include("cmp.php");

Refusing to sign a document is a basic human right

I refer to this article.

Okay, I know everyone has been caught up with Parti Liyani’s contraversial case lately, but today I’ll like to bring the focus to another victim of the system – Jolovan Wham

1) Who is Jolovan Wham?

Jolovan Wham is an activist, and a social work who has been fighting for the rights of marginalised migrant workers in Singapore. This person has so far maintained a low profile until events in the recent years put him in the spotlight. Singaporeans both love and hate him, with many supporting his beliefs in reaching out to the underpriviliged, while others view him as a troublemaker.

Jolovan Wham has been convicted of multiple offenses in the courts, which includes:
-He claimed Malaysia’s judges are better. (Wah, that is one serious crime there, folks.)
-He held a candlelight vigil for an executed prisoner convicted of drug trafficking.
-He stood outside the Supreme Court with a smiley face drawn on a cardboard.
-He refused to sign a police statement.

And……? That’s it? Wah! Pai kia siah! Gangster!

Seriously, with the way mainstream media described him, I thought he was some kind of criminal mastermind. But we’ll take a look at the character assassination another time.

Today’s topic is about one of the crimes Jolovan wham is convicted of. Refusing to sign a police document.

2) Is refusing to sign a police statement a crime?

When I first heard the news, I was absolutely shocked! Dun sign statement is a crime meh? So I did my own research, and yes, it is a crime. [LINK]

So, sorry. It’s written down in black and white. No arguing your way out of that one.

Then I started to wonder. If I exercise my human rights to refuse to sign any document, will I be jailed too?

3) Refusing to sign a document is a BASIC HUMAN RIGHT.

If salesman gives you a contract and tells you to sign it, do you have the right to refuse?

If a prospective employer drafts up a contract and asks you to sign it, do you have the right to refuse? (You just don’t get the job, duh.)

If your spouse comes up to you and demands you sign the divorce papers, do you have the right to refuse? (You go to court, but you get the point.)

So why should a legal document be any different? Just because it’s a legal document that can be used in a court of law, I don’t have the right to refuse to sign it?

I AM A HUMAN BEING. I HAVE MY OWN FREE WILL. I HAVE THE RIGHT TO CHOOSE NOT TO SIGN A DOCUMENT!

It doesn’t matter who presents that document! That person can be a policeman, a minister, the Pope, the Queen of England for all I care! I must maintain my right to refuse to sign.

4) What is the purpose behind this law?

We now know there is such a law. Now we must ask WHY? Why is there even such a law? How does this law protect the interest of the public? Who are those who will benefit from this law, and who are those who will be crippled by it? What are the possible ramifications of this law?

In my honest opinion, this creates what I call a double dead end scenario. Heads he wins, tails you lose.

Picture this scenario. A) The suspect signs a statement, the statement is presented before the courts, and the suspect is convicted and jailed. B) The suspect refuse to sign the statement. The police charge him for refusing to sign the police statement, and the suspect is jailed, regardless.

DID THIS POSSIBILITY NEVER ONCE OCCURRED TO ANYONE?!? AT ALL?!

6) To my knowledge, only ONE COUNTRY in the world can criminalise you for refusing to sign a police statement.

Take a guess which country.

Well, admittedly, I did not go through the entire law system of all 195 countries in the world and verified that none of them had such a law. And I wouldn’t be surprised if North Korea has something like that. But go ahead, if you have knowledge on this matter, feel free to prove me wrong. Please correct me if I am wrong.

5) Do you believe that it is a human right to refuse to sign a document?

Signing a document, requires what we call, free will. Or else you can just get a robot to do it. It also needs to recognize you as a human, or else your cat or dog could do it.

Repeat after me:
It is a basic human right to refuse to sign a document.

Maybe if you repeat it enough times, you will start to believe it too.

For those who say I am wrong, we do not have the right to refuse to sign a document…… Well, I have a few documents from the bank here. You go and sign them for me, okay?

 

Angry Citizen

 

 

yyy
SPONSORED ADVERTISEMENT
Loading...

97 Responses to “Refusing to sign a document is a basic human right”

  • Police Close Down:

    Some people got super huge egos, they cannot be refused.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Harder Truths:

    Happy North Korea got human rights meh? Since when?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • I think the writer so sadly mistaken liao the difference between a statement and a contractual document.

    Actually if the law says you must sign it, then sign it lor, why make the IO’s job difficult and your life difficult? Like it or not, the IO is very powderful one and can make life hell for you, so why make him hate you?

    If he hates you, he can gib you bail and report every 2 weeks, impound your passport and then suka suka call you back for coffee and repeat the process all over again for years! Check with the previous owner of TRE, he should be able to relate.

    Anyway, the law says must sign the statement but the law did not say you must give a statement right? So you can choose to give zero statement wat, dio bo? If very sure never do crime means never do lor, no need to say anything wat.

    Once a senior officer from the police ever told me:

    It is not your job to help us incriminate yourself. You need not have to help us do our job if you do not want to (admit guilt).

    However, if you strongly believe that you are innocent, help us to prove that.

    What do you think?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Cannot like dat:

    According to the famous high court judge, it is not the job of the accused to prove his/her innocence. He criticised the district judge for that wrong process.

    The police/judge must prove the guilt. Innocence is presumed, and need not be proven!

    E.g., in Parti’s case, police/judge wanted her to prove that every item belonged to her. Can anyone prove that every item in your household belong to you? You keep receipts? You have witnesses to the sale? Impossible.

    The police is wrong!

    TRE Techie: However, if you strongly believe that you are innocent, help us to prove that.

    What do you think?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Cannot like dat

    I agree with you. I think what the officer meant to say was that if you are innocent and there is an allegation against you, just tell us why and get the matter done and over with.

    For example, there is an allegation against me for murder and if I were to go by your logic and chooses to remain silent, then police would have to spend time investigating, which may take years. In the meantime, I would remain remanded (murder wor, sibei serious one), worth the trouble?

    However, if say on that day (of the murder) I wasn’t even in the country, all that’s needed is for me to say so and they can verify that and leave me alone, thereby dedicating more of their time to find the real culprit. Dio bo?

    So it all boils down to having to weigh the options available and mind you, not all police IO believe in that “innocent until proven gilty” crap. Speaking from experience, most IO has this unconscious biases that once a police report has been lodged against you, you MUST BE GUILTY.

    BTW, for drug cases, the presumption is the other way round, one is guilty until proven innocent.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    Mr Techie, I disagree.

    A statement is a declaration and acknowledgment. If they don’t need our declaration and acknowledgment, why is there even a need for a signature?

    In Jolovan’s case, he did not personally see the statement. HE HAD EVERY RIGHT TO REFUSE TO ACKNOWLEDGE IT. TO JAIL HIM FOR THAT IS PURE TRAMPLING ON HIS RIGHTS.

    Also, havent you considered the 2 scenarios I mentioned? A) You sign and go to jail. B) You dont sign, and go to jail for the crime of not signing.

    You do realize how dangerous this law is, right?

    TRE Techie:
    I think the writer so sadly mistaken liao the difference between a statement and a contractual document.

    Actually if the law says you must sign it, then sign it lor, why make the IO’s job difficult and your life difficult? Like it or not, the IO is very powderful one and can make life hell for you, so why make him hate you?

    If he hates you, he can gib you bail and report every 2 weeks, impound your passport and then suka suka call you back for coffee and repeat the process all over again for years! Check with the previous owner of TRE, he should be able to relate.

    Anyway, the law says must sign the statement but the law did not say you must give a statement right? So you can choose to give zero statement wat, dio bo? If very sure never do crime means never do lor, no need to say anything wat.

    Once a senior officer from the police ever told me:

    It is not your job to help us incriminate yourself. You need not have to help us do our job if you do not want to (admit guilt).

    However, if you strongly believe that you are innocent, help us to prove that.

    What do you think?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Angry Citizen:

    Yes, a statement is a declaration and an affirmation (still not a contract hor) of what we have said. So it is therefore reasonable to sign since the information is what we have provided, no?

    Jolovan is already an “old bird” when it comes to giving statements (not his first brush with the laws) and I don’t believe that he is not shown the statement by the IO to verify what he has said.

    It is in fact standard procedure that the statement be shown to him, or else how to verify and sign, dio bo? So in this instance, I am tempted to believe that Jolovan was being uncooperative and playing nasty, making an IO’s job difficult.

    Like I said, not happy to give a statement, just choose to give zero statement but sign on that blank piece of paper lar, the IO probably warned him about the law requiring to sign the statement but he chooses to be defiant, now you blame the IO for charging him, not fair to the IO right?

    Regardless of how one may perceive a law to be fair or unfair, this is Sillyppore and playing hardball and defiant will only cause ourselves to suffer and remember that the IO is merely an employee very low low in the food chain, why make his job more difficult than it already is?

    Even if in the event that the IO did not show Jolovan the statement to verify, he can always remark on the paper that contains the supposed statements “I was not shown this statement to verify”, simple right?

    And I don’t agree with you about sign or don’t sign also go to jail. If he had not committed an offense, signing on the statement would not land him in jail, right?

    As someone on the sideline, I cannot confirm what Jolovan was thinking, but even I also feels that Jolovan holding up a smiley is not to take a selfie, but he was supporting someone else’s cause (he announced it on social media, didn’t he?), which is why he was charged according to whatever supposedly “unfair” law in force. Peasants cannot any how chut pattern one, only aristocrats can. So support someone must quiet quiet do one.

    The police are also human beings lar, if you don’t give them a reason to shoot you, why would they (political cases excepted)? These IOs really eat too free nothing to do meh? They got other cases to handle, why bother with Jolovan’s anak anak case, dio bo?

    Don’t believe me, tomorrow you bring a smiley to Cantonment Complex and take a selfie at the entrance, just don’t say anything. If the police sentry ask, just say you taking a selfie because you think the police have done a wonderful job keeping the cuntry safe, see you kenna arrested or charged bo. lol

    I say all this is not because I love the police, I have also been ‘harassed’ by them before but in my experience with them, I learn that they are not all that bad after all (maybe I was lucky to have met professional ones). Of course, there are some rotten eggs in the force, but generally they don’t disturb you just to have some fun, I am sure they all have better things to do.

    Don’t every time something happens cry political persecution is what I mean to say, Jolovan is not a politician and I am sure he is a nice guy helping the migrant workers and all that stuff and I am sure some of the IOs also know that and respect him deep down inside.

    Jolovan knows that Sinkieland got law say 1 person walk walk can also count as illegal assembly, he wants to support the other’s cause, fair but keep low profile and do it quietly lar, why must announce his INTENTION to the whole world?

