Rilek1Corner

Tag: Roy Ngerng

  • Will The People Egging Amos Yee Do The Same If It Was Their Child?

    Will The People Egging Amos Yee Do The Same If It Was Their Child?

    The response to my previous article on Amos Yee, was not altogether unexpected. Many would agree, but there will be those who are so virulently anti-PAP, that any article that calls into question the actions of persons who are in some political or anti-establishment matter, will be met with derision.

    Some people are making Amos Yee into a political figure. Have they taken leave of their senses? He’s 16 for crying out loud. Which 16 year old should be a political figure?

    Anyone who ‘langgars’ (Malay for crashes into) the Govt, is a hero and must be supported at all costs. If you disagree, don’t support or worse condemn and question the actions of this person, you too must be condemned. But these people miss 1 key point, if you say the PAP is so bad that it disallows dissent and freedom of expression (and this is not altogether untrue), then by opposing anyone who disagrees with your point of view, you’re actually no better than the PAP. 1 must support all opposition parties or every single action by those who rail against the PAP. You cannot be different, you cannot support some policies or even like some PAP men, you must oppose all.

    Whatever happened to freedom to disagree? Why must I support Roy Ngerng, just because I also am not a PAP fan? Why can I not question Amos Yee’s actions since his arrest or offer a caution as in the article? Why must I only subscribe to your point of view – all out support? Some think by attacking the PAP at every turn, in the same vein as sites like FAP and others attack the Worker’s Party (WP), SDP and certain prominent opposition figures and political activists, they are combatting the PAP and cementing the ground in favour of the opposition.

    Some hardcore opposition supporters don’t realise the damage that people like Roy Ngerng and Leong Sze Hian are doing in regards to swing voters, whose votes are crucial.

    I beg to disagree, I think there’s a considerable middle ground, those who hardly comment on politics online, don’t follow either pro or anti-establishment or alternative sites or don’t really give a toss. Sure many of those in this segment of society, have also felt the effects of bad PAP policies in particular those concerning public housing, immigration, health care and transport costs, but their only action or input in politics will be that singular action – casting a vote. And there’s no guarantee whether they will vote opposition.

    Observing the conduct of some people who are very vocal, both online and in real life (attending protests, forums or speaking out), I am very worried that they are not doing the opposition cause as a whole any good. By being so extreme in their views, and the easy way they simply condemn and dismiss everyone who disagrees, they are putting off many swing or neutral voters. Worse they could be scaring them into not taking the plunge at the ballot box.

    I am not concerned by attacks or condemnation of what I write – I am not campaigning for anything and it won’t bother me if my blog is well read or not. In fact I’m quite amused by some of them. Take some the latest – that old chestnut – this blog is helmed by a PAP IB (Internet Brigade) or PAP supporter. (Which PAP IB/supporter calls for Lee Hsien Loong to resign? Calls the actions of PAP supporters reprehensible, condemns LKY for stifling dissent).  My post is too long winded (I agree). Roy and Alex Tan are heroes for speaking out (but do their content have substance, or is it generated to increasing viewership of their websites?). All these doesn’t bother me, it makes a good laugh between me and my friends. What concerns me is that these people think Amos has done nothing wrong and must have full unequivocal support.

    The Fault Lies with the Law.  

    They slam the Govt for prosecuting Amos. In actuality, 1 must first question the Police and then the AGC for acting so swiftly. No Govt Minister or MP called the Commissioner of Police or the DAG and specifically directed them to proceed all out to ‘whack’ Amos. This is always the misconception – if there is any evidence of this, it must be raised. Has any former police officer or DPP ever come forward to say, they were pressurised to act in a certain way by a politician? There cannot be political interference in the legal process. I have met many police officers and legal officers, they do not ‘receive a phone call’ and then given instructions. They do what they do, based on police reports filed (for the police) and the case filed submitted (for DPPs).

