judge can go into a court toilet and make a ruling it will also be binding.

    SDP can appeal the ruling but certainly NOT for the reason you provided but the point being?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • pap S$m folks all very lazy:

    * Editor’s note: Expectedly, SDP’s application to have an open-couert hearing has been rejected on the same day.

    anyone other than pap folks who even say a single one true about pap Ljs such as lky and his clown, sure as hell shall be sued.

    but when clown brother Mr Lee Hsien Yang and clown sister Dr Lee Wei Ling said truth about clown, clown dare not sue in public court but abused parleement to ownself declare ownself INNOCENT.

    why not in open court but in parleement? because many truths shall come out which shall end the pap folks’ S$m pa ownself pay ownself income.

    so the same case with pap rejecting SDP for open court hearing.

    because in open court, clear as day pap Cb joe tiu must retract POFMA and apologize for abuse of ministerial privilege.

    so pap court rejects lah.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Marimuthu Rengansamy:

    TRE Techie:
    @Harder Truths

    I agree with Harder Truths, open court closed court, tennis court or whatever court would not have mattered because SDP can always relate the minutes of the hearings after the case (unless the court issues a shut-up order, which I am sure it will if there is a legal ground to do so).

    Instead of wasting everybody’s time and money focusing on a 101% lose case, SDP should just go through the motion, lose the case and then concentrate on the coming GE.

    .

    Open court would come along with huge amount of publicity which is much needed by the Os, esp near the election times, bodoh!

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ TRE Techie:
    January 17, 2020 at 2:24 am (Quote)
    @Realistically

    “Wake up!

    Chambers or open or shut court has the same weight lar. The judge can go into a court toilet and make a ruling it will also be binding.

    SDP can appeal the ruling but certainly NOT for the reason you provided but the point being?”

    I suggest you find out why a judge of the Supreme Court takes his oath of office pursuant to the First Schedule (Form 6) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore read with Article 2 and Article 4 and Article 12 (1) of the Constitution.

    A judge is bound by his oath and whose appointment and therefore authority and power to pronounce judicial judgment being predicated on his taking his oath of office.

    Also bear in mind of MISCONDUCT pursuant to section 16 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act.

    Oh, no need to tell me to “wake up”………as I have said I AM being FIXED by the PAPies, being, I suspect of on the blacklist….just like the WHITE HORSE stamp on the files of the privileged NSF.

    By the way, if “NOT for the reason (I) provided, you or the SDP has better reasons”? Please also note that “reasons” and legal grounds do NOT mean the same thing in a Court of law…………please do get your legal facts checked before telling me what I already know and that I have shown to have known.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • straight forward common sense:

    //Chambers or open or shut court has the same weight lar. The judge can go into a court toilet and make a ruling it will also be binding.//

    aiyoh. where got same weight ? some daft sinkies / white idiotic supporters need to see “wayang” in order to believe that “wayang” is going on ?

    if same, then why not have it in open courk leh ?

    //Please also note that “reasons” and legal grounds do NOT mean the same thing in a Court of law…………please do get your legal facts checked before telling me what I already know and that I have shown to have known.//

    common sense reason is THAT 4 is not = 5 and selected is not = elected ???? legal ground may say 4 = 5 and selected = elected ????????

    well, laymen always interpret in straight forward common sense reasoning not like some chim legal fraternity (which may need to waste so much courk time and resources) hor ?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ TRE Techie:
    January 17, 2020 at 2:24 am (Quote)
    @Realistically

    “Wake up!

    Chambers or open or shut court has the same weight lar. The judge can go into a court toilet and make a ruling it will also be binding.

    SDP can appeal the ruling but certainly NOT for the reason you provided but the point being?”

    I have said that I am filing an application for JUDICIAL REVIEW under CA/CA 119/2019 even though I had originally filed under HC/OS 1496/2018 for a reconstituted Court of Appeal (CoA) to DECLARE that the decision of the CA/CA 186/2017 court were ILLEGAL, IRRATIONAL and PROCEDURAL IMPROPRIETIES which are legal grounds/justification for JUDICIAL REVIEW, and therefore those decisions which were totally UNTENABLE for being CONTRARY to or in CONTRADICTION to SEVERAL CoA decisions on the same LEGAL ISSUES and SETTLED CASE LAWS………numbering over 30 authorities….. and that the case is ON-GOING.

    SO I HAVE THE EXPERIENCE going through the Court process even if I alleged that I am on the BLACKLIST to be “FIXED”……..I therefore KNOW WHAT I AM TALKING ABOUT.

    If you like to know, the Judge who heard my 1st stage appeal COMMENDED on my submissions and asked if I were a LAWYER. A Judge of Appeal described me as INTELLIGENT also for my written submissions in one of the CA/SUMS……….
    By the FACT that the said judges showed their admiration for how I have represented myself as a LITIGANT IN PERSON shows that I am NOT ignorant of the LAW.