    In criminal proceedings, INTENTION is everything in securing a conviction and it is very hard to prove. By announcing one’s INTENTION to the whole world, IMHO, one would have already convicted oneself.

    I stand corrected.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • crazy law:

    if the statement is not your statement, how to sign it?

    you know what I mean.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • crazy law:
    if the statement is not your statement, how to sign it?

    you know what I mean.

    Simple:

    1. Ask to IO to correct teh mistakes or get him to re-take the statement from beginning, or
    2. Before signing, put a remark above the signature space “this is not my statement” or something to that effect and then sign.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • TRE freerider:

    but generally they don’t disturb you just to have some fun, I am sure they all have better things to do.

    Well, that could just mean that you are a insignificant body, not able to motivate anybody. Or simply put, a Nobody!, not a threat to the empire.

    Jolovan knows that Sinkieland got law say 1 person walk walk can also count as illegal assembly, he wants to support the other’s cause, fair but keep low profile and do it quietly lar, why must announce his INTENTION to the whole world?

    Apparently, his motive is benevolence, sacrificing himself to prove a point but yours is merely as Selfish individual, forsaking the purpose of TRE. If everyone in TRE behaves like you, then might as well close down. I am beginning to ask, What is your purpose of existent in TRE? generating profits? as incomes? or What?

    In criminal proceedings, INTENTION is everything in securing a conviction and it is very hard to prove. By announcing one’s INTENTION to the whole world, IMHO, one would have already convicted oneself.

    We are not doubting, not that we are saying, but character like you will hide in one corner when they is a cause to react, to contribute to the real democracy for the country goodness. OK then, How would you have done if you were him?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ TRE Techie

    DON’T THINK YOU ARE RIGHT on this one.

    TRE Techie: Actually if the law says you must sign it, then sign it lor, why make the IO’s job difficult and your life difficult? Like it or not, the IO is very powderful one and can make life hell for you, so why make him hate you?

    Forced signing of statement (it can be twisted of words and substance contents by the prosecution) is MEDIEVAL LAW practice of “trial by ordeal”.

    An example would in this ancient “law” practice is to tie up the suspect and cast him/her into body of water (lake or river). If the suspect floats without assistance and alive, he is “guilty” – an IMPOSIBILITY of fact and reality.

    If the suspect dies in drowning, HE/SHE is “innocent” and CONVENIENTLY DEAD.

    Duhamie’s Law Dictionary: In trial by cold water ordeal, the accused was thrown into a pool of water bound. If he sank and drowned he was innocent (and conveniently dead). If he floated and did not sink, he was taken to have been “rejected” by the water and must necessarily be guilty.

    Here is the weblink to the above.

    http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/T/TrialbyOrdeal.aspx#:~:text=The%20trial%20of%20a%20criminal,England%2C%20by%20torture%20or%20drowning.&text=The%20accused%20had%20his%20arm,distance%2C%20bare%2Dhanded%20naturally.

    After you sign the statement, THE ONUS IS SHIFTED ON TO THE SUSPECT to prove his innocence i.e. you are guilty or presumed guilty UNLESS YOU PROVE OTHERWISE.

    The criminal law application is TURNED UPSIDE DOWN and you – TRE techie – cowed to the IO???

    You “saved” some inconvenience of him/her make your life miserable in exchange for years of imprisonment for no crime committed?

    Once you signed the IO’s “spin” (but now disputed) statement of “crime offence”, prove that to the judge that it is signed without consent or extracted under duress (the judge already knew but he/she can’t take side!!)

    IT IS HUMAN RIGHT VIOLATION of forcing anyone to sign any document – contract or otherwise – against his/her will.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ TRE techie

    LAW IS A LIVING ANIMAL – it can be an Australian cuddly koala, a hopping kan**roo or a vicious Tasmanian devil (now extinct). So be very careful of what you signed your life away – innocently or duped.

    Know of this encounter of a so-called “foreign expert” on a professional engagement in China was “sweetly seduced” with charming invitation to sign a “supplementary” service contract (with vague and unstated terms) INSIDE China (destination) upon arrival.

    This “foreign expert” already signed a similar contract couriered to him/her in his origination country.

    Advice to this “foreign expert” was DON’T SIGN this supplementary (dud) contract which meant that he/she “violated” the original contract, rescinding its terms to refuse service. Or the employer now has the right to terminate the original contract and service agreement.

    IT WAS A CUNNING TRICK – the supplementary contract – to be signed INSIDE CHINA is the real thing BECAUSE CHINESE LABOR LAW DO NOT RECOGNISE ANY CONTRACT signed (by the foreign expert in alleged “acceptance”) in a foreign jurisdiction. That is to say – foreign sovereigns don’t rule China, China is ruled from Beijing, not Ottawa, Washington, London or Canberra.

    Had this foreign expert signed that supplementary contract, he is dead meat – the employer can under pay him, denied health care protection, even demand his passport possession as security (until end contract).

    This foreigner smartly told the Chinese counterpart this – “I won’t sign your supplementary contract as I am -until commencement of service – still on holiday arrival, intends to apply for extension from vacational travel and return him thereafter. I AM CHECKING INTO A HOTEL TONIGHT AND WON’T BE CONTACTABLE henceforth”

    NO SURPRISE!

    The Chinese counterparty wilted and collapsed. They took out a duplicate copy of the original contract (signed abroad) and stated that in handwriting – this is a certified true copy of the original and invite the “foreign expert” to put his/her signature as verification of true contract.

    IT WAS FORWARDED TO THE CHINESE LABOR DEPARTMENT FOR RECORD FILING and the foreign expert IMMEDIATELY GOT HIS JOB/SERVICE ENGAGEMENT reinstated on previously agreed term before departure from home country into China!!

    The moral of this encounter is this – never sign anything you don’t agree. LET THE SO-CALLED (metaphorical “KOALA”, “KANGAROO” OR “TASMANIAN DEVIL” or even mosquitoes) do his/her own bidding on his/her own account – IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH THE TERMS.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @TRE freerider

    No doubt Jolovan is a noble person doing a worthy cause and I am sure he is sincere. For the record, I am in support of everything he is doing for the migrant workers.

    To clarify, we are discussing his refusal to sign the police statement here, not his other acts.

    My point is that he need not cheong head on into a law barricade when there are other ways of getting things done, like expressing his support on his FB page or some other ways he need not be “caught” by the law net. To refuse to sign a statement which he gave knowing that doing so would result in a certain charge is plain stupidity, IMHO.

    I have said in this thread, its your statement, so whats the issue when you are merely asked to affirm what you have said? There are also options to give a zero statement (which is perfectly legal) and you can insist that the IO correct the statement over and over and over and over and over and over again until you are completely satisfied that the statement is what you meant to say (also perfectly legal).

    As far as the charge pertaining to refusal to sign statement is concerned, I believe that he has snooked himself and handed the prosecution a bullet to shoot himself, which was IMHO, plain stupidity. He must know that he is most useful outside prison walls helping the migrant workers than him being inside a prison.

    Again and with reference to myself, there are many ways of showing support for Terry, Leong or Jolovan and I am not afraid to do so within the confines of applicable laws. In this respect, I can loudly say on TRE that I don’t think Leong, Terry or Jolovan should be charged or sued at all. You really don’t expect me to hold a smiley and go to High Court and take a selfie in support of them (and land myself in jail) right? That would be too impulsive and plain stupidity. If doing so would mean that they are going to be exonerated, then maybe I can seriously consider since I am waking up every day thanking God for the borrowed time anyway.

    As for why I am on TRE, its because TRE is a platform for fellow Sinkies to cry father, cry mother and provide an avenue for their voice to be heard. I ensure that the comment form works, articles are published by the system on time, servers are working without glitch, system OS and patches are updated, etc etc etc. Thats how an insignificant me contribute, in the best way I know how.

    @Oxygen

    Which is why I have been repeating, always make sure that the statement you sign is what you wanted or else make the necessary corrections manually and then initial it.

    There is nothing legally stopping an accused/witness from making a correction on a prepared statement if there is such a need. In fact, it is encouraged because it proves that the statement has been read, more binding in a court of law.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    Mr Techie, you are saying that Jolovan is lying, and that he did see the statement but chose to play troll and refused to sign it. How can you be so sure? Maybe it’s because of his experiences in the past, that is how he knows this particular statement has problems ringing in his head, therefore a really bad idea to sign?

    And the scenario I described has ALREADY HAPPENED. Jolovan could either A) sign and go jail as his statement proves guilt, or B) go to jail for not signing.

    We need to look at the purpose and implications of this law. IMHO, this law was created to make IO jobs eaiser and secure higher conviction rates, while throwing suspects’ rights out the window.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    Oh I absolutely agree. And has it occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, this was why he did not sign?

    Not that peasants and lesser mortals like us will ever know for absolute certain which side told the true story.

    TRE Techie:

    @Oxygen

    Which is why I have been repeating, always make sure that the statement you sign is what you wanted or else make the necessary corrections manually and then initial it.

    There is nothing legally stopping an accused/witness from making a correction on a prepared statement if there is such a need. In fact, it is encouraged because it proves that the statement has been read, more binding in a court of law.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    I need to add one very important point. Mainstream media has been very effective at using character assassination on these people in question.

    Case in point, Chee Soon Juan, Li Sheng Wu. And just listen to what Shanmugam said about Benjamin and Parti Liyani. The list goes on.

    The want to spread doubt, make us think that these people have questionable intent. But I suggest we scrutinize their actions, and consider whose advantage it will be to have these people’s name smeared with mud.

    Maybe Jolovan is a troll. But what if he isn’t?

    My stand is this. Jolovan refused to sign a police statement. He was well within his right to do so. But the written law says no.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Angry Citizen

    No, I did not say that Jolovan is lying. I said it was plain stupid of him not to sign the statement, thereby snooking himself.

    What I do know however, that it is a standard procedure that the IO MUST show an accused the statement he gave to verify and then sign.

    MAYBE this IO is one of those rogue IO that wants Jolovan to sign blindly or maybe Jolovan was playing hardball and simply refuses to sign the statement, I don’t really know because I wasn’t there. Only Jolovan and the IO has the answer.

    Like I said, even if the IO was indeed rogue and tried to play punk, Jolovan could have added a remark above his signature to reflect that he was asked to sign the statement blindly without time to verify it. That was an option open to Jolovan and would have helped greatly in a court of law should he decides to claim trial.

    Which is why like Oxygen said, always read carefully, do not panic and remain compose and sign only when you are sure that was what you had said.

    As for the merits of that particular law, I think it is better to direct that question to the Law Ministry as me no lawyer, so what I think is irrelevant and won’t change the fact that the law is there.

