PLEASE SHARE THIS POST AS WIDELY AS YOU CAN. This is the first time I have made such a request .
Here is my speech ( rather an emotional cry for justice for Ridzuan and others )delivered on Saturday made in memory of Ridzuan. I can’t help but to feel angry….outrage ….those who say to me stay calm… I ask – would you stay calm if your brother was murdered unjustly In front of you just a week ago !The wounds of this cold blooded murderous evil act ( “evil ” is the word used by my esteemed colleague Eugene Thuraisingam in his Facebook postings ) is still afresh and raw. If you don’t share the outrage , don’t tell me I should not feel this way or that way .. to me that only shows you are heartless, operating on cold logic!
Friday morning executions are like bunch of thugs who had given you a warning that they will kill your child ( if you have one ) in front of you and they give you the exact time of execution ( murder)and finally execute their plans infront of you and your child is screaming mummy , mummy ..they hang her infront of you and harvest all the organs with blood and gore ..My God … Tell me , what would you say.?
What kind of people do we we have in Singapore ? .. What kind of lawyers we have ? What kind of judges we have ?Do they not have children ?
Im tired of hearing the following :
“Hey Ravi , don’t be emotional” …”be detached sweetheart ..be professional ..focus on the next best billing on the files ..clients come and go…”
So , it’s another file only to be closed, another bill to be chased ,right? And these are touted as the best practices of law”.
Enough is enough !!!!!!
JUSTICE FOR RIDZUAN AND OTHERS AND INTERNATIONAL ACTIONS
I will be opening an account this week to raise funds for my travel to several countries including New York,Canada, France , Germany , Britain, Spain and New Zealand to maintain legal actions against the Singapore authorities on behalf of Ridzuan and other victims ,their families and friends . The global action will be called JUSTICE for Ridzuan . I thank the international community and the international human rights lawyers for their wonderful support and solidarity .
The account would be PayPal account so that the Singapore government cannot monitor or freeze the account and any attempts to do will be met with legal sanctions .
I look forward to your generous support. I will give an estimate of the amount to be raised shortly. I will be leaving for New York in 3 weeks to instruct lawyers to file the first case there with press conference which will be aired Facebook live internationally . Singapore representatives will be invited to the Press Conferences in the respective jurisdictions in question. . See if they turn up . There will be protests as well in major cities against Singapore authorities and leaders ( but not its people )for crimes against humanity under the Rome Statute and or other international instruments which you will find out when these cases are filed in the international courts and warrants issued.
Human rights lawyer M. Ravi yesterday filed a constitutional challenge against changes to the elected presidency made last year.
The changes, which Parliament approved last November, tighten the qualifying criteria for candidates, and include a provision to reserve a presidential election for candidates from a racial group that has not been represented in the office for five continuous terms.
Mr Ravi argues that the changes are unconstitutional because they deprive citizens of their right to stand for public office and discriminate on the grounds of ethnicity.
The High Court confirmed that Mr Ravi had filed an originating summons and supporting affidavit.
A spokesman for the Attorney-General’s Chambers told The Straits Times that “it will study the papers” filed by Mr Ravi.
Mr Ravi, currently a non-practising lawyer, said on Facebook that he filed the application in his capacity as a private citizen.
His is the second legal challenge related to the elected presidency mounted this month.
On May 5, former presidential candidate Tan Cheng Bock filed a challenge over whether the upcoming presidential election should be a reserved one.
Unlike Dr Tan, Mr Ravi challenges the entire reserved election mechanism as unconstitutional, he said on Facebook yesterday.
He believes that the elected presidency is not consistent with Article 12(2) of the Constitution.
It states that unless expressly authorised by the Constitution, there shall be no discrimination against Singapore citizens on the ground only of religion, race, descent or place of birth in any law, or in the appointment to any office, or employment under a public authority.
“The right to stand for the elected presidency should be no different from the right to participate in parliamentary elections – all citizens should be equal,” he wrote.
“The selection of the elected candidate should be based on merit, all other relevant requirements being fulfilled.”
Mr Ravi also contends the amendments run counter to a legal principle called the basic structure doctrine, which he says applies here.
U people tell me…….how to trust the law..?????!!!!!!!
“We the citizens of SINGAPORE..Pledge ourselve as One united peple…
Rgardless of Race..Language or Religions..to built a Democratic Society….BASE ON JUSTICE N EQUALITY????
BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH”
Thaipusam and the Right to Religious & Cultural Practice in Singapore
Thaipusam has been an integral part of my religious and cultural upbringing. As a child, I attended, supported and even participated in the festival. Singapore’s Tourism Board lists Thaipusam as an event in its rich diverse cultural heritage calendar. Each year, the streets are lined with supporters, devotees and curious tourists alike. The festival, however, has been shrouded in controversy in Singapore – the consequence being that thousands of Singaporeans would rather chose to flock to Batu Caves in Malaysia to celebrate the festival.