    Of course it’s open to speculation that these officers know which side ‘to butter their bread.’ But the real culprit is how the Law is fashioned. These officers are duty bound to follow the Law as it stands. I have met the case officers who handled some of the cases involving the SDP leadership and even knew personally 1 of the officers who had to detain Dr Chee Soon Juan. He like many of those mentioned are actually opposition supporters. They vote opposition, but when it comes to their duty, they are obliged to follow the Law.

    Ok let’s just agree with this TRS snapshot and blame the PAP, the question next is: Do you think the charges will be dropped just like that?

    Now this you can blame the PAP, for introducing/enacting such Laws. But the point is, having voted them in and given them a free hand to pass draconian laws, whose fault is it? You disagree with the Law, you should do 2 things, canvass widespread support and write in to the PAP or your respective MP saying why you disagree with the Law and want it changed. Not some anonymous online petition, actually writing in under your hand and name. The other is obvious – vote for someone else. But until either happens – you cannot simply disregard the Law as it stands merely because you disagree with it or think it’s unjust.

    Some people think online petitions like this have an effect. The answer is no, it’s just a gimmick that serves no real purpose. I read in Australia, MPs get sometimes 2,000 letters a week from their constituents telling them not to support something or change a law. This frightens politicians, voters in their constituencies writing in telling them won’t vote for them if they continue down a certain path.

    Ask yourself this, you say Amos is unfairly targeted, but will you go and do the same? Will go and produce a video in the same fashion? Will you and demonstrate outside the Court? You won’t right? Why? Because you know you will be on the wrong side of the Law.

    Amos Yee is not Blameless Either. 

    I read somewhere someone disagreeing with my take that Amos would not be prosecuted if this was in a ‘real Western democracy,’ saying my reference to ‘hate speech’ was wrong. Amos obviously did not produce hate speech, it’s merely ‘offensive.’ But my referencing that is to show, that there is no such thing as total freedom of speech even in the West. And given Amos’ conduct, even if he was in the West, it’ll be only a matter of time before he ups the ante and descends into that as well. Or if he’s smart enough to avoid that, the offensive nature of his content will eventually lead him down to a path of no return. He would go on insulting Christianity more and more, before next attacking Islam.
    Eventually he would piss the wrong people off and be subjected to violence, much worse than a mere slap.

    The Whole Point of that Article. 

    I can summarise that article under 3 key points:

    1) He’s being badly advised or no one is advising him correctly
    2) He’s not grasping the severity of his case.
    3) He’s in real danger of going to the Reformative Training Centre (RTC).

    You can dismiss me or my whole article, but you cannot make the case go away like that. You can blame the Police and Prosecution for acting so hastily. You can accuse them of double standards and mention other cases like Jason Neo’s, the RC member who threatened him with violence, the NTUC woman mocking a Malay wedding etc. And you have valid points there. But no matter how unfair it is, the lack of freedom of speech and the heavy handed manner, it will not make the charges disappear. At the end of the day the charges must be faced and combatted, if not, a clear and present danger exists.

    Amos Remains Defiant and Stubborn.

    Amos continues to remain defiant. In a bail hearing (Wednesday) before his trial commenced yesterday, there was a major climb down by the prosecution. Here’s some excerpts from a Today article:

    ‘Prosecutors offered to lower his bail amount by one-third to S$10,000 and not require him to report daily to Bedok Police Divisional Headquarters, provided the 16-year-old continues to go for psychiatric counselling. The ban on making postings on social media before his trial concludes, however, must still stand, while those that he had posted in breach of bail conditions have to be taken down.
    Amos, however, refused to budge on all three fronts.