    I could go on and on discussing the “purpose and implications of this law” with you but it would be to no end in sight. There are always 2 sides to a coin and there will always be pros and cons to each side.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ TRE techie

    WHAT IF THE PROSECUTION SIDE demanded that the accused sign it “as it is”? Or else refusal to sign offends the law.

    In those circumstances, the prosecution can re-write the passage and presented in the courtroom as “the copy” which the accused refused to sign in “offence” of the law.

    In Australia, the police is well known for “verbalize” the accused alleged confession of its own TWISTED VERSION OF CONFESSION ACCOUNT.

    This is found in the Wood Royal Commission into police corruption and misconduct.

    https://eprints.qut.edu.au/68084/

    and

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Commission_into_the_New_South_Wales_Police_Service

    AND THIS IS WHY WHEN CHALLENGED IN THE COURTROOM, the judges routinely threw out these signed “confession”.

    The trial will proceed on the strength of the balance of evidence presented.

    TRE Techie: Which is why I have been repeating, always make sure that the statement you sign is what you wanted or else make the necessary corrections manually and then initial it.

    There is nothing legally stopping an accused/witness from making a correction on a prepared statement if there is such a need. In fact, it is encouraged because it proves that the statement has been read, more binding in a court of law.

    Which is why I am in strong agreement that the accused has every right to refuse to sign police statement.

    THE PROSECUTION MUST PROVE THE MERIT OF ITS ALLEGATION.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    TRE Techie:

    Like I said, even if the IO was indeed rogue and tried to play punk, Jolovan could have added a remark above his signature to reflect that he was asked to sign the statement blindly without time to verify it.

    Or he could maybe, you know, not sign it?

    Except that was how he got jailed.

    Your boss ask you to sign something without seeing, you sign first then remark “I never see”, izzit?

    Come on lah! Don’t use reasons that even you yourself don’t believe.

    Tech: Wrong, you remark first then sign later. You mentioned Boss, which is a different matter as you have an option not to sign or read before you sign.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Doabayeo:

    If the statement is a statement of fact, what is wrong signing it?

    Refusing to sign would appear to speak poorly for the individual who gave the statement.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Angry Citizen

    We all know which side of MSM’s bread is buttered on, pointless to even bother to discuss that.

    As far as statement signing is concerned, there is no maybe, you MUST sign, its simple as that, PERIOD.

    BUT there is no law that says making an amendment or making a remark on a statement is forbidden in law, which is what I have been saying Jolovan could and should have done, if he was indeed forced to blindly sign a statement.

    Doabayeo is right when he remarked “If the statement is a statement of fact, what is wrong signing it?”, which is what I have been saying and agree with.

    P/S: Please do not take my word wholesale. Always check with a lawyer whenever in doubt.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Doabayeo

    THE STATEMENT OF “FACT/S” can be a bundled of twisted lies of the prosecution’s “interpretation” of those “facts” (read in reality as “lies”.)

    The Wood Royal Commission found plenty in public cross-examination under oath.

    Give you an example of real happening. The statement of fact in the Wood Royal Commission found police “consuming” what is called in their jargon as “grass”. The statement of facts can easily be interpreted in the layman’s mind as smoking canabis BUT THE GRASS -so-called fact of grass means “LEGALLY” FORCIBLY THEFT OF CASH i.e. loot to be shared among corrupt police officers.

    Confounding enough?

    It is “legal” because the police have been lawfully invited into the house “burglared” or “robbed” by home invasion criminal. The police did not entered the ransacked/robbed home without the owner’s permission by climbing through the window of “break and enter” criminal offence. Once inside, the investigating officers ask the owner – where did you keep your money allegedly stolen/robbed. Show us where you hid your cash!!

    On seeing the cash, the police helped themselves to it – TO THE SHOCK AMAZEMENT OF THE CRIME VICTIM – they were robbed by criminals, now get robbed by the police who was there to investigate crime.

    The corrupt policemen will share the loot among themselves – they call it “grass”. If the robbed house-owner report to police again of ROBBED TWICE -first by the criminal and then by the police, what do you think the ‘STATEMENT OF FACTS” WILL DISCLOSE OR NOT DISCLOSED??

    Where and who is the witness of truths to testify the “statement of fact”??

    Doabayeo: If the statement is a statement of fact, what is wrong signing it?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD – television cops exist only on television screen, THE REAL WORLD OUTSIDE IS very different of reality encounter.

    Suspect or witness must not be forced to sign statement of facts (sometimes twisted lies) against their will.

    ABC net.au:A decade after crooked cop Trevor Haken rolled over at the Wood Royal Commission into police corruption, he remains in fear of his life and says he has been left out in the cold by authorities, having reached his used-by date. … But Haken was on the take.

    The reckoning of a police whistleblower

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2005-10-09/the-reckoning-of-a-police-whistleblower/2120406

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Curious:

    It depends on the forms of recording.

    Those PCs handling small cases like lost and found, well they are so stretched as Parliament said that you can be sure of broken English in their statement typing.

    However for IO investigating an activist or political opponent, well I am sure its a different settings all together. For example;

    It seems all collaborated and concerted.
    From MSM character assassination, unsubstantiated claims like in AHTC case, to institution withholding of needed funds to run the town council, to police handcuffing, Coincident?

    Particularly, I would suppose if I am the IO, I would be tempted to draft or crave statements all in line with my angle of attack in court to make my job easy.

    So, No, if you are unsatisfied with the statements as recorded, there is not a need to sign in. Lawfully you can refuse because it does not represent what you have said. So no law is broken by refusing because of such reasons.

    Doabayeo:
    If the statement is a statement of fact, what is wrong signing it?

    Refusing to sign would appear to speak poorly for the individual who gave the statement.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    1) The statement might not actually be what I gave.

    2) My decision, my free will, my rights to not sign anything, regardless of what kind of statement or document it is.

    If you disregard the right of the human, you might as well sign it yourself. Or ask a puppy or cat to sign.

    Doabayeo:
    If the statement is a statement of fact, what is wrong signing it?

    Refusing to sign would appear to speak poorly for the individual who gave the statement.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    1) I can see you don’t fully trust MSM, yet you join them in questioning Jolovan’s account of the events?

    I’m saying that I believe him when he say he never saw the statement properly, but you believe otherwise?

    Well, perhaps we’ll never know the truth for absolutely sure. But I know who I’d rather believe. Confirmation bias?

    2)
    ……. Are you really serious? You really think it is that easy to retract a statement in the courts after you signed it?

    Remind me, how many times in history has that been successful?

    TRE Techie:
    @Angry Citizen

    We all know which side of MSM’s bread is buttered on, pointless to even bother to discuss that.

    As far as statement signing is concerned, there is no maybe, you MUST sign, its simple as that, PERIOD.

    BUT there is no law that says making an amendment or making a remark on a statement is forbidden in law, which is what I have been saying Jolovan could and should have done, if he was indeed forced to blindly sign a statement.

    Doabayeo is right when he remarked “If the statement is a statement of fact, what is wrong signing it?”, which is what I have been saying and agree with.

    P/S: Please do not take my word wholesale. Always check with a lawyer whenever in doubt.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    Curious:

    So, No, if you are unsatisfied with the statements as recorded, there is not a need to sign in. Lawfully you can refuse because it does not represent what you have said. So no law is broken by refusing because of such reasons.

    Except that Jolovan was charged and convicted of not signing a police statement.

    To everyone, find me another country in the world that criminalises suspects for refusing to sign a police statement.

    Go ahead I dare you.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    THE SO-CALLED “RULE OF LAW” is arguably the most hackneyed catcall coming out of the legal mouths. Whose law may I ask?

    That one must sign a statement of fact failing of which offends criminal law (whose interpreted statement of facts was that from??) in my mind speaks volume of it being “thugs law” of construction and application or at least “otherwise wrong” at Administrative law.

    If that purported statement refused of signatory is meritorious of facts – whoever the author/s or proposer/s would be reluctant to admit of its disclosed contents by putting his/her signature/s to it?

    REMEMBER THE FIRST PRINCIPLE AND TENET OF ADMINISTRATIVE LAW APPLICATION is the right of the applicant/complainant/witness to be heard – unfettered. If those peasants are coerced into signing statement of alleged facts which he/she/they are in contest (and refused of signature in agreement), EXACTLY WHERE THE RIGHT TO BE HEARD – unfettered in administrative law is supplied or afforded to the aggrieved party?

    Imagine this hypothetical – if CPF Board send you – a pioneer generation nearly reaching 80 years of age in retirement surviving by the skin of your CPF balance monthly withdrawal -a notification that your funds therein is confiscated to fund the pandemic rescue of retrenched household and broken business AND IT BANNED YOU FROM APPEALING by its law. How does that of what I would call “thugs law” GRABS you if it also sent you a statement of fact demanding you signed consents in “statement of facts” that you allegedly “agreed” not to appeal against that administrative determination against your survival and interest and failing which you have mandatorily offends criminal law?

    The law might as well “approve” the blindfold of the suspect/accused and bashed him/her to near death to secure a confession of crime the alleged offender never commit.

    Remember this, in all criminal prosecution, the Crown has UNLIMITED DEEP POCKET funded out of tax-payers including the accused/suspect and the defendant has to fight his/her defence out of his own pocket. Where is the scale of justice when the suspect/accused is forced to sign his/her confessions or otherwise committed a crime?

    THIS IS MEDIEVAL LAW OF JUNGLE OF TRIAL BY ORDEAL – you are either guilty as charged or innocent but conveniently dead.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Curious

    The problem I see with your argument is that should the case goes to court with you refusing to sign the statement (say it was not what you said or maybe even fabricated), then what chances do you think you have that the court would actually believe you claiming that you refused to sign the statement because it is fabricted and therefore not your statement of fact? Note that the courts are almost ALWAYS leaned towards the prosecution.

    It then all boils down to you say they say, you think the judge will believe who?

    Which is why I say, if teh law says MUST sign, then sign lor, but add in a remark, be it fabricted, not factual or may even not be what you had intended to say, just add it to the statement you are asked to sign. So simple and avoid the extra charge (of refusing to sign), better right?

    That having said, I really cannot think of any reason why an IO would not want to allow you to read the statement you gave. It would be suicide for an IO to try to fabricate a statement because whats true cannot be untrued and vice versa. There is no perfect crime, sooner or later the truth would be out.

    Most IOs I know really do not like to take statements and the faster it is done with, the better for them to refer the case to the AGC, so why waste time?

    Of course one cannot discount the possibility of “politically charged” cases, but for the sake of this discussion, lets stick to the norm.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Curious:

    @ TRE Techie;

    Firstly, if it was your own statement, then you should not have any qualms signing it. With that said, then you must already have valid reasons in your mind for insisting not to sign it.
    Example:

    I stabbed him.
    versus
    In the mist of the struggle with him and to defend myself from his punches, the knife accidently poke him.

