There are a number of other extremely disturbing aspects of Malaysian professor Tey Tsun Hang's trial in Singapore.
Firstly, the chief judge personally oversaw the entire trial at Court No 1. This is extremely irregular for what should have been a normal corruption trial.
The last time a full trial took place at Court No 1 (under Judge Michael Khoo) was in 1986, over the politically-motivated trial of JB Jeyaretnam, then a newly-elected member of parliament from the opposition Workers' Party (a trial which, as it happens, Tey had written about extensively).
In that case, when Chief Judge Michael Khoo acquitted Jeyaretnam, the former soon found himself booted out of court. After the acquittal, a retrial was ordered and Jeyaretnam was found guilty.
Dissatisfied with the way things were done, Jeyaretnam eventually was vindicated at London's Privy Council. After that, the Singapore government swiftly abolished the appeal recourse to the Privy Council.
After 27 years, while skyscrapers and iPhones have run rampant in the island republic, it seems that Singapore has made absolutely zero progress towards an independent judiciary.
The prosecution has also pumped a lot of resources into the Tey trial.
At the initial stage, it was reported in the newspapers that a team of 10 prosecutors from the Attorney-General's Chambers sat in to support and advise the lead prosecutor.
There was also ‘live' transcription of the court proceedings which the prosecution paid for, using Singapore taxpayers' money, costing S$5,000 a day. For a 30-day trial, that amounts to S$150,000 for the transcription alone. The transcription, although using public funds, was given to the judge, but not to the defence.
The Attorney-General's Chambers stationed a public affairs officer (who used to be a journalist under the Singapore Press Holdings, which controls all print media in Singapore) in the courtroom every day throughout the trial.
She briefed the media on what to report and the angle to take. She was overheard by a few people to have leaked to the media personal information about Tey that was not mentioned in court, and also distorted details from unknown sources to fuel negative publicity and scandalise Tey's image.
Firstly, the chief judge personally oversaw the entire trial at Court No 1. This is extremely irregular for what should have been a normal corruption trial.
The last time a full trial took place at Court No 1 (under Judge Michael Khoo) was in 1986, over the politically-motivated trial of JB Jeyaretnam, then a newly-elected member of parliament from the opposition Workers' Party (a trial which, as it happens, Tey had written about extensively).
In that case, when Chief Judge Michael Khoo acquitted Jeyaretnam, the former soon found himself booted out of court. After the acquittal, a retrial was ordered and Jeyaretnam was found guilty.Dissatisfied with the way things were done, Jeyaretnam eventually was vindicated at London's Privy Council. After that, the Singapore government swiftly abolished the appeal recourse to the Privy Council.
After 27 years, while skyscrapers and iPhones have run rampant in the island republic, it seems that Singapore has made absolutely zero progress towards an independent judiciary.
The prosecution has also pumped a lot of resources into the Tey trial.
At the initial stage, it was reported in the newspapers that a team of 10 prosecutors from the Attorney-General's Chambers sat in to support and advise the lead prosecutor.
There was also ‘live' transcription of the court proceedings which the prosecution paid for, using Singapore taxpayers' money, costing S$5,000 a day. For a 30-day trial, that amounts to S$150,000 for the transcription alone. The transcription, although using public funds, was given to the judge, but not to the defence.
The Attorney-General's Chambers stationed a public affairs officer (who used to be a journalist under the Singapore Press Holdings, which controls all print media in Singapore) in the courtroom every day throughout the trial.
She briefed the media on what to report and the angle to take. She was overheard by a few people to have leaked to the media personal information about Tey that was not mentioned in court, and also distorted details from unknown sources to fuel negative publicity and scandalise Tey's image.
The public got one version of details about the case while the court had another one. The character assassination of Tey has run rampant without bothering the presiding judge a bit. A trial by media has been done way before the trial proper was even concluded.
With a 30-day trial at Court No 1, a 10-person prosecution team, S$150,000 live transcriptions and a dedicated PR manager to sit in the court every day, we are left asking: how much taxpayers' money is the Singapore government spending on this one case, involving corruption charges for an amount less than S$2,500?
Abuse and persecution
The compromise of Tey's health has also been central to this case.
During investigations, he was hospitalised after 12 hours of interrogation at the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). It packed him off in an ambulance, and he was rushed to Alexandra Hospital.
He was kept there for over three days and diagnosed with various physical conditions such as acute kidney injury and mental conditions including acute stress disorder and altered mental status.
Immediately upon discharge, he was forced to sign two confessions when he was still under psychiatric medication. Four more confessions were taken from him, while he continued to receive treatment and medication.
It is widely reported in the local newspapers in Singapore that, even now, Tey continues to see his doctors and has to take several psychoactive medications daily.
What did Tey confess to, immediately after hospitalisation and while under medication?
It is observed that the judge repeatedly blocked questions about many issues and so-called corrupt items that were investigated by CPIB. What is beneath the surface of these topics that were censored in court the very minute they were mentioned?
Putting aside sensitive topics, why did the judge disallow Tey's questions about false confessions, i.e. wrongful confessions or confessions to non-existing crimes? Under what circumstances did these false confessions come about? What investigation methods were used that resulted in a man confessing to crimes he did not commit?
Were there mistakes or wrongful deeds committed by CPIB investigators, in the process of forcing the professor to confess to supposed crimes?
The truth may never be known, for the judge chose not to allow the airing of any false confessions, repeatedly shutting down questions by the defence.
Medical evidence ignored
The judge also ignored all medical evidence of Tey's physical and mental conditions. The medical evidence is from government hospital doctors, and is proof of the brutal treatment and sufferings Tey endured at the hand of CPIB investigators.
The prosecution did not call in any expert witnesses to disprove the medical evidence and findings. Instead, it took the line that Tey had lied to all the doctors that he was unwell, when in fact he was in perfect health.
Anyone with any common sense would know that only those who are ill have to see their doctors regularly and take medication every day, for a year and more. Would a whole group of doctors be foolish enough to be lied to over such an extended period of time? Do a person's physical symptoms lie about his conditions? The judiciary's action in effect makes a mockery of Singapore's own medical profession.
In yet another show of how the judge very willingly cooperated with the prosecution, the chief judge sang exactly the same tune as the prosecutor - he called the professor a liar and said he in fact was in good health all this time.
The judge should have ruled that all the medication and hospital sessions be stopped the very moment he decided that all the medical evidence be ignored because Tey was lying.
A person who is well will not require all these long-term medical attention and drugs. Such a ruling will very clearly show the judge to be correct - or totally biased.
Yesterday, the Singapore court found Tey guilty of all six corruption charges. Sentencing will be on June 3.
The time has come for the people of Singapore to decide whether they are willing to live in a world-class economy with a gutter-class judiciary.
The Singapore government can continue to live like a frog beneath a shell, and attempt to ignore the worldwide trend towards greater transparency and integrity in government institutions. It does so at their own peril.
Already, Singaporeans are voting against the government in greater numbers than ever before. Will the authorities recognise that this is a clear objection to their pitbull, tyrannical persecution of anyone who dares question the government? Nothing would more quickly effect a change in government than their failure to do so.
Its only hope of survival is to recognise that dissidence is a healthy, integral part of democracy. It can bend to accommodate this or, sure as the sun rising in the east, it will break trying to crush it.
With a 30-day trial at Court No 1, a 10-person prosecution team, S$150,000 live transcriptions and a dedicated PR manager to sit in the court every day, we are left asking: how much taxpayers' money is the Singapore government spending on this one case, involving corruption charges for an amount less than S$2,500?
Abuse and persecution
The compromise of Tey's health has also been central to this case.
During investigations, he was hospitalised after 12 hours of interrogation at the Corrupt Practices Investigation Bureau (CPIB). It packed him off in an ambulance, and he was rushed to Alexandra Hospital.
He was kept there for over three days and diagnosed with various physical conditions such as acute kidney injury and mental conditions including acute stress disorder and altered mental status.
Immediately upon discharge, he was forced to sign two confessions when he was still under psychiatric medication. Four more confessions were taken from him, while he continued to receive treatment and medication.
It is widely reported in the local newspapers in Singapore that, even now, Tey continues to see his doctors and has to take several psychoactive medications daily.
What did Tey confess to, immediately after hospitalisation and while under medication?
It is observed that the judge repeatedly blocked questions about many issues and so-called corrupt items that were investigated by CPIB. What is beneath the surface of these topics that were censored in court the very minute they were mentioned?
Putting aside sensitive topics, why did the judge disallow Tey's questions about false confessions, i.e. wrongful confessions or confessions to non-existing crimes? Under what circumstances did these false confessions come about? What investigation methods were used that resulted in a man confessing to crimes he did not commit?
Were there mistakes or wrongful deeds committed by CPIB investigators, in the process of forcing the professor to confess to supposed crimes?
The truth may never be known, for the judge chose not to allow the airing of any false confessions, repeatedly shutting down questions by the defence.
Medical evidence ignored
The judge also ignored all medical evidence of Tey's physical and mental conditions. The medical evidence is from government hospital doctors, and is proof of the brutal treatment and sufferings Tey endured at the hand of CPIB investigators.
The prosecution did not call in any expert witnesses to disprove the medical evidence and findings. Instead, it took the line that Tey had lied to all the doctors that he was unwell, when in fact he was in perfect health.
Anyone with any common sense would know that only those who are ill have to see their doctors regularly and take medication every day, for a year and more. Would a whole group of doctors be foolish enough to be lied to over such an extended period of time? Do a person's physical symptoms lie about his conditions? The judiciary's action in effect makes a mockery of Singapore's own medical profession.
In yet another show of how the judge very willingly cooperated with the prosecution, the chief judge sang exactly the same tune as the prosecutor - he called the professor a liar and said he in fact was in good health all this time.
The judge should have ruled that all the medication and hospital sessions be stopped the very moment he decided that all the medical evidence be ignored because Tey was lying.
A person who is well will not require all these long-term medical attention and drugs. Such a ruling will very clearly show the judge to be correct - or totally biased.
Yesterday, the Singapore court found Tey guilty of all six corruption charges. Sentencing will be on June 3.
The time has come for the people of Singapore to decide whether they are willing to live in a world-class economy with a gutter-class judiciary.
The Singapore government can continue to live like a frog beneath a shell, and attempt to ignore the worldwide trend towards greater transparency and integrity in government institutions. It does so at their own peril.
Already, Singaporeans are voting against the government in greater numbers than ever before. Will the authorities recognise that this is a clear objection to their pitbull, tyrannical persecution of anyone who dares question the government? Nothing would more quickly effect a change in government than their failure to do so.
Its only hope of survival is to recognise that dissidence is a healthy, integral part of democracy. It can bend to accommodate this or, sure as the sun rising in the east, it will break trying to crush it.
Yesterday: Singapore's shameful sham judiciary, Part 1
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.