    Decked in purple prison garb, Amos, who appeared in good spirits, frowned and shook his head when Deputy Public Prosecutor Hay Hung Chun called him a troubled person needing psychiatric help.
    When Mr Hay mentioned Amos’ blogged about his bail conditions in “not-too-polite terms”, Amos grinned.
    High Court judge Tay Yong Kwang questioned why it was so difficult to temporarily refrain from public online posts, and said the teenager would just have to learn to curb himself. With Amos’ refusal to go for psychiatric counselling, Justice Tay said he saw no reason to vary the bail conditions.’
    Sources close to his legal team have revealed that they have encouraged him to go psychiatric help/assessment and accept the lower terms. But he continues to be stubborn and maintain his own warp sense of right and wrong.
    Take his argument for not taking down the posts – it’ll still be available online! Simply put if I found an article that’s defamatory or inflammatory and posted it on my blog, I should ignore calls to remove it because it’s still available online. This cannot be correct. If the posts and video remains online, it will not be his fault anymore, so long as he himself doesn’t upload or post it.
    Lawyer Alfred Dodwell is doing his best and the latest argument on the legality of the obscenity charge is a valid one. But at the end of the day, he can only act on the instructions of his client, even if it’s a 16 year old kid. I’ve been told he’s been giving the correct advise to Amos who refuses to listen to the 1 person he should.
    And he’s taking it like some kind of game, grinning and smiling in court, when serious matters are being raised against him. Does he honestly believe that the Court will not take his demeanour and defiant attitude into account when determining what sentence to impose if it finds him guilty?
    Even the issue of going for psychiatric assessment is not a bad idea. If he’s found to be suffering from some kind of illness like an attention disorder or as I was informed, Asperger’s (his mother thinks so), it’ll help a lot in any sentencing. A court might be inclined to refer him for continual psychiatric help and as such agree to probation.
    Adults Behaving Badly.
    On Day 1 of his trial, it was revealed he decided to post the video even though he knew it will cause offence to Christians. And it was revealed he had consultations with some SDP members, who also directed him to watch Roy Ngerng’s videos and speeches. Roy also contacted Amos and wrote a really stupid article called ‘My friend Amos Yee.’

    Take a step back, read some of the rubbish Roy has posted. Do you think he’s been doing right by Amos? Shouldn’t he of all people advise Amos of the dangerous path he’s taking and not end up like him? Shouldn’t he of all people be vehemently encouraging Amos to comply and live to fight another day?

    I find these actions very troubling and reprehensive. What were these people thinking? Here’s a naïve 16 year old kid with no knowledge of politics and you encourage him? And Looney Fringe Roy instead of being a responsible adult and telling Amos, ‘No, this is my battle, I don’t need you to support me, please consider your future, you’re are in serious trouble. I too was arrested and charged in court, it’s a very serious matter, you should just cooperate, try and mitigate and hope to get off with a warning or probation.’
    What does Roy do? He writes in support of Amos, praising him for his honesty! He doesn’t chide or advise Amos to be respectful to his parents. (I read somewhere he called his mother a ‘bitch once’ and openly defied his father, provoking him into assaulting him). This is the same Roy that some people think is a hero! A hero who associates with kids and openly encourages them to continue down a dangerous path instead of warning them of the seriousness of the matter and consequences.
    What Advise/Action would People Egging him on do if it was their kid?
    As mentioned earlier, the extreme elements are all praising Amos, encouraging him and egging him on, just because he’s in a battle with the PAP.  What effect do you think this will have on him, together with the actions of Roy and others? Instead of realising he’s made a mistake, he will think he’s doing the right thing and should stick to his guns, which so far he has.
    But let’s for argument’s sake, agree with them – Amos is doing the right thing and should be praised, encouraged and egged on. The question to ask is whether they would do the same if it was their kid? Will they now tell or teach their sons and daughters to do what Amos has done? I think the answer is obvious.
    And how would they react if their own kid behaved like Amos? Refusing to listen (his mother told him not to upload the video, he wanted to wear pyjamas in court and purposely provoked his father until he snapped). The prosecution has made an offer to reduce bail and even his lawyers recommend going for psychiatric treatment. What will all these people do if their kids did the same, being openly stubborn, defiant and insisting on getting their own way?

    This is the image of Amos Yee people should take into account – just a kid. Not someone with worldly experience to battle the system.