    Reference: Lying and the Omission of Exculpatory Evidence in Police Reports
    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/327208246.pdf

    The penal code is very clear: Statement made by you and not recording made by others. So the best is to sign your own hand written statements since the code did not make any distinction here.

    Your honor, I signed the hand written statements made by me for them but they refused to accept it. Your honor, their typed written statement purporting to be statement made by me are not verbatim of the statements that I have made particularly including exculpatory evidence I made on my private defense, so I refused to sign it.

    I find it rather naive and it’s never ever so simple to put remarks like “under duress” beside your signature. No such thing as you make a fool out of the IO. Then in most likeness, you may invite [as I have heard] 48 hours of torture harsh treatment like continuous interrogation in the wee hours and at extreme cold temperature with a fresh copies of the “statements” for your signature. If I can remember, a fat Police woman sergeant slapped the suspect and was later charged. Also LT handcuffed while in the cell.

    Streamlining towards their angles of attack and questioning with objectives must be the practice.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    I THOUGHT THE COMMENT BELOW from @ Angry Citizen is mind-provoking

    Angry Citizen: 1) The statement might not actually be what I gave.

    It may be or maybe not happening anywhere or everywhere of facts BUT CERTAINLY THAT DEFINITELY HAPPENS IN AUSTRALIA as revealed by a police whistle-blower, Trevor Haken, in the Wood Royal Commission in its finding of corruption and corrupt conduct within the policing agency.

    Trevor Haken, ex-detective, whistle-blower :I was involved in stealing money, verballling people, giving false evidence, gutting briefs which is removing information from briefs to allow people to be exonerate…….

    Trevor Haken, among other crime offences, were involving in STEALING MONEY (as I wrote of sharing “grass”)…VERBALLING people (twisting statement of facts) as revealed in the Wood Royal Commission.

    So it would seems that in Australia, “verballing” statement of facts is a very common happening noting that investigating police themselves were involved in stealing crime victim’s money after lawfully entering into their premises.

    All that is a few bad eggs (if it is not pervasive vile police culture assuming), you will get VERBALLING of statement of facts from rogue policing.

    That is why STATEMENT OF FACTS CANNOT AND MUST NOT be made legally mandatory anywhere BECAUSE THE LAW-MAKERS HAVE NO COMPREHENSION of police culture and behavior was on duty.

    The Wood Royal Commission told of such rogue policing initiation culture – how to become a “reliable, good cop” of recruits “rites of passage”. One trainee told the Commission hearing that he was ordered by superiors to buy himself a cold can of beer and taken to a brothel. Inside they have a pre-arranged prostitute waiting for him, stripped him naked and got into a sexual episode of “bodily connexion” (for want of a decent language of law here). Once this recruit was “raped” willing or unwilling by the prostitute, he is COMPROMISED – OBEDIENT AND DO ANYTHING FROM STEALING MONEY TO VERBALISING STATEMENT OF FACTS as “instructed” or hinted to him.

    Parliament making law – decent of all its intent – have no clue of this rogue policing culture rendering its honest and honorable law enforcement legislation paralytic of devious real outcome.

    That is law might say one thing BUT WHAT HAPPENS in real policing is ANOTHER DRAMA on a different planet.

    Which is why I said this

    oxygen: WELCOME TO THE REAL WORLD – television cops exist only on television screen, THE REAL WORLD OUTSIDE IS very different of reality encounter.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    ADDING TO THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPH a moment ago, I have compelling apprehension that forced compellation of suspect/witness signing of “statement of fact” may encourage law enforcement agency to develop and cultivate a rogue culture of “VERBALLING” FALSITY and that is the beginning of cultivation of corrupt culture within KNOWING THAT VERBALLING has the protection from the highest level of hierarchy within.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Aiya, got so much verbiage especially by those not on the list as to how the emperor without clothes and those who think he wants to “fix”.

    The Parti Liyani’s case is a clear example of how the system works to the disadvantaged of those being denied justice…….unless they get a judge like Justice Chan Seng Onn who clearly criticised the DJ, DPPs and Police…………..even Law & Home Affairs Minister Parliament Statement …I hv shown to be a FARCE……….what else do you sinkies want to know/prove?

    Even TRE self-censors with some of my postings not seeing the light of the day on TRE………..even as it is clear from the rubbish dished out by the highest court………the 3 Judges judgment against Lee Suet Fern……..is rubbish at its worst………..go thro the judgment to see Y………..Law Soc case against her was that there was an implied retainer; that LKY needed independent legal advice even though he himself was a double first from Cambridge having executed 6 Wills previously under his long-time usual lawyer KKL………..that he could hv changed his 7th if that was not his wish……….that KKL could hv alerted him even after the 7th had been engrossed and executed ……blah………blah …….blah.

    So dun tok about the IO & Police statement………wonder how many of the people whose verbiage appear on this thread had experienced giving “statement” to the Police………..the so-called “statement” is based on loaded questions ………..not your grandfather’s story as to the FACTS……

    The status quo would remain until sinkies, especially from the so-called oppos & activists realise their own short-comings and start working together.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Sorry forgot to say that since the 3 Judges court disagree with the Law Soc allegations that she was LKY’s lawyer even though there was no signed statement to the effect………..yet the court suspended Lee Suet Fern for 15 months………what on earth was the reason? How could LSF be guilty of misconduct when she did NOT “prepare and attend” to LKY’s 7th Will which was most similar to the 1st Will except for the “gift-over clause” being left out of the 7th.

    When the 1st Will was executed…being drafted and prepared by LKY’s usual lawyer from LEE & LEE (Ms KKL) LKY’s health was not an issue, unlike the 7th…………when he knew that he did not have long to live……….So LSF did NOT prepare the 7th Will………it was substantially the same as the 1st Will over which the Law Soc had alleged conflict of interest because LHY & his siblings were given EQUAL share. As for the demolition of 38 Oxley Road, it is a FACT in the public domain that both his late wife Kwa Geok Choo and LKY himself had PUBLICLY stated SEVERAL TIMES that they wanted 38 Oxley Road demolished upon their death or when Dr Lee Wei Ling moved out.

    Since the 3 judges court also found that LKY did NOT directly give LSF instructions to “prepare” the Will, how could LSF be guilty of “misconduct” when she did NOT prepare the Will nor did LKY give her direct instructions………..and “not having due regard to LKY’s interest”. If the latter and that the 7th Will did NOT reflect his interest.

    By the way, the 3 Judges court’s reference to precedent cases were inapposite………….the FACTUAL MATRIX & the Law were totally DIFFERENT……..with NO probative value.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    If the 7th Will did NOT reflect LKY’s wishes because of LSF’s alleged “misconduct” then LKY could have it revoked with the 8th Will……….the fact that LKY did not revoke the 7th Will CLEARLY showed that whatever was contained in the 7th Will FULLY reflected his wishes………..not to mention that LHY and LWL had been appointed joint Executor/Executrix and Trustee of LKY’s estate.

    So where and on what ground could the 3 Judges court justify their finding of LSF’s “misconduct” and “Not having due regard for Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s interests”? To me the judgment is a load of rubbish……

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • xoxo:

    if the so-called statement is misconstrued by the IO etc,whats wrong not signing it?
    Or,worse,statement was made under duress?

    Only Jolovan knows if it was his intened statement.
    I opt to give Jolovan the benefit.
    Police can be bias.

    The weak always get bashed,this is the harsh reality of life.

    Whatever it is,the law must be upheld in the most upright manner.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Dont Waste Everyones Time:

    This is another half baked and baseless allegation.

    There is reason to believe there are laws that are contravened, and the police have their job to do and cannot be waiting all year long for offenders to throw this ridiculous argument of basic human rights at the investigation process and cause a logjam.

    It is his responsibility to comply with the entire suite of laws and regulations as they stand. If he can convince Singaporeans, stand for elections, get into Govt and change the entire suite of laws. If he cannot, then comply or emigrate someplace where the police will tolerate this kind of nonsense.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Curious

    BRILLIANT WEBLINK SUPPLIED and your contributory thoughts there. Thanks for sharing.

    Curious: Firstly, if it was your own statement, then you should not have any qualms signing it. With that said, then you must already have valid reasons in your mind for insisting not to sign it…………..

    Reference: Lying and the Omission of Exculpatory Evidence in Police Reports

    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/327208246.pdf

    The penal code is very clear: Statement made by you and not recording made by others. So the best is to sign your own hand written statements since the code did not make any distinction here.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    IT MUST BE MIND-BOGGLING for the public mind read and the Wood Royal Commission to be told that a “virgin” police recruit was “raped” whilst enjoying a can of cold beer – willing or unwilling of his consent but with the full awareness and connivance of the recruit’s own superior/s of this rape awaiting to entrap and compromised his “integrity” forever.

    Imagine the reality of hired prostitute “raped” the police constable – in the presence and witness of his superior officers.

    In effect, it is crime (prostitute) raped the law (police constable) in perversion of law and in a bizarre twist of “wine and women” goes hand in hand theatrical farce but reality of actual occasioning.

    Can anyone in and out of the courtroom ever trust the “VERBALLED” STATEMENT OF FACTS in any of the subsequent cases involved from this compromised “raped” constable??

    In its wake, how many cases of suspects have been compromised if they were forced to sign “statement of facts” of what is actually convoluted lies and deceptions?

    Lying and deception, it now seems, is routine of policing work looking at the Wood royal commission findings and this weblink supplied by @ curious.

    Reference: Lying and the Omission of Exculpatory Evidence in Police Reports
    https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/327208246.pdf

    Corrupt law processes and flawed legislation cannot provide public security protection – no matter what earnestly pious legislative intent of parliament in passing those faulty law.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • TUMASIK Patriot:

    Don’t be ANGRY and stay Positive the way you are Bro, It is CONTRIBUTION like yours that can & will AWAKE the Patriots and Core, hopefully, the sheep too…the Response towards your article is refreshing and MORE of such should be Forthcoming from Patriots and Citizen Core NOT citizen fake

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Simon the Cow:

    Now then KPKB for what? Singapore’s justice system is beyond hope as far as yours and my basis right are concerned.

    LKY wanted it this way. Period.

    Criminals or would be criminals must not be given half a chance to outsmart the criminal justice system. There must be no loopholes in our legal system to aid offenders.

    The problem here is innocent people are getting criminalized sometime over nothing. The punishment is severe and never fits the crime.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Curious and Simon the Cow

    If you are accused of a murder you did not commit, then what is 48 hours of ‘torture’ compared to death should you sign the fabricated statement? As I have said, stay calm and compose and weigh the consequences, not easy I know (most people see police balls also shrink) but it’s your life your future. So how hard also must try.

