Tag: Amos Yee

  • Amos Yee: Critique Is To Spur Positive Change

    Amos Yee: Critique Is To Spur Positive Change

    16-year old blogger Amos Yee explained in court documents that his intention in critiquing Christianity and Lee Kuan Yew is to open discussions on what he saw as “problems” with the faith and Singapore.

    The teenager said that he was aware his critique would lead some people to take offence, but that this promoted discussion, which, he added, “was healthy for positive change to take place in future.”

    Amos Yee is being charged for remarks he made in a video on the death of the late Lee Kuan Yew, Singapore’s former prime minister.

    The authorities say the video “contained remarks against Christianity, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of Christians in general”.

    He is also being charged for a caricature of Mr Lee and the late British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, which the authorities say is an offence under Singapore’s obscenity laws.

    After his video on Mr Lee was uploaded, Amos Yee said there were positive and negative comments from the public, and that he was “pleased that my video had opened up a bigger avenue to look at religion objectively, instead of mere blind faith.”

    He said he had concerns about the Christian faith and that the “the only way to rectify the problem is to criticize the problems head-on.”

    He explained that while he “was aware that critiquing these problems (with the Christian faith) would promote ill-will”, he saw this as “a natural consequence”, and that “promoting ill-will is a prerogative for positive change to happen in society, especially if the issue at hand were initially controversial.”

    The teen said he was born into a Catholic family and was raised a Catholic.

    However, in 2013, when he was about to be confirmed as a Catholic (which is a practice in the Church known as “Confirmation”), he “started to question the implications” of it.

    He then began to conduct his own research into the faith by watching online videos on Youtube and reading blog posts.

    His finding, from these, and other “emotional catalysts” such as being “kicked out” of the altar boys group for swearing, resulted in him disengaging from the Church altogether in 2013, he said.

    Earlier this year, he observed that “there was huge outpouring of grief online and in the mainstream media” when Mr Lee passed away.

    He said this “piqued” his interest and he decided to conduct more research on Mr Lee. He visited blogger Roy Ngerng’s website, had discussions with supporters of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), and read Mr Lee’s book, “Lee Kuan Yew: The Man And His Ideas”, which he had borrowed from Toa Payoh library.

    “After my research, I realised that he was a horrible man and that some of his policies were inane,” Amos Yee said.

    Subsequently, he decided to make a video on Mr Lee’s death, in which he also drew comparisons between Mr Lee and Jesus Christ.

    Amos Yee said he has been making videos since he was 12-years old.

    He had also won two awards – Best Actor and Best Short Film – for one of his films, “Jan”, three years ago in The New Paper’s first film award competition, beating 160 other entries.

    In the 8-minute video on Mr Lee, titled “Lee Kuan Yew is finally dead!”, where he spoke some 1,200 words, Amos Yee mentioned “Jesus Christ” once, and “Christian” twice.

    Before uploading the video online, he asked two of his friends if the video would be legal, but both gave him inconclusive answers.

    He then looked up the Sedition Act to see if his video would contravene the law.

    “However, after reading through the Act, I remained unsure as to the legality of my video,” he said in the court documents.

    Nonetheless, he said he “was aware that the contents of the video were seditious in nature” but he was unsure if his actions would land him in jail.

    He decided to go ahead and upload the video after he saw how others “whose opinions were published online and promoted a lot of ill-will, continued to publish these opinions of theirs and were not charged under the Sedition Act.”

    He thus did not think that his actions (in uploading the video online) would be deemed illegal.

    After the video became public, the teenager said he noticed that the majority of online comments in reaction to it were “hate-filled messages”.

    But he said he expected this “as the content was meant to be controversial.”

    There were also, he noted, “a noticeable amount of people who agreed with my views and supported my stance.”

    The video has thus far been viewed more than a million times on Youtube.

    Amos Yee also revealed in his court documents that he “began receiving death threats and hate messages online and on my mobile phone.”

    He said he was “not overly concerned” by these as he felt most of them were baseless and were “not steeped in logic.”

    “Besides, despite the hatred and ill-will generated from my video, it opened up a larger avenue for critical discussion towards Lee Kuan Yew, thus raising awareness to the inherent problems of Singapore,” he said.

    Amos Yee was assaulted outside the State Court about a week ago as he made his way to a pre-trial conference.

    A 49-year old man is reported to have been arrested for the assault since, and police say investigations are ongoing.