    You want Amos to be your hero, but not your own kids. As I wrote in the earlier article, Amos is becoming a rebel for someone else’s cause. But just imagine if everyone he met, every adult including Roy, all tell him, ‘Never mind boy, you’ve already raised the issue of freedom of speech. You should be careful about insulting religion and there’s no point at this stage getting involved in politics. This is very serious, you can go to RTC, you better back down and just go through the motions the system requires. When you’re older, you can come back and be more involved in politics.’
    If everyone he interacts with tell him the danger and wrongdoings he committed (insulting religion, being disrespectful to his parents and even quitting school), you think he won’t be sceptical? He won’t hesitate and take stock?
    All those who egg him on should be ashamed of themselves. They are not discharging their duties as a responsible adult.
    RTC is very much on the cards, if not now then later. 
    I came across a comment saying I’m over-reacting, this is usually a fine case. Yes that’s possible, but only if you’re an adult. The guiding principle as far as the Courts are concerned with youthful offenders is rehabilitation. Of course the Court can if he’s found guilty, impose just a fine on all 3 charges.
    However the question 1 must ask, what is the prosecution going to ask for? You think after he thumbed his nose at every request they demanded he comply, they will be willing to recommend just a fine? After being told not to upload/take down or post further, he blatantly ignores. What if they agree to a fine and he goes and does this again? A fine looks very unlikely, most probably the judge will call for either a probation or RTC report.
    Ordinarily for a 1st time offender not involved in violent crime, probation is the norm. But before the officer recommends probation, there has to be certain things to suggest it’ll work. These includes:
    a) Supervision at home
    b) An ability to follow parent’s advice and instructions
    c) Avoid mixing with person’s of doubtful character.
    d) Interacts with similar minded disciplined kids his age, and not adults with no relation to him.
    e) Is either studying or finds a proper job.
    f) Will comply with terms of probation
    g) Will not be a spoilt brat who must always have his way.
    In the above (a), (b), (e) and (f) are the key factors. Has there been any indication up to now that Amos is prepared or capable of abiding by any of these? There has been none, and in that case, the RTC report will show:
    1) Will be under supervision 24/7
    2) Will have to undergo psychiatric treatment, if so directed
    3) Will be subject to discipline 24/7
    4) Can attend classes within RTC including doing his A levels.

    So Amos likes bananas. He thinks it’s funny to be photographed eating one outside court. A judge might assist him in his crave for bananas. I’m told bananas are often served in the RTC.

    Which of the 2 looks more likely based on all that has transpired? Even if he gets probation, but then goes and breaks the terms, he will go to RTC.
    Amos hasn’t done something that in normal circumstances will result in reformative training, but the conduct he has shown, the contempt, the disregard to instructions laid out by the Court and his refusal to listen to his parents, even his lawyers who are trying their best. All these are factors the judge may very well take into consideration and decide the only recourse is to send him to the RTC.
    Conclusion. 
    So to everyone who thinks he’s a hero, and deserves to be encouraged – you are doing more damage than good. He’s too young, naïve and immature to be your hero. He needs to be guided and given advice. You can condemn me, condemn my article – by all means, but are you doing the right thing for him? You will be terrified if your own 16 year old kid or brother did something like this. You’d never accept the kind of defiance, rudeness and total disregard for your authority. Why should it be any different with Amos Yee?
    Source:http://anyhowhantam.blogspot.sg
  • Roy Ngerng: Free Amos Yee

    Roy Ngerng: Free Amos Yee

    Thank you everyone for coming to today’s vigil.

    As we gather here today, Amos sits in his cell in remand, within four walls and bright lights.

    But Amos has not done anything wrong. He does not deserve this treatment. He does not deserve to be charged.

    More so, he does not deserve to sit in jail. He has been inside for 17 days now. And even more so, he should not be shackled in chains and cuffs.

    He is still innocent. And he is innocent.

    Amos is a child. Where is the humanity when we treat Amos as a criminal when he has not even been sentenced?

    Where is the humanity when even many people do not think he has done anything wrong, but he has been unfairly persecuted?

    How would the PAP ministers think if it were their own children who are put behind bars and locked up in chains?

    But this isn’t even a question. We know they would not let it happen to their own children.

    Then why do they allow another parent’s child to suffer such a fate?