    In the past, when I was ‘invited’ to give a statement, the IO (a DSP 2) actually did print and pass the statement to me and advised that I read it very carefully and to make any small changes (manually and initial, if huge changes, he would amend and reprint). In this aspect, I think it really depends on the IO, whether he is a professional or not (maybe under instructions to ‘fix’?).

    From experience, never set out to give a statement with the thought that you are being fixed or the powers-to-be are trying to fix you. Stay calm and compose and know your stand, give your statement the way you want it, how you want it clearly and pray very hard that the IO is a professional and not under instructions to fix.

    In the event that he is really under instructions to fix, then lan lan lor because there is nothing else you can do. Then you start praying that the judge is a professional one lor. This is life, bo bian one if it really comes to that.

    Anyway, I think when you are a nobody peasant, you are generally quite safe in Sinkieland without having to be worried about being fixed. Just do not step on the toes of the powers-that-be and you will be fine.

    But for those that are under the radar, then the same cannot be said as there are thousands of ways to fix someone. My neighbour in China, who was a local prosecutor once joking told me that if they really want to fix me, a simple act of me coughing in public would be sufficient liao. She says she surely can find one law to hammer me for that and true enough, there is a provision under the public order act. You say jialut or not?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Angry Citizen

    YOU ARE DEAD RIGHT OF THIS BANKSTER TOWN’s blindfolding arm-twisting modus operandi. One bankster engaged in subterfuge swapped a customer’s request for ATM card with a DEBIT CARD INSTEAD, in effect of actually forcing customer to sign a new application WITHOUT informing them of the sleight-of-hand deception change and the financial risks consequences loaded onto the deceived customer.

    Bankers should NOT BE ALLOWED to engage in unconscionable conduct such to dupe customers into accepting flawed unsuitable banking products. All banking products BEFORE supplied to customers NEEDS TO EXPLAIN OF THE RISKS IMPLICATIONS.

    How can bankster be allowed to supply documents for customers without informed advice and the option to REFUSE TO SIGN the new application when he/she is just applying to replaced damaged ATM card?

    China and USA is correct of claming down on rogue digital banking products and LEE-jiapore is heading in the opposite direction.

    Singapore Pushes Digital Banks in Face of China, U.S. Crackdowns

    https://www.msn.com/en-sg/money/other/singapore-pushes-digital-banks-in-face-of-china-us-crackdowns/ar-BB1bjXnF?li=BBr8Cnr

    The Haynes royal commission exposed the torrid landscape of bankster conduct Down Under including charging fees for no services rendered even on the accounts of those deceased customers.

    WHAT IS MAS GOING TO DO ABOUT REGULATING BANKSTERISM IN LEE-jiapore?

    And digital banking linked to mobile phone is particularly dangerous for the elderly naive. Phone scams are rampant these days.

    https://www.msn.com/en-sg/news/singapore/ho-ching-%e2%80%9ci-wonder-why-telcos-dont-do-a-better-job-to-screening-these-scams%e2%80%9d/ar-BB1bseyk?ocid=mailsignout&li=BBr8Cnr

    Laws does not seem willing to protect the peasants and the weak, but impotence in dealing with bankster duping customers of their own risks off-loading.

    Memory are short, a lot have forgotten the Lehman Brothers bond scandal of mis-selling from bankster who initially denied liability.

    Angry Citizen:For those who say I am wrong, we do not have the right to refuse to sign a document…… Well, I have a few documents from the bank here. You go and sign them for me, okay?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ TRE Techie:
    November 29, 2020 at 12:11 pm (Quote)

    >>From experience, never set out to give a statement with the thought that you are being fixed or the powers-to-be are trying to fix you. Stay calm and compose and know your stand, give your statement the way you want it, how you want it clearly and pray very hard that the IO is a professional and not under instructions to fix.<<

    NOT true; at least in those cases where the power that be has the accused on his "fix" list.

    If I'm not wrong, the Police Statement you are supposed to have made consists of LOADED questions…….design to incriminate you and lessen your chance of defending yourself in a court of LAW.

    As I hv said, the Parti Liyani's case is ONE such example……..so long as the justice system as reflected in the decision of the 3 Judges court in the Attorney-General v Lee Suet Fern epitomises, there should be a lack of trust and confidence in the judicial system.

    To Jolovan Wan:

    You might like to read up "JUDICIAL CODE OF CONDUCT FOR THE JUDGES AND JUDICIAL COMMISSIONERS OF THE SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE" at this link when you are being charged in the State Courts or in the DJ's Chambers to argue your bail:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/(domestic-code-of-conduct)-version-for-uploading-(22-february-2019).pdf

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Realistically

    Note that I said after doing what should and can be done, pray very hard.

    The powers-that-be may be very powerderful and can screw peasants, but can they exercise their powers over God?

    We Chinese have a saying “heaven has eyes” and sooner or later, all aristocrats and peasants alike will be judged by God.

    As long as our conscious is clear, lets leave the rest to God.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    @Techie

    WAH! Brilliant logic siah! You are so damn smart! Just write there “not my statement” or “I never see” before signing! That way the judge confirm plus chop believe you and nothing bad can happen!

    That Jolovan so stupid! Why he never think of such a brilliant tactic?

    Seriously how many people have considered, or will even think about doing this in such a situation?

    If you can prove to me that this is a common tactic, then I give up.

    I am simply saying in my position, I will simply not sign anything I didn’t agree or didnt get to tead. I am obviously not as smart as you.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    @oxygen

    Do you remember Joo Koon Mrt collision case?

    Smrt said that they will let me claim for my clinic fees. But first I have to sign a long form, which include imdemnifying them from furture claims and full confidentiality of the incident.

    I told them to shove it back the orifice it came from.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Curious:

    @Realistically

    Might as well read this on the judges which is more “Realistically relevant”.

    https://kenjeyaretnam.com/2020/11/09/you-dont-have-to-believe-shanmugam-pulls-the-strings-to-know-that-the-pm-has-too-much-influence-over-the-judiciary/

    The Judiciary is not independent……

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • @Angry Citizen

    Our discussion is solely on the refusal to sign a statement which is an offence, NOT on the outcome of the charges should a case goes to trial, for whatever charges the statement may be used for.

    So my suggestion is based on the fact that refusal to sign the statement will get one charged. So since one cannot refuse to sign a statement, the next best alternative is to sign it but add a remark in the statement for whatever you wanted to add.

    In fact, it is standard procedure for an IO to ask “do you have anything to say or add to the statement” before he completes the statement taking. So how is it not possible to add anything?

    Although the IO is sibei powerderful one, but he also has to answer to somebody higher up. You think you refused to sign the statement would look good on the IO meh? He probably has to report the incident to his superior and then explain why he cannot get you to sign the statement. He maybe also sibei jialut one.

    The court considers other evidence not lone statement when judging on a case and just because you refused to sign the statement does not mean that you will be acquitted, if you are really guilty of the accused offence.

    I’ll admit that not all judges are like Justice Chan, but at least when you add something to your statement, the judge may consider that you at least did not last minute say so, but have already indicated at the police station from the onset that the statement is not true, not reflective of the fact.

    Check with a lawyer ask what I say got logic bo?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    @Techie

    Um, no, I don’t think that was the discussion.

    Not signing a police statement is an chargeable criminal offense. Written dowm in black and white.

    And what is my point? My point is refusing to sign any document (which includes police statement), is simply exercising human rights to free will.

    Now what kind of sick depraved individuals will throw other people in jail for exercising their basic human rights?

    Don’t answer out loud. Just think about whether it is right to force someone to sign something.

    Good grief! Seriously, I had expected that trying to discuss human rights issues with a pro-pappy would be like banging your head on a wall.

    I just didn’t expect that from you.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Angry Citizen

    MATE, YOU HAVE DONE VERY WELL THERE. Never submit to unconscionable conduct of business enterprise exploiting the weaker party who is its captive customer.

    Angry Citizen: Do you remember Joo Koon Mrt collision case?

    Smrt said that they will let me claim for my clinic fees. But first I have to sign a long form, which include imdemnifying them from furture claims and full confidentiality of the incident.

    I told them to shove it back the orifice it came from.

    what SMRT attempted bullying is unacceptable in equity law. One could even argue that their conduct, if what you said is true happening (but I am not surprised at all these things happened in LEE-jiapore) is tantamount to fraud in equity (as distinguished from fraud in law).

    In Chancery, the House of Lord define fraud in equity as – Haldane L.C. in Nocton v Lord Ashburton 1914 A.C. 932 at 953 –

    as a term to describe what fell short of deceit, but import a breach of a duty to which equity had attached its sanction.

    http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/journals/UNSWLawTD/1994/1.html?context=1;query=unconscionable%20conduct;mask_path=

    Banksters and telecom services in LEE-jiapore, I noted, are particularly inclined of such predatory behavior because consumer protection is very weak and public apathy toward consumer activism is not helping either.

    Statutory law is written to favor aristocrats and that include the grievous condemnation of violation of human rights in this thread.

    And I agree with @ TUMASIK Patriot that – WITH ONE EXCEPTION OF A NUT CASE of irrelevant detour in this thread I noted – your writing did attracted positive recognition and intense discussion.

    TUMASIK Patriot: Don’t be ANGRY and stay Positive the way you are Bro, It is CONTRIBUTION like yours that can & will AWAKE the Patriots and Core, hopefully, the sheep too…the Response towards your article is refreshing and MORE of such should be Forthcoming from Patriots and Citizen Core NOT citizen fake

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Curious:
    November 29, 2020 at 4:50 pm (Quote)

    I am very well aware about the BANKRUPTCY of the emperor without clothes regime and of which I hv been at the receiving end of the stick.

    So I am well aware of the rubbish being dished out over their propaganda machine chiefly using the RSF ranked 158th media.

    Which is why I hv called upon all those who hv very strong feelings about the (negative) outcomes of the emperor without clothes policies, including the selection of judges, to be united and work together rather than the scatter gun rantings which have been on-going for as long as I can remember………which is over 40 years.

    Just to add that the decision of the 3 Judges court on the Attorney-General v Lee Suet Fern case is contrary to their own Judicial Code of Conduct and also in breach of the Constitution.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ TRE Techie:
    November 29, 2020 at 1:27 pm (Quote)

    “Note that I said after doing what should and can be done, pray very hard.

    The powers-that-be may be very powerderful and can screw peasants, but can they exercise their powers over God?”

    Please leave God out of the discussion……….in the long run we are all dead………….meanwhile sinkies suffer the repressions and travesties of justice…and a violation of the Constitutional and human rights.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Angry Citizen:
    November 29, 2020 at 6:13 pm (Quote)

    >>Not signing a police statement is an chargeable criminal offense. Written dowm in black and white.