    As for the caricature of Mr Lee and Mrs Thatcher portrayed in an unflattering manner, Amos Yee said he came up with the image after learning that Mrs Thatcher had once said Mr Lee “was always right.”

    The teenager felt that this was an “overgeneralisation” and “too sweeping to be objectively true.”

    His intention in making the image was thus to make fun of Mrs Thatcher’s claim, and to encourage more people to “openly criticise and make fun of their political leaders.”

    This, he said, “opens up a larger avenue for critical analysis and positive change in Singapore.”

    Amos Yee said he refuses to remove any of the videos he has made, or the post about Mr Lee and Mrs Thatcher, “because it would not appease the public”, and also it would suggest that he was sorry for the videos and the blog post, which he is in fact not sorry for.

    He explained that he was not remorseful for his actions because while he knows that they are offensive, “that is an aspect for freedom of speech and positive change to occur.”

    Amos Yee had ended his video expressing hope that Singapore would see positive changes, especially with a general election expected to be called soon.

    “[There] is  high chance that us, citizens of Singapore, things can finally change for the better,” he said in the video. “Let’s all hope for change, for good change, for every possible kind.”

    After the hearing on Wednesday, the teenager’s lawyer, Alfred Dodwell, said his client was in good spirits.

    “He believes that he’s done nothing wrong, stands by what he says, and this is the very reason why he is in remand, because he refuses to be gagged,” Mr Dodwell said.

    The parents of the 16-year old were in court to lend support to their son yesterday, along with friends and supporters of Amos Yee.

    The two-day trial, presided by District Judge Jasvendar Kaur, continues on Friday afternoon.

    Read also: “Amos Yee pleads not guilty, in good spirits”.

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

  • How Amos Trial In Court Went: Roy Ngerng

    How Amos Trial In Court Went: Roy Ngerng

    Hello everyone, this was what happened in court for the second day of Amos’s trial today.

    I got to the State Court at about 1pm today even though Amos’s trial was supposed to start at 2.30pm. But by then, there was already about 20 people in the queue.

    By the time Amos’s trial was to start, there were already about 80 people in the queue. According to someone who has gone to several trials previously, he has never seen so many people come to attend a hearing before.

    Many Singaporeans are concerned about Amos’s situation.

    The trial started late again. It only started at about 3pm. (Yesterday, it started after 1 hour 30 minutes.)

    When Amos walked into the courtroom, he was once again bounded in chains and shackles. He still wore a shirt with the words, “Prisoner”, on his back. Amos walked with a limp and was dragging his feet. According to his mom when Amos spoke to her yesterday, the chains were very heavy and were very painful as the chains were eating into his legs.

    image

    Amos’s lawyers started their defence first. Ervin Tan was the first to defend Amos. He explained that on the charge of Section 292 of obscenity, a person cannot be charged on a mere assertion.

    Obscenity can only be ruled when a person who is likely to see an image might be depraved or corrupted. In other words, a person who sees an image should want to engage in a sexual act or that it must lead to sexual fantasies and cause a person to be “tempted” to have sex.

    Mind you, this charge is in relation to the image of the drawing which featured Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher.

    So, erm. Well, you get the picture.

    Ervin did not say this, but it is clear that what could be said is that the picture clearly does not encourage anyone to want to have sex, and cannot thus be viewed as obscene and Amos should therefore be acquitted of the charge.

    Ervin also argued that when it comes to the Internet, a person would have to take certain steps to want to search for something. So in order to be able to view the image, they would have to do a search of “Amos Yee”, for example. Just because an image is online does not mean that it can be viewed by anyone, Ervin defended by saying. Ervin also explained that it is this group of people who would take such steps who are likely to be able to view the image and who would know what they are searching for and what to expect.

    Ervin thus argued that it is unlikely that people who viewed the image would find it “obscene”.

    On the contrary he explained that it could be possible that a youth who viewed the image might become political and learn to critique political leaders. Ervin stopped short of going further. The suggestion is that Amos is being persecuted for the picture not so much because it is “obscene” but because it contained an image of Lee Kuan Yew.

    Ervin also explained that if someone did not like the pictures, they could use other tools, such as defamation and the protection against harrassment act if they wanted to take action. However, he pointed out that the two people in the image are deceased, which also explained why the AGC had stood down the charge against Amos under the Protection against Harassment Act, in relation to Lee Kuan Yew, he added.