    Have they thought of Amos’s parents? More importantly, have they thought of Amos?

    Have they thought of the child and the state’s responsibility to the child?

    Amos is a child. No matter what we think of him or what he has said, it is disproportionate to want this kind of state violence meted on him.

    If we do not have the patience, kindness and compassion for a child, how then can we call ourselves a society? How then can a people govern if they lack even this most basic instinct, to love, to understand and to forgive?

    Yes, Amos said some things. But he said some things.

    Many among the PAP have said worse. An ex-PAP member posted a photo of a bus with Muslim children and posed the question if they are young terrorist trainees. A PAP supporter wanted to cut off Amos’s penis and put it into his mouth. A man even physically attacked Amos and smacked him in his face because he said that Amos has criticised Lee Kuan Yew.

    Amos has now suffered this abuse simply because he spoke about Lee Kuan Yew.

    But Lee Kuan Yew has said even worse things than Amos about the Malays and Muslims. Yet none of the PAP members and supporters have asked for him to be arrested, charged, jailed or caned as they have wanted Amos to be.

    Instead, they take what Lee Kuan Yew said to be the gospel truth.

    Amos said that the PAP supporters worship Lee Kuan Yew without logic. And he was punished for it.

    But what Amos said is true, isn’t it? The PAP supporters do worship Lee Kuan Yew without logic, don’t they?

    In fact, if they would stay silent even as Lee Kuan Yew said worse things but would want Amos persecuted, then it clearly shows that what they are really upset about Amos is not what he said about Christians, isn’t it?

    Truth is, they were hurt and “wounded” because they were upset with what Amos said about Lee Kuan Yew.

    It is about Lee Kuan Yew. It has always been. Nothing else.

    Some people said that these PAP supporters are using religion as a front to mask their displeasure against Amos. I am inclined to agree. It is obvious.

    But there are no laws in Singapore where it is illegal to criticise Lee Kuan Yew. There is no law in Singapore where one can be found to have committed a crime because of having intentionally wounded the feelings of Lee Kuan Yew supporters.

    These supporters have abused the law for their own purpose.

    But Singapore is not the PAP. To the PAP supporters, they think Singapore belongs to them. They will tell you to leave the country if you are not happy with the way the PAP run their country.

    But they have forgotten that the reason why Singapore can succeed today is because of the hard work and effort of all Singaporeans, and people who live in our country.

    It is not just because of the PAP. It is not just because of the PAP supporters.

    It is because of the many Singaporeans who are willing to earn low and depressed wages to help Singapore grow, even as the PAP supporters and the rich among them take away the high profit for themselves and leave Singaporeans with too little.

    But this is what Amos said in his video too. Amos spoke about the income inequality in Singapore.

    He spoke about how a “great leader” is one who will take care of Singaporeans.

    Amos was right. Why was he persecuted?

    Amos said that Lee Kuan Yew is a “horrible” person.

    But Lee Kuan Yew is. Amos spoke the truth.

    From the 1960s to 1980s, Lee Kuan Yew and the PAP arrested thousands of Singaporeans and imprisoned them without trial. Some of them were jailed for more than 10, 20 or even 30 years.

    Their families suffered. Tens of thousands of their families suffered. But did Lee Kuan Yew ever apologised for it? Did the PAP ever apologised for it? Instead, the PAP continues to pretend that what they did was right. The PAP continues to claim that they were trying to protect Singapore, when it has been proven that the PAP had arrested and detained these innocent Singaporeans unfairly and unjustly.

    The PAP simply doesn’t have a valid reason to do so, but they did anyway.

    And the PAP never stopped. Today, Amos has become another victim in the PAP’s persecution of Singaporeans, just as I was and still am.

    But the PAP is not Singapore. And Singapore is not the PAP.

    We have allowed the PAP to be too comfortable with abusing their power in government for too long.

    I got to know Amos about a month ago. After he made his video and was charged for it, I became concerned.

    With how they treated him, I saw all the hallmarks of what I went through when I was sued for defamation and I did not want to see Amos go through what I did.