    And what is my point? My point is refusing to sign any document (which includes police statement), is simply exercising human rights to free will.<<

    I take it as correct that not signing a police statement is a chargeable criminal offence.

    However I believe there are ways of overcoming that………as I hv said, the Police Statement, I believe, consists of the accused answering a series of LOADED questions.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    @oxygen

    Thanks! A discussion is nice. But sometimes I prefer echo chambers where everyone agrees it is a human right. LMAO.

    Anyway, you seem quite familiar of these laws.

    Do you happen to know if any other country in the world can criminalize you for not signing a police statement?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    IN THE REAL WORLD, political governance is NOT BEYOND evidence fabrication to convict those ideologically unreliable or hostile to its crooked cause.

    The trial of whistle-blower (in the Pentagon paper leaked to the US media) Daniel Ellsberg is a case example of that.

    Judge Byrne : The conduct of the Government has placed the case in such a posture that it precludes the fair, dispassionate resolution of these issues by a jury…..The Government’s action in this case “offended a sense of justice, I have decided to declare a mistrial and grant the motion for dismissal

    https://archive.nytimes.com/www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/0511.html

    The trial lasted only 7 minutes and the defendants discharged of all alleged offences.

    The bigger the political implications, the bigger and dirtier tactics will be employed in its cover-up and crucifixion of the innocent accused.

    That is another reason I strongly believe that no suspect/witness must be forced to sign incriminating (sometime entirely false fabrications like the Pentagon paper case in US) so-called “statement of fact” (when in reality it may be VERBALIZED STATEMENT OF FABRICATION) against the wishes of the accused self-interests.

    IT IS AGAINST CONSCIENCE, AGAINST NATURAL JUSTICE and equity law applications.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ @ Curious:
    November 29, 2020 at 4:50 pm (Quote)

    KJ and others interested might like to know of the existence of section 16 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act which is reproduced herewith as follows:

    Report in good faith made to Chief Justice, police, etc., not contempt
    16.—(1) To avoid doubt, a person is not guilty of contempt of court under section 3(1)(a) by reason that he or she has made a report to the Chief Justice, the police, a law enforcement agency or any other public authority alleging misconduct or corruption on the part of a judge, being a report —
    (a) which is made in good faith; and
    (b) which discloses grounds which, if unrebutted, would provide a sufficient basis for the investigation of the allegation of misconduct or corruption.
    (2) In this section, “law enforcement agency” has the same meaning as in the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap. 68).

    Also take note of Article 97(1) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore which states that a judge appointed to the Supreme Court has to take his oath of office per the First Schedule (Form 6) of the Constitution.

    It was up to KJ, in his case, to argue his case…………but apparently he failed to do so………….

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Further to section 16 of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act, judicial misconduct is defined in the Black’s Law Dictionary as:

    ‘Any unlawful conduct on the part of a person concerned in the administration of justice which is prejudicial … to the right determination of the cause’

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Simon the pretender:

    The point here is there are many abuses worse than being charged for not signing a police statement. In the first place if you do not want to sign a police statement, then you should insist on the right to remain silent and have a lawyer’s presence not when the IO is happy to allow you to have one.

    There is no law in Singapore that say you cannot exercise your constitutional right when you are detained in the police-station. Of course the IO will warn you of the legal consequences when you are brought to court and the sitting Judge will be informed of your intransigence.

    Whether you sign or do not sign the incriminating or an innocent professing police statement you will be executed if found guilty of a capital offense.

    The same applies to lesser crimes. You will be sentenced accordingly if found guilty or free if innocent by the police or the Court by the judge.

    The IO would have done his own investigation, gather sufficient proof, evidence and witnesses to build his case against the suspect.

    Of course, there are many variations to extract statement from suspects by the police. Never exclude police brutality.

    When you are arrested and brought to the police station, the less you talk to the police, the better, even when you have done nothing wrong.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    @simon,

    Um, did you know that in SG, you dont have the right to remain silent? You also don’t get to have your lawyers in the interrogation room. This is NOT USA.

    Don’t take my word for it. Any lawyers here can confirm it?

    Tech: You are correct on the part of “right to remain silent”, there is no provision under the law for that, BUT that does not mean that you cannot remain silent. As for “lawyers in the interrogation room”, you may not be absolutely correct because it is entirely up to the IO. There are no hard law that says can or cannot.

    But then most IO won’t allow one because the IOs in Sinkieland are not trained like their counterparts in USA to handle accused accompanied by lawyers. Most IOs IMHO, won’t be able to complete an investigation into an accused accompanied by a lawyer.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    @realistically

    I think I understand.

    Police: Was this the knife used to stab the victim?
    Suspect: Yes.
    Police: Is this your knife?
    Suspect: Yes.
    Did you hold this knife in your hand?
    Suspect: Yes, but…
    Police: Okay, sign this confession pls.

    Well thats an exaggeration, but you get it.

    Tech: This line of questioning is normally used during cross in a court of law, aiming to trap the unsuspecting person on on the stand.

    The police normally do not use that line of questioning because it lacks details, which is crucial in an investigation.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Angry Citizen

    THIS IS UNHEARD OF anywhere else to my knowledge. Maybe in Ah Tiong Land, North Korea, Zimbabwe or Russia.

    Angry Citizen: Do you happen to know if any other country in the world can criminalize you for not signing a police statement?

    It certainly won’t happen in UK, Canada, USA, NZ or Down Under.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    @ Simon the pretender

    I WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE your optimism IF THE PROSECUTION is done by a separate Office of Public Prosecution which will be hold to the rate of prosecution success or failure.

    Simon the pretender: The IO would have done his own investigation, gather sufficient proof, evidence and witnesses to build his case against the suspect.

    Did that happened in the Parti Liyani’s case outcome?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • oxygen:

    Oops typo error

    The paragraph below

    oxygen: I WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE your optimism IF THE PROSECUTION is done by a separate Office of Public Prosecution which will be hold to the rate of prosecution success or failure.

    should be read as

    oxygen: I WOULD LIKE TO BELIEVE your optimism IF THE PROSECUTION is done by a separate Office of Public Prosecution which will be hold to ACCOUNTABILITY of the rate of prosecution success or failure.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Curious:
    November 29, 2020 at 4:50 pm (Quote)

    >>Might as well read this on the judges which is more “Realistically relevant”.<<

    Quite frankly, I doubt if YOU or KJ or anyone else who hv said his 2 cts worth understand what is "Realistically relevant" given the absence, as far as I know, of calling out Shanmugam's so-called Parliament Statement on the Parti Liyani's case as FARCICAL………….and cut him down to size about his other Parliament Statements introducing/reading of the Bills leading to the legislation of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act nor his Parliament Statement on 22 March 2018 defending the judiciary………………all those "Statements" are in the PUBLIC DOMAIN…………………and were well reported in the RSF ranked 158th media…………NOR Article 97(1) and the First Schedule (Form 6) of the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.

    While on the subject of "Realistically relevant" you/KJ and others of similar ilk might want to base your comments also on the Practice Statements made by the Court of Appeal as regards the legal doctrine of stare decisis/precedent authorities………….grounded on the above said provisions in the Constitution.

    That way, we might, as a whole move forward to ACCESS JUSTICE, let alone see JUSTICE being done and seen to be done.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    The 3 Judges judgment at:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs/default-source/module-document/judgement/-2020-sghc-255-pdf.pdf

    is drawing derision and outrage by prominent world personality in London as shown in the letter in the South China Morning Post by Sir David Lewis, former lord mayor of London; former president, City of London Law Society.

    Sir David Lewis letter is re-posted below:

    https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/3111620/what-i-know-about-lee-suet-fern

    What I know about Singapore’s Lee Suet Fern

    I have been very disturbed to read in the Post of the Singapore Law Society’s failed attempt to disbar Lee Suet Fern. She is the daughter-in-law of the late Lee Kuan Yew, the former Singapore prime minister who died in 2015, and married to his younger son. He and another sibling have fallen out very publicly with their brother, current Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, over the last will of Lee Kuan Yew made in 2013, probate for which was granted in 2015.

    Lee Suet Fern is alleged to have assisted with arrangements for the execution and witnessing of Lee Kuan Yew’s last will, having “blindly followed the directions of her husband”, and not to have advised the elder Lee to take independent legal advice.

    Lee Kuan Yew was himself a lawyer, and the idea that he would have signed anything against his wishes is fantasy. A Court of Three Judges concluded last week that Lee Suet Fern should not be struck off but should be suspended from practice for 15 months for misconduct.

    The Court accepted that she was not acting as Lee Kuan Yew’s solicitor, that he never communicated with her in relation to his will (she was abroad), that he was content with his will (which of course he could have changed at any time) and that there was no dishonesty or undue influence involved. No complaint was ever lodged by Lee Kuan Yew or by any of the beneficiaries of the will.

    I have known Lee Suet Fern for 40 years. She is a senior lawyer of undisputed ability, ethics and experience, and a partner in a major US global law firm.

    When I hosted a lunch for Lee Kuan Yew in 2008 in London, he told me of his trust and admiration for her. Who will believe that he would have had any objection to his daughter-in-law helping to arrange for the witnessing of his will, which she did not draft, or that she acted in any way improperly? In my view, she has been unjustly suspended, a stain on the international reputation of Singapore.

    We would be delighted to welcome her back to practise in London where she was trained following her double first at Cambridge.

    Sir David Lewis, former lord mayor of London; former president, City of London Law Society
    —–

    Sir David unfortunately failed to state that LKY himself was a double 1ST Cambridge U law grad. Lee Suet Fern had been married to LHY and has been a member of the Lee family for more than 25 years and LKY and his wife, Kwa Geok Choo (until her death in 2010)had known LSF over those yrs to hv trust & confidence in her

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Curious:
    November 29, 2020 at 4:50 pm (Quote)

    >>Might as well read this on the judges which is more “Realistically relevant”.

    https://kenjeyaretnam.com/2020/11/09/you-dont-have-to-believe-shanmugam-pulls-the-strings-to-know-that-the-pm-has-too-much-influence-over-the-judiciary/

    The Judiciary is not independent……<<

    I had stated in this forum that I was prepared to be Leong Sze Hian's witness at the CA hearing regarding his appeal against the HC decision to strike out his counter-suit when the CJ asked Lim Tean if he (Lim Tean) believed that the judiciary was made used of by the power that be.

    So don't hv to tell me that the judiciary is not independent………..like I said, I AM at the receiving end of the travesties of justice.