    By still charging Amos under Section 292 for obscenity, this is an abuse of the law and extending the use of the law, Ervin posits. He explained that if parliament finds that there is a new mischief of offending the dead, then it is up to parliament to pass a new law.

    image

    Amos’s second lawyer, Chong Jia Hao, was the next to defend Amos on the charge of Section 298 which is about the “deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of Christians in general”.

    Jia Hao defended Amos by saying that there is no evidence that Amos’s words have wounded the feelings of Christians. He argued that Amos’s main purpose is to critique Lee Kuan Yew and even then, those are just his opinions.

    Jia Hao also explained that if Amos’s comment on Christianity is a crime, then many thousands of people and books on the shelves would all have also committed crimes.

    Jia Hao also explained that Amos’s critique about Lee Kuan Yew is really aimed at Lee Kuan Yew’s followers. Amos’s critique, Jia Hao explained, is that the followers should follow “sound logic or knowledge about him that is grounded in reality,” where otherwise they would be “completely delusional and ignorant”, which Amos had said.

    Jia Hao added that religion teaches tolerance.

    He pointed out that there have been many Christians who have also said that their feelings have not been hurt. One example is Amos’s bailer, Vincent Law, had said that he is Christian but is not hurt. Also, there has been a petition going around and which has been signed by nearly 4,000 people, many Christians, who have asked for Amos to be released.

    Jia Hao also revealed that there have been 32 police reports made against Amos but none of them have taken to the stand as witnesses.

    In fact, only one police report has been made available and even then, this report makes mention of the “founding father”. He also spoke of another report by Grace Tan which only made mention of Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher.

    What evidence does the AGC have that these people were wounded by what Amos said, Jia Hao asked. The AGC does not have evidence that Christians were hurt. There were no witnesses. There were no police reports.

    Jia Hao also said that the court must consider the impact of the freedom of speech which is protected by the Singapore constitution and cannot just look at the interests of an overly-sensitive group of people. (He should be referring to the supporters of Lee Kuan Yew?) He added that if Amos is found guilty, it is a curtailing of Amos’s right and that of a significant proportion of Singaporeans.

    Jia Hao then said that it is clear that Amos made the video because he wants to state his views on Lee Kuan Yew. He said that Amos had realised that Lee Kuan Yew is a “horrible” person after reading up and decided to make the video as it would opened up critical channels for discussion. It would also encourage people to make fun of their political leaders and result in positive change, Amos had hoped.

    Amos’s intentions of making his video is thus noble because he wants progress for Singaporeans and to encourage discussion on Lee Kuan Yew, Jia Hao explained.

    “Even the title is directed at Lee Kuan Yew: “Lee Kuan Yew Is Finally Dead!”, Jia Hao said.

    “If he wants to hurt Christians, he would have titled the video, “Jesus Is Finally Dead!”, Jia Hao explained.

    Amos’s aim is to really challenge the reputation that Lee Kuan Yew generally enjoys, Jia Hao added. “It is patently clear that the centre of the critique is around Lee Kuan Yew,” Jia Hao concluded.

    Moreover, he pointed out that the AGC only took issue with 10 sentences in the video, which lasted a much longer 8 minutes and thus in view of the title and the content of the video, there is clearly no intention to hurt Christians. It is really about Lee Kuan Yew.

    Finally, Jia Hao also said that people can choose to ignore the video if they don’t like it, but they had chosen to watch it.

    image

    The highlight of the trial was when Amos’s third lawyer, Alfred Dodwell, who has been on the forefront on his case, spoke.

    Alfred wanted to submit an evidence but the AGC did not allow him to do so.

    Alfred that this evidence is “critical”.

    However, AGC rebutted and said that the evidence should not be submitted as it can be taken out of context (as if the AGC has been taking everything in their context – NOT!).

    Finally, after a back and forth with the AGC, the judge finally allowed Alfred to submit the evidence.

    The audience roared in response and clapped at the judge’s decision.

    Alfred then read out the evidence. It was a recorded statement from Amos where he had stated that he had no intentions of wounding the religious feelings of Christians and his intention was to really critique Lee Kuan Yew.

    Amos should thus be acquitted.

    This piece of evidence is indeed crucial. Alfred explained that it would “vindicate” Amos.

    Now, why did the AGC not allow this evidence to be submitted? Why did the AGC want to block it?

    When it came to the AGC’s turn to put out their case, I was actually expecting a proper argument. But it was very poor, and I am being objective here.