The reason for the controversy was a 42-year-old ban on the playing of live music during the festival. First imposed in 1973, the government argued that the blanket ban on loud live music was necessary to quell disorder as several fights often disrupted between competing groups, thus disrupting the procession and risking the lives of spectators and accompanying supporters.
I have written previously about this “Silenced Festival” in my book Kampong Boy and how in 2011, I myself stepped up as a plaintiff with the Attorney-General’s Office and the Hindu Endowments Board (HEB) that is responsible for running and organising the festival, as the defendants. This was the first time someone challenged the live music ban in court. Unfortunately, my legal action before then Justice Steven Chong, did not succeed due to the points I listed in the book.
The Legalities
Article 15(4) of the Constitution gives the executive branch of the government the broad authority to restrict the practice of religion in accordance with the law – the caveat being that the decision-maker’s power to do so may be challenged in Court. Additionally, the Public Order Act and its related regulation empower the Commissioner of Police to impose such conditions as he deems fit for the purposes of making an application for a licence to hold a public assembly or a public procession.
Of particular relevance to Thaipusam are regulations 8(1)c and 8(2)c which do not permit singing or music, gongs, drums or the playing of music-producing equipment. Also public processions require permits and applications which also have conditions attached.
2015 Case
In 2015, three men were arrested during a scuffle which took place during a Thaipusam festival. In the ensuing case, Vijaya Kumar s/o Rajendran v Attorney-General, the three Applicants cited their constitutional rights to freedom of religious practise and equality before the law to challenge the conditions which prohibited the use of musical instruments (other than at certain fixed points) during the procession.
The Applicants argued that music from an urumi is a fundamental aspect of the religious practice of marching in the Thaipusam procession and that the music conditions imposed constituted a breach of their rights to practice their faith without interference.
The case raised important questions including firstly, the proper meaning of the term “public order” under Article 15(4) of the Constitution, secondly, the type of state interests which can justify restricting a religious liberty, thirdly, the degree of harm that must be posed by a religious liberty before it can be restricted, and fourthly, whether the possible hostility of third parties to a person’s peaceful exercise of faith can be deemed as constitutionally relevant under the “public order” consideration.
I got involved in the case through my connections with the legal team at Eugene Thuraisingam LLP representing the Applicants. Everything balanced on being able to prove that the relevance of musical instruments was an integral part of Thaipusam and therefore to the practice and religion of Hinduism. We tried to find experts in Singapore who were able to affirm the position in our favour. We were confronted with the reality that as most temples in Singapore are affiliated to the government’s HEB, no one was willing assist the Applicants. I recall the day, I travelled with Eugene Thuraisingam who led the legal team to seek Hindu experts from across the border who were willing to share the history and origins of the procession and to explain the relevance of music and devotional songs played during the festival. We were thrilled to find Tan Sri Datuk R. Nadarajah, Chairman of the Batu Caves temple in Kuala Lumpur.
The expert stated that the “playing of the musical instruments forms an integral and inseparable part to the carrying of the Kavadis” because the music facilitates the Kavadi carriers to “enter into a trance” which then enables them to bear the enormous physical burden and pain of weight of the hoisted Kavadi. The music is an essential part not just to the procession but also to the “nature of worship”. The expert’s affidavit went as far as to state that the taking away of the musical instruments would be “traumatic” for the Kavadi carrier as the trance will be broken and he will feel immense physical burden and unbearable pain from the body piercings. Without the music, the devotee is more likely to be “distracted from focusing on the divine”.
In the end, the High Court dismissed the application on the grounds that the public order proviso to freedom of religion was made out, and the differential treatment was justified. The Applicants appealed, but later decided to withdraw their case in the light of increased dialogue between interested parties and the announcement by the government to relax the live music rule.
Music to the Ears – Latest Developments
In 2016, Hindu devotees in Singapore received their first bout of good news. The 42 year old ban on live music was lifted and live music was allowed to be played from 3 stages at different points during the procession. Broadcasted music was also permitted at 7 other locations. The Chairman of HEB was able to proudly announce that “there won’t be a stretch that is without music”. He also added, “The kavadi bearers pierce their bodies, causing enormous pain, as part of the vows they have taken. The music will be useful in reducing the pain and enhancing their spiritual focus throughout their journey.
The latest bout of good news came last week. This year’s festival which will fall on the 9th of February, will see music broadcasted at 23 points along the 4km stretch. Live music will be continued to be played at 3 stages where musicians will play traditional classical Indian instruments so that the younger generation understands their rich cultural heritage and be interested to learn these instead of the modern western style drums and bongos which have appeared at the festival in recent years.
No doubt tremendous progress has been made to listen to feedback from the Hindu community and from devotees. Participants are still not yet allowed to bring their own musicians or musical instruments and some restrictions remain. I personally hope some faith will be restored in the celebration of this festival in Singapore and that fewer Singaporean Hindus see the need to cross the border to partake in such a monumental and colourful festival.
As I wrote in my book, it is hard to think that over 155 years of tradition and devotion could be “cowed into quietude”.