    In any case KJ's blog which U hv provided the link does NOT, in my view, provide incontrovertible evidence of the judiciary's lack of independence………..the 3 Judges court's decision is a better example………and as I hv just posted the letter by the former Lord Mayor of London who was also former president, City of London Law Society, has criticised that 3 Judges' judgment.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Oxygen the Queen's Counsel:

    @ Angry Citizen, Tech, and of course Oxygen must be included.

    Fifth Amendment.

    ‘No person shall be compelled in any case to be a witness against himself.

    I did that. I refused to answer the police unless I was allowed a phone call before giving a police statement. More recently Lim Tean also did the same when he was interrogated in the CAD. Lim Tean is a lawyer and I am not.

    If, there is no provision for ‘the right to remain silent’ surely there are ways to argue from another angle under the principles of the rule of the law under the Constitution in our local context.

    Shamugam and Indira Rajah, both attested to this in their speeches that Singapore is govern by rule of the law.

    As the Parti the maid case, the the Law Ministry and AGC will throw the whole investigating team under the bus. We all know now it was a horrendous and sloppy police investigation not just the IO in charge but the whole team involved. It was complacency and arrogance that led to their own messy state of the police affair. Perhaps the police thought it was just a routine case of maid stealing from her employers, simple as that.

    So, Oxygen stop asking me stupid question which you know are stupid, when we both know in reality Parti’s case is one of those rare incident when an IO steps on his own banana skin.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Oxygen the Queen’s Counsel:
    December 1, 2020 at 12:49 am (Quote)

    >>So, Oxygen stop asking me stupid question which you know are stupid, when we both know in reality Parti’s case is one of those rare incident when an IO steps on his own banana skin.<<

    I think you should read the High Court judgment by Justice Chan Seng Onn and that by the Chief Justice himself, in the latter case, when he allowed Parti’s application to refer the 2 DPPs to face the Disciplinary Tribunal even as the 2 DPPs were represented by more senior Prosecutors from the AGC.

    From the said HC & CJ’s respective judgments, it must be clear without ANY SHADOW of a DOUBT that it was NOT only that the “IO (had) step(ped) on his own banana skin” which is not the ultimate reason for Parti’s conviction by DJ Olivia Low in the District Court, BUT the entire prosecution and judgment reeked of the TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE which brought Assoc Professor Eugene KB Tan of the Singapore Management University Law School to use the said “travesty of justice” term in the TODAY’s newspaper. A/P Eugene Tan is widely seen as a supporter of the emperor without clothes regime………..and for him to use the said “travesty of justice” term must surely reflect very badly on the administration of justice or most likely the travesty of justice which a litigant could face in a supposed court of law by judges who had wilfully breached their oath of office under the Constitution. A somewhat similar commentary was also made by Harpreet Singh Nehal Senior Counsel in the Straits Times a week later.

    As I have also shown, Law and Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam’s so-called Parliament Statement apparently defending the District Judge, DPPs and to a limited extent, the Police, had been a FARCE.

    It is therefore NOT simply a case of the “IO steps on his own banana skin” but a more serious and worrying case of the judiciary system bringing itself into disrepute. In the case against Lee Suet Fern, an eminent English lawyer who was a former Lord Mayor of London and the City of London Law Society had added his concern (and I suggest, implicit criticism) of the 3 Judges’ court decision to suspend LSF from practising law in Singapore for 15 months. In any case, it has been my contention from personal experience that the case against LSF was totally without merit……….and that the judiciary had brought itself into …..

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Angry Citizen:
    November 30, 2020 at 7:44 am (Quote)

    I am not and I cannot claim to be familiar with ALL the tactics and strategy the Police and the AGC engaged in which infringed on the right of a person being charged under public law, BUT I can say from personal experience that there had been abuse of the accused’s right under the Constitution and the Statute law, especially when the accused has no access to legal advice and is ignorant of his right, or so the Police/DPP/judiciary think.

    In any case the Prosecution of Parti Liyani also revealed that the DPP/AGC had FAILED to live up to what the past Attorney Generals Steven Chong and V K Rajah had stated in their speeches at the respective opening of the legal years.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Atuladapadamana:

    In the us of a, there are millions of cold-cases———unsolved criminal cases.

    Chacap macaam cops in the us of a are god-like, could solve everything sinkieland’s cops couldn’t!

    Tech: You are correct on the part of “right to remain silent”, there is no provision under the law for that, BUT that does not mean that you cannot remain silent. As for “lawyers in the interrogation room”, you may not be absolutely correct because it is entirely up to the IO. There are no hard law that says can or cannot.

    But then most IO won’t allow one because the IOs in Sinkieland are not trained like their counterparts in USA to handle accused accompanied by lawyers. Most IOs IMHO, won’t be able to complete an investigation into an accused accompanied by a lawyer.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    I am starting to think even the peasants should study law.

    How the hell do you expect people to know not signing the statement can be jailed, or even a single person standing while doing cardboard exercise is against the law.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    Not everyone is so savvy in the law he or she will know what to do in the police station. Sometime ppl mess up and say something stupid in their statements.

    What is really terrifying is if you didnt see the statement like Jolovan, and refused to sign, you will be committing another crime.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    @realistically

    Do you remember the case about the byelection?

    Halimah vacated her position to be prez. But because no byelection, opposition had to go to court, to make sure the law that says a by-election must be held is carried.

    However, the judge say they dont want a hostage ransom holding situation, where one member threatens his own part to vacate and trigger a byelection.

    Ximi lanjiao?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Angry Citizen:
    December 1, 2020 at 7:05 pm (Quote)

    Rather than getting all work up, I suggest you read my comments post on December 1, 2020 at 12:53 pm and also look up the definition/meaning of the term “TRAVESTY of justice”.

    Travesty of justice IS DIFFERENT from miscarriage of justice.

    The justice process goes beyond the Police investigation and the Police statement the accused had been asked to sign. It also involved the DPP presenting the prosecution’s case AND most importantly, the INTEGRITY or the lack thereof of the District Judge for most, if not all, criminal cases.

    The “STAIN” to Singapore’s international reputation as stated by the former Mayor of London and the President of the London Law Society in his letter published in the South China Morning Post commenting on the judgment suspending Lee Suet Fern for 15 months does not stop in LSF’s case, but also include the travesty of justice at the District Court level in the Parti Liyani’s case and MOST SERIOUS of all, the FARCE of Law and Home Minister K Shanmugam’s so called Parliament statement on the Parti Liyani’s case.

    All I can say is please know that there has been a more egregious case, not including the present cases against Leong Sze Hian and Terry Xu.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    By the way, I am glad that the former Mayor of London who was also a former President of the London Law Society, in his letter on the judgment against Lee Suet Fern, validates my own criticism of the 3 Judges’s decision to suspend her from practising law in Singapore for 15 months.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    @realistically

    Travesty vs micarriage.

    Well, to my understanding. Miscarriage = operations side screwed up.

    Whereas travesty, management and ceo is fkced up.

    That about right?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miscarriage_of_justice

    Terminology
    “Miscarriage of justice” is sometimes used to describe any wrongful conviction, even when the defendant may be guilty, for example in reference to a conviction reached as the result of an unfair or disputed trial.[4] While a miscarriage of justice is a Type I error for falsely identifying culpability, an error of impunity would be a Type II error of failing to find a culpable person guilty. However, the term “miscarriage of justice” is often used to describe the latter type as well. With capital punishment decreasing, the expression has acquired an extended meaning, namely any conviction for a crime not committed by the convicted person.

    The term travesty of justice is sometimes used for a gross, DELIBERATE miscarriage of justice. Show trials (not in the sense of high publicity, but in the sense of lack of regard to the actual legal procedure and fairness), due to their character, often lead to such travesties.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • nathan chen:

    All mistrial can be reopened and should be reopened if material evidence surfaced. But too late for those executed. A life-sentence is a good safeguard against such human tragedy. The death penalty should be abolished in Singapore. The Government should let the people decide on this through a referendum. Don’t you get sick for the PAP telling you,”We don’t govern by referendum”. 60% is not exactly a blank cheque mandate from the people.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    The following passage is from the seminal UK judgment on the need for OPEN trial and which mentioned “JUDICIAL INJUSTICE” which I believe is what I term “TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE”:

    SCOTT (OTHERWISE MORGAN) AND ANOTHER APPELLANTS; AND SCOTT RESPONDENT [1913] AC 417

    The case of Scott v. Scott was heard in camera. … The Court had passed judgment in private and the case was at an end. ….a declaration that the proceedings in an English Court of justice shall remain for ever shrouded in impenetrable secrecy — there is, it is said, no appeal. I candidly confess, my Lords, that the whole proceeding shocks me. …. these expressions of opinion by the way, have signified not alone an encroachment upon and suppression of private right, but the gradual invasion and undermining of constitutional security. … the same result which would have been achieved under, and have accorded with, the genius and practice of despotism.

    What has happened is a usurpation — a usurpation which could not have been allowed even as a prerogative of the Crown, and most certainly must be denied to the judges of the land.

    It is needless to quote authority on this topic from legal, philosophical, or historical writers. … “In the darkness of secrecy, sinister interest and evil in every shape have full swing. Only in proportion as publicity has place can any of the checks applicable to judicial injustice operate. Where there is no publicity there is no justice.” “Publicity is the very soul of justice. ….

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    Very late at this point of time, but I wish to make a correction.

    It was not the case that Jolovan did not see the statement, but rather he was denied a copy.

    His personal policy was to enourage signers to have a copy of the document, in case the contract drafter decided to alter terms after the signing.

    While not heard of in a polic station, there is still the potential and possibility of the statement being altered if there is no copy in existant.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    The President of the Singapore Law Society, Mr Gregory Vijayendran, SC, has written to the South China Morning Post in response to the letter written by the former Lord Mayor of London and who was a past President of the London Law Society.

    Vijayendran’s letter is a rehash of the judgment of the 3 Judges Court which I can show up to be just lacking any legal merits. I would like to further comment on Vijayendran’s lack of legal arguments and hopefully within the not too distant future.

    What people should also realise is that if the said 3 Judges Court judgment can stand up to scrutiny, why is the RSF ranked 158th media in Singapore had failed to publish Sir David Lewis letter nor even mention that Sir David had said that the said decision is a “stain on the international reputation of Singapore.”?

    https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/3113212/singapore-court-verdict-lee-suet-fern-relied-carefully-evaluated

    Letters Published: 7:30am, 11 Dec, 2020

    Due to space limitation, Vijayendran’s letter would appear in the next post.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    https://www.scmp.com/comment/letters/article/3113212/singapore-court-verdict-lee-suet-fern-relied-carefully-evaluated

    I refer to Sir David Lewis’ letter “What I know about Singapore’s Lee Suet Fern” (November 30).

    Mrs Lee Suet Fern was found guilty of professional misconduct beyond a reasonable doubt by the highest court overseeing disciplinary proceedings of lawyers in Singapore, presided over by the Chief Justice.

    The Law Society of Singapore discharged its statutory duties of self-regulation conscientiously and fairly. Prosecution is not persecution.
    The reserved judgment of the Court of Three Judges reported at
    [2020] SGHC 255 found the following:

    • Mrs Lee’s husband was, to her knowledge, a significant beneficiary under the new will
    • Mrs Lee acquiesced in her husband cutting Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s lawyer out from communications regarding the preparation and execution of the new will
    • Mrs Lee made inaccurate representations to Mr Lee Kuan Yew that the draft last will was precisely the same as the first will, effectively assuring him that it reflected his testamentary wishes and could be used for execution
    • Mrs Lee facilitated Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s execution of the draft last will in an unseemly rush even though there was no particular urgency. She blindly followed her husband’s directions
    • Because Mrs Lee simply followed her husband’s wishes without considering Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s interest, he ended up signing the last will unaware that it was not the will he wished to re-execute
    • After the execution, Mrs Lee did not apprise Mr Lee Kuan Yew’s lawyer fully and frankly of all that had transpired
    • Mrs Lee understated her participation in the preparation and execution of the last will before the Disciplinary Tribunal. Her sworn statements on this were rejected by the Court and contradicted With respect, the writer’s personal, anecdotal recollections cannot trump a judicial verdict. Regrettably, Sir David Lewis has arrogated to himself the status of a final court of appeal in the court of public opinion.
    In contradistinction, the Court of Three Judges delivered judgment considering argument by eminent counsel and carefully evaluating evidence. Critique is a writer’s prerogative. But statements from a former law society leader undermining rule of law reflect poor judgment.

    Gregory Vijayendran, SC, president, Law Society of Singapore

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    TRE readers might be interest in the Singapore Ambassador to the USA letter as published by TOC at:

    https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/2020/12/11/spore-ambassador-to-us-makes-no-apologies-for-balancing-right-to-protest-against-right-of-others-to-not-be-inconvenienced-by-such-protests/

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    To Jolovan Wham

    Heng Bin
    Heng Bin
    46 minutes ago
    Awaiting for approval

    In the TOC report Jolovan Wham was reported to have said: “The judge, …had “disagreed with all my arguments without explaining”.

    I suggest Jolovan Wham remind the District Judge of the Judicial Code of Conduct for the Judges and Judicial Commissioners of the Supreme Court of Singapore where under the heading ‘Guiding Principles’ on page 13 it is stated that: “Judges should …..give reasoned judgments to enable parties, appellate courts and readers generally to fully understand why a decision has been reached in a certain way”.

    Jolovan can read the whole Code at this link:

    https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/docs/default-source/default-document-library/(domestic-code-of-conduct)-version-for-uploading-(22-february-2019).pdf

    It would also help that Jolovan read the OATH of office of a District Judge in the State Courts Act (Chapter 321) First Schedule as follows:

    I, , having been appointed to the office of do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully discharge my judicial duties and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Republic of Singapore without fear or favour, affection or ill-will to the best of my ability, and I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Republic of Singapore.

    —–

    How was the District Judge’s decision to increase bail to $15,000 be consistent with his oath to “do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Republic of Singapore” ………. and by “all manner of people” who are the people being affected by Jolovan holding a smiley face placard in public for a few seconds?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    @realistcally

    How much do you want to bet he appeal to different judge also no use one?

    He might even get another contempt of court charge for disrespecting the judge.

    Anyway, have you considered writing an article for Suet Fern’s case?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Angry Citizen:
    December 14, 2020 at 11:52 am

    I hv mentioned quite a number of times that I am being “fixed”.

    I would not want to reveal too much of what I hv in mind………but clearly the kind of thinking amongst sinkies just haven’t work…so-called oppos are just too self-centered to be united for the common good……….

    What I hv suggested to Jolovan would at the least show up the bankruptcy of the judges…………better than just lan-lan accept the injustice.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Anyway sinkies like those rabid posters here have been doing the same crap for a long long time but hv failed to impede the emperor without clothes…………in fact the wayang party has helped legitimise the emperor without clothes regime.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ @ Angry Citizen:
    December 14, 2020 at 11:52 am

    I suggest sinkies like u should spend time reflecting on what the emperor without clothes himself said during Lim Tean’s cross-examination in his defamation suit against Leong Sze Hian:

    PM Lee also told the court that Mr Leong is “far from the most vocal or sharp or effective critic of the Singapore government”. There are many who are more effective than him, who have not been sued, he added.
    —-

    As I hv mentioned b4, many sinkies think they are too smart to take into consideration other people’s views other than those perpetuated by the RSF ranked 158th media……..even though what I hv said about certain events/failures of both the emperor without clothes policies and those of the so-called oppos, long b4 such bad policies manifested itself to the detriment of sinkies and country.

    Take for eg, Chee Soon Juan & also the wayang party STEALING my suggestion made in January 2008 to Khaw Boon Wan at a Ministerial dialogue on means testing of sinkies for medical subsidies to spend more from the returns of our reserves…………..I hv made many more such suggestions which the emperor without clothes had adopted but without acknowledgment………..I hv also called out the wayang party’s earlier strategy b4 the GE to deny the emperor without clothes 2/3 majority by asking the wayang party to name the govt’s failed policies which would hv required the 2/3 majority MP votes……………the wayang party could respond & it then changed its strategy of denying the emperor without clothes a “BLANK CHEQUE”. Like I said, I can recount many other contributions……but what’s the point when sinkies have closed mind, and mostly selfish & self-centred instead of thinking of the common good and to work together for the common good.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    @Realistically

    I dont think thats fair to describe all of us like that. Many of us want change, integrity, honesty, and fairness. However, we do not amount in the majority, thats why we always lose.

    Wp may not be the best, but they are infinitely better than the cancer known as pappy.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Angry Citizen:
    December 15, 2020 at 7:48 am

    You or anyone else, are entitled to your own opinion and view.

    The wayang-party “infinitely better”? In what way? Low Thia Khiang had been MP until the last GE…….what had been his contribution other than what he had said that he got the NEA to get rid of midges at Bedok……..that’s “infinitely better”? I supposed the pple of Hougang had been very satisfied that their HDB flats might not depreciate until zero & that they would not face competition from the FTs, right….that’s “infinitely better”?

    Ditto Sylvia Lim’s constituents….ditto those in Sengkang GRC & others under the wayang-party………….to the extent that the AHTC kenna sued…..hahahah.

    Oh, how come, that there are many wayang-party MPs who are lawyers – Pritam Singh, He Ting Ru (from Cambridge U law school somemore – Sylvia Lim etc failed to call out the President of the S’pore Law Society whose letter appeared in the SCMP?

    How come the said wayang party lawyer MPs oso neber call out Shanmugam piece of farce in his so-called Parliament Statement?

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    Why do I say infinitely better? Simple.

    Does WP anyhow suka suka sue ppl?

    Does WP anyhow suka suka pofma ppl?

    And does WP anyhow take ppl money and dump it on billion dollar investment losses?

    I think I’ve made my point.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    How pathetic……clutching on straws to make low life arguments.

    No wonder sinkies reject so called oppos.

    How MANY pple kenna sued our of more than 3 million electorate?

    On what basis would the wayang-party sue anyone? U mean the wayang party kenna sued by the AHTC oso mean they anyhow kennna sued for failure in fiduciary obligations?

    And how many pple out of 5.7 million popn. kenna pofma? Only Lim Tean and some jokers kenna pofma lah……….all because the wayang party MPs FAILED to call out the emperor without clothes in Parliament on the pofma bill & other bills like the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act & the FARCICAL Parliament Statement by Shanmugam on the Parti Liyani’s case partially giving excuse Police over-stretch but got time to arrest Lim Tean & now sue Ravi for criminal defamation.

    The wayang party collect S&C charges from the new HDB residents in AHTC but refused to provide even BASIC cleaning services………..talk about taking money…………how did the wayang-party finance buying its own premises?

    Oh how come the wayang-party neber bring up the “billion dollars investment losses”………..hahahah, the wayang party did NOT even bring up the “billion dollars investment losses” even on social media…………Philip Ang & myself have done so lah………

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    @realistically

    You are the pathetic one.

    How many people are killed in NS like Dominic Sarren Lee and Adrian Pang out of the millions? Also not many. So does that mean we just sweep them under the rug, because they are the minorities?

    Your mentality is just like the pappy. Its okay for a small minority to be screwed as long as the majority isn’t affected, right? Why dont you just go join the PAP right now.

    Dont ever refer yourself and Philip Ang im the same sentence. Its an insult and a sick joke for you to even compare yourself to him.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    @ Angry Citizen:
    December 17, 2020 at 11:55 pm

    This is my LAST response to you.

    Sinkies get killed………& so do many others in other countries. These have NOTHIGN whatsoever to do with your crazy eg that the wayang-party does not engage in pofma against others unlike the emperor without clothes regime.

    How PATHETIC and LOW LIFE idiots and s*ake oil purveyors like you & the wayang party to link a loss of life with the use of pofma!!!!.

    In the 1st place the wayang party has NO LEGAL right to impose pofma………what a disgraceful and despicable kind of eg.

    Wayang-party clowns like you give the genuine oppos a bad name which is why the emperor without clothes can sleep easy for the next 10 years or more……..while the wayang-party MPs like Pritam can also continue to enjoy his taxpayers’ money………to WAYANG.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Angry Citizen:

    @Realistically

    You seem to have a difficulty understanding simple sentences. Let me simplify these for you even more.

    1) Pappy is evil. Examples provided.
    2) WP is better than evil pappy.

    Finish. Simple. That’s it. No need to complicate. No need over explain.

    You think pappy is better than WP, go support pappy.

    THE END.

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
  • Realistically:

    Repost from another thread:

    I thought sinkies might like to see further evidence of the FAILURES and wayang of the wayang-party MPs who have failed in their duties and responsibilities as MPs, but still have NO SHAME to collect their $16k monthly MP allowance as shown in the TOC thread which is about 27 NGOs petitioning for the establishment of a Commission of Inquiry into the (in)justice system in Singapore::

    https://www.onlinecitizenasia.com/2020/12/18/27-civil-society-organisations-jointly-urge-president-halimah-yacob-to-convene-coi-to-review-singapores-justice-system-in-open-letter/

    “27 civil society organisations jointly urge President Halimah Yacob to convene COI to review Singapore’s justice system in open letter”

    GD Star Rating
    loading...
Member Services
Self-SupportMembers LoginSelf-Support
Sponsored Advertisement
Search On TR Emeritus
Sponsored Advertisement
Announcement
Advertisement
Visitors Statistic
Latest Statistic

UA-67043412-1