    Not without support.

    I needed to show him support. I want to show him support.

    It is a lonely journey when you believe in something and want to fight for it.

    But I am glad that this is not the case for Amos. I am glad that there are friends in Singapore and around the world who cares for Amos.

    For in Amos, the conscience of Singaporeans have been awoken.

    Never have I, in my living memory, seen so much support and outpouring from Singaporeans who feel so aggrieved that they have sent in their photos to support Amos for the #FreeAmosYee campaign.

    This is a first for a political campaign in recent times.

    I asked Singaporeans to send in their photos on Saturday, on my birthday, and in 2 days, I have received more than 60 photos, from even our neighbours in Malaysia, Thailand and Myanmar, as well as from The Netherlands, the United Kingdom and the United States.

    Never before has there been a cause that has rallied together Singaporeans so strongly against the atrocities of the PAP.

    Today, I am starting to see unity among Singaporeans.

    I finally understand that Singaporeans are also feeling, enough is enough.

    But Amos cannot see any of this because he is still in remand.

    Tomorrow, his sentence will be passed. But what will happen to him?

    We can only hope for the best, and that is why we are here today.

    Amos did not do anything wrong. Amos has to be released.

    #FreeAmosYee

    Amos is my friend. Even though we have known each other for only a short one month, in fact, shorter since he has been spending most of the time in prison, I feel that I can understand him.

    I see in him the honesty and truth that I uphold for myself.

    I see in him the justice and fairness that I believe.

    But Amos is more.

    It is funny that a 16-year-old boy can teach you lessons, even when you are 34 – I just turned 34 on Saturday!

    But Amos has. He has told me several times to be honest with myself. But Amos doesn’t just say it.

    He does it.

    This is why even though we know how important freedom to us is, Amos is willing to go into prison to fight for our freedom.

    We do not know it but it is in his courage and his unbending spirit, that he has exposed the hypocrisy of the PAP and how it has bent the law for itself.

    Amos has taught us the real value of freedom, of justice and of truth.

    He is a friend and a teacher, even at 16.

    I see the courage that he has put himself through, I see his determination.

    I see his honesty.

    I see the man for who he is.

    Today, thank you for coming to this vigil. Amos cannot be here. But if he was, he would appreciate this.

    But it is not just Amos that we are here for today. It is for courage, honesty and freedom.

    And today, we have stepped up, stepped up to fight for him and for ourselves, because Amos stood up and he showed us the way.

    And now, it is up to us to lead the way for him.

    Thank you, all.

     

    *This is a speech by Roy Ngerng at the Candleight vigil for Amos Yee

    Source: http://thehearttruths.com

  • 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

  • Activist Han Hui Hui Files Judicial Review Application

    Activist Han Hui Hui Files Judicial Review Application

    Activist and blogger Han Hui Hui turned up at the Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon (Feb 25), to file a judicial review application against the Attorney-General. Channel NewsAsia understands Ms Han is challenging what she calls a “Blanket Refusal” to permit her to speak or organise a demonstration at the Speakers’ Corner.

    Last October, the National Parks Board had cancelled approvals granted to Ms Han to speak and demonstrate at Speakers’ Corner, and said it would not approve further applications for her to use the space at Hong Lim Park, until a police case against her was concluded.

    Ms Han, along with five others, including fellow blogger Roy Ngerng, had been charged on Oct 23 last year, for causing public nuisance by disrupting a charity carnival last September. They reportedly led several hundred people in a march around Hong Lim Park and encroached into the area where YMCA’s annual carnival Proms @ The Park was held. They also allegedly frightened some children with special needs who were about to perform on stage.

    Ms Han and Mr Ngerng were also charged with organising a demonstration without approval.

    Regarding her judicial review application, Ms Han told Channel NewsAsia she had hired a lawyer to represent her – the third one so far, but he did not show up, due to “personal matters”.

    Ms Han had earlier told the media she would be appearing at State Courts at 2.30pm. She arrived at 2.17pm, accompanied by two friends, but was told she should be at the Supreme Court instead.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com