    AGC insisted that Amos’s intention of the image is to corrupt minds (meaning, to make them want to have sex). To remind you, this is the image of Lee Kuan Yew and Margaret Thatcher.

    AGC also said that one day, 200 years from now, the image might not be “obscene” but for now, it is obscene for the person on the MRT train or coffee shop.

    To be honest, I could not follow AGC’s arguments. AGC just kept harping on one point – that Amos has the intentions to hurt Christians, and then they kept trying to rehash their arguments just to justify their point.

    AGC then said that Section 298 is meant to protect the social fabric of Singapore, and then once again repeated that Amos has the intentions to hurt Christians.

    In summary, AGC made a very weak case. The guy just kept saying that Amos has the intentions. Actually, I don’t have to tell you that the arguments are weak. None of the media controlled by the PAP fully reported about the case, because there is very little material that they can report on from the AGC side and they wouldn’t want to report on the arguments brought up by Amos (because the media is controlled by the PAP), which you can see is quite substantial and well thought out.

    Finally, the AGC concluded with the most out-of-the-world statement ever. This one takes the cake.

    He said: “You know it is obscene when you see it.”

    And with that, AGC concluded their case. I just rolled back and laughed. You call this a conclusion?

    Honestly, if the court were to rule against Amos, I would be disappointed. Amos’s lawyers made a very strong case and the AGC simply didn’t make good.

    At one point, Amos left the court and returned. And when he walked back in, in chains, his supporters outside court see him and started cheered and clapping for him. The door was open and Amos could see them. They then chanted, “Famous Amos”.

    Amos looked surprised but I thought there was a look of relief on his face. I don’t think it’s a good experience for a child to be remanded in prison. It has been 14 days that he has been inside, in total now.

    I hope this ends quickly. Today when we saw Amos, he looks a lot more tired. He looked paler. Amos still tried to smile at us when he saw us but you could see that he is exhausted.

    Amos is only a 16-year-old boy. He is being unfairly persecuted by the PAP. And he has to be let go. There is no reason why Amos should be charged as he has not done anything wrong.

    I told The Straits Times something along these lines: “Amos did not do anything wrong. Amos is being unfairly persecuted by the state because the laws are unfair. And if the laws are unfair, it is the state which should review the laws and not continue to use the unfair laws to persecute him (and Singaporeans).” But they did not want to report on this comment.

    In the end, it is clear and sundry to all Singaporeans and to the world that Amos’s persecution is political and he should not have been charged at all for what he did, not least because there have been many PAP members and supporters who have done and said worse things than he has but nothing has happened to them.

    Tomorrow is my birthday. All I wish for is that Amos will be freed and all the charges dropped against him, and that we can start a new beginning for Singapore. This was what Amos wanted and this is what we need for Singapore.

    All the best to Amos. Please pray for him.

    The judge will pass her judgement on Amos on next Tuesday.

     

    Source:http://thehearttruths.com

  • Amos Yee Pleads Not Guilty, In High Spirits

    Amos Yee Pleads Not Guilty, In High Spirits

    After an almost two-hour delay in the morning, the trial of 16-year old blogger Amos Yee finally got underway at the State Court on Thursday.

    The teenager is being charged on two counts involving his online content which he had published recently.

    The first count is for remarks in a Youtube video which the prosecution claims “contained remarks against Christianity, with the deliberate intention of wounding the religious feelings of Christians in general”.

    The second charge is one of transmitting an allegedly obscene caricature of Singapore’s late prime minister, Lee Kuan Yew, and the late British prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, on his blog.

    A third charge, originally filed against him, was under the Protection from Harassment Act for the video which the prosecution claims “contained remarks about Mr Lee Kuan Yew which was intended to be heard and seen by persons likely to be distressed”.

    The prosecution has stood down this third charge for the time being. It could be taken up against Amos Yee again in the future.

    The youth was arrested on 30 March and charged the next day.

    He is also currently in remand after having rejected the conditions attached to his bail, which include not posting any content online on any subject until his trial is completed.

    The prosecution, at the bail review hearing which was held on Wednesday, also introduced a new condition – that Amos Yee went for “psychiatric counselling” if he is let out on bail.

    The deputy public prosecutor had also agreed to remove other earlier bail conditions, including the requirement for the teenager to report daily to the Bedok police station.

    But Amos Yee refused the conditions altogether, prompting the judge at the review to deny his release from remand.

    Members of the public turned up early at court room 7 at the State Court for Thursday’s trial, and the public gallery was packed, with those unable to get in having to wait outside the room.