    You might like to read up on the Constitution and the Rule of Law.

    As for JUDICIAL REVIEW, you might like to read up the lecture given by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon at the Annual Bernstein Lecture in Comparative Law at Duke University School of Law Durham, North Carolina, 1 November 2018.

    Thank you

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • pull out their legal rabbit:

    //If you like to know, the Judge who heard my 1st stage appeal COMMENDED on my submissions and asked if I were a LAWYER. A Judge of Appeal described me as INTELLIGENT also for my written submissions in one of the CA/SUMS…//

    aiyoh. i say that the white idiots and gang are lagi intelligent (1st class) ? the white idiots could come up with 4 = 5 and selected = elected and inside is not within, how can you ever win any appeal, if any ?

    if one tells the white idiots that 4 = 5, the white idiots would whack him hard and say that 4 = 4 and lecture him ‘whole day’ on mathematical logic ?? however, if one then says that 4 = 4, the white idiots will pull out their legal rabbit from another hat ???

    just name any one case (or two cases just to double confirm confirm) in the recent history that the white idiotic gang has ever lost any case against their porlictical opposite lar ? frankly, when it comes to such matters, the white idiots and gang are laughably ridiculous and incredulously unreasonable ????

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • tite in and Realistically:

    @ TRE Techie:
    January 17, 2020 at 2:24 am (Quote)

    “Wake up!

    Chambers or open or shut court has the same weight lar. The judge can go into a court toilet and make a ruling it will also be binding.

    SDP can appeal the ruling but certainly NOT for the reason you provided but the point being?”

    The latest High Court judge described my application for judicial review as “NOVEL”.

    If I had taken the attitude which YOU and many others have taken, I would have to lan lan accept the T of justices……………..against me. AND forfeit the chance to tell my side of the LAW and the PAPies would continue with FIXING those on their BLACKLIST…………Of course those who have breached their oaths of office pursuant to the First Schedule (Form 6) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore and also the concomitant breach of Article 12 (1) would hopefully also be charged for “MISCONDUCT” pursuant to section 16 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act.

    M

    Tech: I have absolutely no idea who you or what your case is, so please do not hijack other threads to cry father cry mother your own case. If you want to air your own case, please write in and relate your own case.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Sleeping:

    Abuse of power – we do not have a congress or a senate to block these abuse of power . We pray our other branches are not sleeping either .

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Sleeping on the job SOJ:

    Shake head .. this will never happen when the old one is around .. right across the board paid incompetence .. hey I am paid not to know – what wrong with dat?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...

Leave a Reply

 characters available


Scroll Down For More Interesting Stuff


Member Services
Self-SupportMembers Login
Sponsored Advertisement
Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement
Most Recent Comments
  • TRE Techie: Wabianz 21 days of national holiday. Sinkaporeans can only dream. lol .
  • TRE Techie: @Harder Truths: No lar, you misunderstood the millister liao. Plan A: No need to buy or wear mask because...
  • Truth Seeker: As a friend in China who is mostly trapped in her apartment wrote on Chinese social media, after years...
  • Dr. Chan: When you say government pay – does it mean money from the taxpayers or from ministers accounts?...
  • Minister seow on: walau, ministers personally go warehouse to check mask stockpile. so super on. Did they personally...
  • Minister, POFMA Strait times: This minister should just POFMA straits times. Here is ST headline: Wuhan virus: $100 a...
  • You are funny: You must be writing this in the reverse way, right? Already, a taxi driver got it from Wuhan...
  • Asd: I think this another half say half no say no say clearly enough for who or for what but just say enough how...
  • Asd: I think must say clearly ma half say half no say it’s like telling half truth then complain complain that...
  • TRE Techie: @Truth Seeke If MOM introduces checks, then I can agree with the payment to employers. However, I am...
  • Harder Truths: So…government Plan A – wear masks. This will defeat CoV for sure. We say so. If you say...
  • TruBlu: Yada,yada,yada … Fake news! Enough masks?! I go GUARDIAN SHOPS,SOLD OUT. I GO UNITY,SOLD OUT! I GO...
  • TRE Techie: SMOS say liao: “As there is currently no local transmission of the 2019-nCoV infection, masks are...
  • TruBlu: So again,poor jobless n needy sgs get NOTHING,ZILCH? IS SUCH KIND OF POLICY INCLUSIVE FOR SGPOREAN SOCIETY AT...
  • Harder Truths: CoV Progression Charts can be found here https://www.zerohedge.com/heal th/coronavirus-geometric-pr...
  • TRE Techie: PM Lee is actually not wrong at all. SARS in 2002 kenna approx 250+ infected and killed 33. This...
Announcement
Advertisements
Advertisements
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic