Tag: AGC

  • AGC To Take Action Against Lee Hsien Loong’s Nephew, Li Shengwu, For Contempt Of Court

    AGC To Take Action Against Lee Hsien Loong’s Nephew, Li Shengwu, For Contempt Of Court

    The AGC said it decided to act after Mr Li, 32, the eldest son of Mr Lee Hsien Yang and nephew of Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong, failed to remove the Facebook post and to apologise by an extended deadline of 5pm on Friday.

    In the Facebook post on July 15, which Mr Li set to “friends only” privacy setting but which was published by several websites and widely circulated on social media, he said foreign media had been cowed into self-censorship because of previous legal action.

    He shared a link to a Wall Street Journal newspaper article giving a summary of the recent dispute which saw his father and aunt Lee Wei Ling on one side, and his uncle on the other, over their late father Lee Kuan Yew’s home on 38, Oxley Road. The article was titled Singapore, A Model Of Orderly Rule, Is Jolted By A Bitter Family Feud.

    He also included a link to a 2010 New York Times commentary that was critical of the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew and the Government over what it deemed as censorship of the foreign press.

    AGC, in its statement on Friday, said it issued a letter of warning on July 21 to Mr Li.

    In that letter, Senior State Counsel Francis Ng noted that the New York Times article described the Singapore Government as “an authoritarian regime which aggressively uses the Singapore judicial system to silence its critics, even where such criticisms are fair or valid”.  The article also described the late Mr Lee Kuan Yew as the designer of “draconian press laws”, which have been used to suppress legitimate criticism, he wrote.

    Referring to Mr Li’s Facebook post, he said: “The clear meaning of the post, in referring to ‘a pliant court system’, is that the Singapore judiciary acts on the direction of the Singapore Government, is not independent, and has ruled and will continue to rule in favour of the Singapore Government in any proceedings, regardless of the merits of the case”.

    “This assertion is reinforced by your reference to, and clear endorsement of, the article,” he added, referring to the New York Times story.

    Mr Li was asked to comply with the following by 5pm on July 28:

    – Delete and remove the post from his Facebook page and any other social/online media and other documents in his possession, custody or control; and

    – Issue and post prominently a written apology and undertaking in the terms stated in the AGC’s letter on his Facebook page.

    Mr Li then wrote to the AGC to request an extension of time till 5pm on Aug 4 to respond to the AGC’s letter.

    The extension was granted. But he failed to purge the contempt and to apologise by the extended deadline, said AGC.

    In a Facebook post earlier on Friday, Mr Li said the post in question was not an attack on the judiciary.

    “It is not my intent to attack the Singapore judiciary or to undermine public confidence in the administration of justice. Any criticism I made is of the Singapore Government’s litigious nature, and its use of legal rules and actions to stifle the free press,” he said.

    “However, to avoid any misunderstanding of my original private post, I have amended the post so as to clarify my meaning,” he added.

    His amended post was not made public on his Facebook page.

    Responding to AGC’s decision to start contempt of court action against him, Mr Li wrote in a Facebook post on Friday night: “Well, this is a new development. Fortunately, my friends know how to call a spade a spade.”

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Open Election First, If No Minority Malay President Wins In 2017 Then Reserved Election For 2023

    Dr Tan Cheng Bock: Open Election First, If No Minority Malay President Wins In 2017 Then Reserved Election For 2023

    The Government brushes off my press conference.
    MCI has missed my point totally.

    I do not dispute the Constitutional Commission’s report or the White Paper. However, I disagree with the way the Government has triggered the reserved election.

    I am simply asking if the government’s counting from President Wee Kim Wee FOLLOWED the SPIRIT AND PURPOSE that was proposed by the Constitutional Commission. The Constitutional Commission has said that a reserved election will be triggered if 5 open elections produce no minority President. So far we have 4 open elections with no minority Malay President. So 2017 must remain an open election and if no minority Malay President wins in 2017, than a reserved election will be triggered in 2023.

    The Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) used a different format .
    AGC advised the Government to count the 5 year hiatus using “ 5 consecutive terms of Presidents who exercised elected powers” to include 1 nominated President and 4 openly elected Presidents. This is not in line with the spirit and purpose of the Constitutional Commission’s Report of 5 open elections.

    I’ve given my reasons why we should rightly count from our 1st openly elected President Ong Teng Cheong. It’s the government’s turn to give their reasons why they choose to count differently, having accepted the report. Why change the format?

    When asked in Parliament by an MP as recently as February 2017, it was brushed off with challenges to go to court and no debate.
    Singaporeans need to know the truth on such an important Constitutional matter.
    This is a chance for the Government to explain.
    They should not brushed it off again.

     

    Source: Dr Tan Cheng Bock

  • Public Prosecutor Will Not Appeal 4-Year Jail Sentence For Joshua Robinson: AGC

    Public Prosecutor Will Not Appeal 4-Year Jail Sentence For Joshua Robinson: AGC

    Following a “careful” review, the Public Prosecutor has decided not to appeal against the four-year jail term imposed on convicted sexual predator Joshua Robinson last week, noting that the punishment he got was broadly in line with relevant past cases’.

    In a statement on Wednesday (March 8), the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) added that while some have called for caning to be imposed on Robinson, the offences he was charged with did not allow the court to do so.

    The AGC also said: “In discharging our duties, we do not differentiate between Singaporeans and non-Singaporeans.”

    The American mixed-martial arts instructor was sentenced to four years’ jail last week for a myriad offences, ranging from sexual penetration of two 15-year-olds to showing an obscene film to a six-year-old girl.

    Following his sentencing, the case attracted widespread public attention, with many questioning why Robinson was not punished more severely – including an online petition being started on Sunday calling for a harsher sentence. More than 26,000 people, including the father of the six-year-old girl affected, have signed the petition, as of Wednesday afternoon.

    In 2015, Robinson contacted a 15-year-old girl through social media repeatedly, and exchanged numbers with her. He instructed the girl to wear her school uniform during their first meeting, where they went to his apartment along Upper Circular Road. There, he filmed them engaging in sexual acts.

    After the girl made a police report, the police found 5,902 obscene films in Robinson’s apartment, of which 321 featured child pornography – the largest stash found on an individual. The children in these videos were between the ages of two and 16.

    In its statement, the AGC said that by getting Robinson, 39, to plead guilty instead of claim trial, his three young victims were spared the ordeal of having to testify in court.

    It had asked for four to five years’ jail to be imposed, after taking into account, among other things, “the fact that by securing a guilty plea, the three young victims would be spared the trauma of having to testify and be cross-examined in a trial”.

    The AGC also addressed public comments that Robinson should have been charged with rape, statutory rape or outrage of modesty, and be subject to caning. It explained that statutory rape only applies to victims who have not turned 14, which was not the case in Robinson’s offences. And because both girls had consented to these sexual acts, an offence of rape could not be pressed against Robinson.

    The most serious offence that Robinson had committed was sexual penetration of a minor under 16 years old, and that did not provide for caning, the AGC added.

    AGC said that it would be discussing with the Ministry of Law whether the relevant legislation should be reviewed to enhance sentencing for some of the offences.

     

    Source: Today

  • Law Minister Acknowledges ‘Public Disquiet’ Over Joshua Robinson Sentence

    Law Minister Acknowledges ‘Public Disquiet’ Over Joshua Robinson Sentence

    Minister for Law and Home Affairs K Shanmugam said on Monday (Mar 6) that he understands there is “public disquiet” over the four-year sentence for an MMA instructor who sexually assaulted two teenage girls. “People are naturally upset. Parents in particular,” he said on the sidelines of a fundraising event.

    However, Mr Shanmugam said it is not an appropriate time for him to comment on the case against Joshua Robinson because the matter is not concluded and the time for appeal has not ended.

    “The decisions on which charges to proceed is a matter within AGC’s (Attorney-General’s Chambers) discretion. AGC makes the decisions based on precedents, and what kind of sentence is meted out depends on previous cases.”

    “Having said that, my understanding is that AGC is looking into this,” he added.

    Robinson was sentenced to four years’ jail on Mar 2 for sexually assaulting two teenage girls and filming the assaults for his own “perverse pleasure”. Police officers had seized 5,902 obscene films, including 321 films of child pornography when they raided his apartment. The haul is believed to be the largest collection of pornography seized from an individual in Singapore.

    In July 2015, a month after he was arrested and released on bail, Robinson showed a six-year-old girl an explicit video of his girlfriend performing a sexual act on him, while the girl’s father was busy training a short distance away.

    On Sunday, an online petition calling for a harsher sentence for Robinson was posted on change.org.

    Parent and early childhood educator Sarah Woon, who started the petition, said she found the four-year sentence “unacceptable and absolutely intolerable”. As of Monday evening, the petition has collected more than 9,300 signatures.

     

    Source: CNA

  • Jolovan Wham Ordered To Pay $6,063 Costs To Attorney-General After Failed Attempt To Quash Police Warning Against Him

    Jolovan Wham Ordered To Pay $6,063 Costs To Attorney-General After Failed Attempt To Quash Police Warning Against Him

    Civil activist Jolovan Wham has been ordered to pay S$6,063 in costs to the Attorney-General for his failed bid to quash a police warning that had been issued against him.

    The police warning came after Mr Wham breached rules against foreigners participating in events at Hong Lim Park without a permit, several years ago.

    The member of non-governmental group Community Action Network and executive director of HOME, a migrant worker help group, had organised a candlelight vigil to show support for protestors in Hong Kong fighting election restrictions in October 2014.

    The event was publicised on Facebook, but despite the condition that foreigners and permanent residents could not take part without a permit, some foreigners still showed up, leading to investigations against Mr Wham.

    In March last year, under the direction of the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC), Mr Wham was verbally warned.

    However, he refused to sign the Notice of Warning without having a copy to consult his lawyer first. The police declined to give him a copy of the document.

    Two months later, the police followed up with a letter saying the warning had been delivered and the matter closed.

    Concerned that the warning would stick in his record and be used against him in future, Mr Wham went to court to try to quash the police warning under a judicial review.

    In dismissing his suit last December, High Court judge Woo Bih Li said that such warnings are nothing more than an opinion of the relevant authority that the recipient has committed an offence, and have no legal effect on the recipient.

    “It does not and cannot amount to a legally binding pronouncement of guilt or finding of fact.

    “Only a court of law has the power to make such a pronouncement or finding,” the judge had said.

    The court is not entitled to treat such warnings as antecedents or aggravating factors for subsequent convictions, Justice Woo said in dismissing the suit.

    The judge also said the police’s handling of the matter had left much to be desired, while noting, among other things, that the Notice of Warning was undated and employed inconsistent wording.

    After the court issued its judgment in December last year, a spokesman for the AGC said: “AGC and the Singapore Police Force are reviewing the process by which stern warnings are administered and the use of the notice, in light of the High Court’s comments in the judgment.”

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com