    When Amos Yee was finally brought out in court, a collective gasp was raised from those in the public gallery.

    The teenager was handcuffed and shackled in both hands and feet as he made his way to the dock, and he wore a white t-shirt with the word “PRISONER” emblazoned on the back.

    “Why shackle him?” some in the gallery said out loud. “Why treat him like that?” they asked. This prompted court officers to order the gallery to be silent.

    Amos Yee, who looked to be in good spirits, confirmed that he was pleading not guilty to both charges when asked by the presiding judge, Jasvender Kaur.

    He also chose not to give testimony.

    The prosecution said it will not be calling any witnesses.

    Defence counsel, Alfred Dodwell, told the court that defence will be relying on the statement which Amos Yee had given to the police.

    The judge then turned to the evidence submitted by the prosecution, and made particular mention of the obscenity charge.

    Apparently referring to the image of Lee and Thatcher, which is the basis of the prosecution’s obscenity charge, the judge said an image by itself was not enough to conclude obscenity. She said there must be intent to profane and corrupt.

    She thus instructed the prosecution to address this at Friday’s hearing.

    The hearing lasted only a short while as defence counsels asked the court for more time to examine the prosecution’s evidence.

    The judge agreed and adjourned the hearing to tomorrow afternoon.

    Asked by reporters after the hearing how his client was holding up, Mr Dodwell said, “He’s in the highest spirit possible and he is very happy with the conduct of the case and he feels very confident about it. Amos is very positive. He believes that he’s done nothing wrong, stands by what he says, and this is the very reason why he is in remand, because he refused to be gagged.”

    Mr Dodwell, visibly upset, then reminded the media that Amos Yee was a youth and that he should be treated with dignity.

    He was apparently referring to news reports which had inaccurately claimed that the teenager had refused psychiatric counselling twice and had refused to attend a third one.

    In fact, counsellor Vincent Law has since told The Online Citizen (TOC) that Amos Yee’s third session at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) had clashed with the day of his bail review hearing.

    He thus could not attend the IMH session, even though they had tried to ask the institute to bring the session forward. (See here.)

    Mr Law told TOC, “You should know that Amos refused bail today (Wednesday) not because he doesn’t want to continue psychiatric counselling but because he didn’t want to be gagged.”

    Indeed, this has been the teenager’s position from the beginning. He believes that he has not done anything wrong, and not been found guilty of any offence, and thus should have the right under the Constitution to free speech.

    The bail conditions denied him this right and he thus rejected the conditions.

    “For a 16-year old boy to take such a stand, I think… [the] media should reflect him properly,” Mr Dodwell said, “as opposed to try to paint him as some psychopath, needing psychiatric treatment and stuff.”

    “He is only 16! Only 16! Please don’t forget that,” Mr Dodwell said. “Don’t make him out to be some kind of demon.”

    His remarks were met with cheers and applause from members of the public who were there.

    Both of Amos Yee’s parents were also present in court today.

    In the meantime, police have told the media that investigations are still ongoing into the assault on Amos Yee which took place on 30 April outside the State Court.

    A 49-year old man is reported to have since been arrested by the police for the incident.

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

  • Ismail Kassim: A Poem For Amos Yee

    Ismail Kassim: A Poem For Amos Yee

    Amos Yee in court,

    Handcuffed and shackled,

    Like a common criminal.

    Yet, his head still high,

    His spirit unbroken,

    Integrity intact.

    A boy with giant principles,

    Rare here or elsewhere.

     

    Source: Ismail Kassim

  • Amos Yee Knew Blog, Video Contents Would Offend, His Ideas Shaped By SDP Member And Roy Ngerng

    Amos Yee Knew Blog, Video Contents Would Offend, His Ideas Shaped By SDP Member And Roy Ngerng

    Blogger Amos Yee has pleaded not guilty to both charges on Thursday morning (May 7), at the start of his two-day trial. The teenager faced a charge of making offensive or wounding remarks against Christianity and another of circulating obscene imagery.

    Yee’s lawyers had requested for an adjournment as they needed time to look through the evidence. The judge called for an end to the day’s hearing, and will hear further submissions on Friday, 2.30pm.

    Lawyer Alfred Dodwell told reporters after the hearing: “(Yee) is in the highest spirits possible and he’s very happy with the conduct of the case and feels very confident about it.

    “Amos is very positive; he believes there’s nothing wrong and stands by what he says and this is the very reason why he is in remand, because he refuses to be gagged.”

    “Amos is in the highest spirits possible and he’s very happy with the conduct of the case”: #AmosYee’s lawyer, Alfred Dodwell, says that the blogger “knew what he was doing”. cna.asia/1bzfvsg

    Posted by Channel NewsAsia Singapore on Wednesday, May 6, 2015

    “In relation to the first charge, which is in relation to obscenity, it is a legal argument so there is no need for there to be a trial, because we have to submit on whether this image is, in law, found to be obscene. So there are legal tests to be involved and that’s what we will be submitting on in relation to this. And the court has to make a determination as to whether this image was and truly obscene,” said Mr Dodwell.

    “In relation to the second (charge), the portion on the relation to Christianity, there’s a lot said that he attacked Christianity, in the context of the transcript of what he has said. The question really is, did he do so, and if so, then in what context did he say it as an analogy to Mr Lee Kuan Yew?” Mr Dodwell asked.

    He added: “The question for us as lawyers is: ‘Has he violated the law? Is he criminal in relation to this?’ That is really the question. And Amos Yee knows about these things. He feels very strongly that he has the freedom of speech and expression in Singapore as provided for in the Constitution and he feels very strongly that he has done nothing wrong. So he’s in the highest of spirits.”

    “I FULLY EXPECTED PEOPLE TO TAKE OFFENCE”

    Court documents revealed that Yee knew that the contents of his blogs and videos would be offensive, but went ahead to post them. Before uploading his video on Christianity in December 2014, Yee said he was “aware that the content of the video was offensive and would promote feelings of disharmony and ill-will within the Christian community”.

    “I noted that there were people who were offended by my video and I fully expected people to take offence,” he said, referring to comments after the video was uploaded.

    Regarding his video posted on Mar 27, he said: “I was aware that the contents of the video were seditious in nature, in that they raised discontent or disaffection amongst people practising the Christian faith in Singapore, but was not sure if my actions would land me in jail.”

    The Mar 27 video compared Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew to Jesus Christ. “I was fully aware that this comparison was bound to promote ill-will amongst the Christian population, and would be offensive to a significant number of Singaporeans, because the general sentiment towards Lee Kuan Yew was very positive,” said Yee.

    Court documents also revealed that Yee’s mother, when consulted, advised him not to upload the Mar 27 video, but he “disagreed with her and uploaded it anyway”.

    “I do not have the intention to remove any of the videos that I have made,” said Yee according to Court documents, adding that he also would not remove the post involving Margaret Thatcher and Mr Lee Kuan Yew that was deemed obscene.  “I refuse to do this because it would not appease the public, as the video and posts will continue to be circulated, and also because doing so would suggest that I was sorry for the videos and my post, which I am not.”

    According to Court documents, Yee said his ideas were also shaped by meet-ups with members from the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP). An SDP member also introduced Yee to Mr Roy Ngerng’s blog, and Yee said he was convinced by what Mr Ngerng had published.

    The teenager added that he drew evidence from Mr Ngerng’s blog posts for his video on Mr Lee Kuan Yew.

    COURTROOM PACKED FOR TRIAL

    Yee decided not to take the stand in court on Thursday. One of his lawyers later said this was because Yee had explained himself in the statement to police, after his arrest in March.

    The teen’s parents attended the trial. Mr Ngerng, blogger Andrew Loh and lawyer Teo Soh Lung were also seen in the packed courtroom.

    Yee has been in remand after his previous pre-trial conference on Apr 30, after his bailor, family and youth counsellor Vincent Law, decided to discharge himself. Mr Law had told reporters earlier that he had done so as Yee “refuses to abide” by the bail conditions. Mr Law was also seen in the audience on Thursday morning.

    If convicted of making remarks wounding the feelings of Christians, Yee, who is being tried as an adult, faces up to three years’ jail, a fine, or both. For circulating obscene imagery, he could be jailed up to three months, fined, or punished with both.

    A third charge, for his statements on Singapore’s founding Prime Minister Lee Kuan Yew, was “stood down”. An AGC spokesperson said the charge has not been dropped, but that the prosecution will deal with the first two charges for the upcoming trial with the third charge to be dealt with later.

    The 16-year-old saw his challenge on the conditions of his bail dismissed by Justice Tay Yong Kwang in a bail hearing on Wednesday. Yee also refused to go for psychiatric counselling in exchange for a lower bail amount, which remained at S$30,000.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com