Showing posts with label Teo Soh Lung. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Teo Soh Lung. Show all posts

Monday, May 31, 2021

HOT PURSUIT AFTER COOLING-OFF DAY




2.00pm, Tuesday, 31 May 2016 –
Seven or eight police officers swarmed into the diminutive 67-year-old’s home.  Ignoring her request to take off their shoes before entering, they roamed around her place for more than an hour, taking videos and photographs as they wanted.  The troupe left with her computer CPU, laptop and handphone. 

The invasion of Teo Soh Lung’s home and the seizure of her personal effects were made on the heels of a police report filed against her by the Election Department (ELD) for making four Facebook posts on Cooling-Off Day of the Bukit Batok By-Election (BBBE) that ELD said could be tantamount to election advertising.

If found guilty of an offence of election advertising, Soh Lung would be facing a fine not exceeding $1,000 or imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or both.

Cooling-Off Day was born in Singapore on 1 July 2010.  It was birthed by our government to protect the citizenry from the danger of emotional voting.  As the government states on its official website:

“The day before Polling Day is known as Cooling-Off Day. There is a prohibition against election campaigning during this 24-hour period to give voters some time to reflect rationally on issues before voting.”

To date, Singapore has had seven Cooling-Off Days:


For three of the seven last elections, there were no complaints of Cooling-Off Day breaches based on public information.  Four of the past seven elections saw police reports filed for Cooling-Off Day breaches:



The BBBE held on 7 May 2016 saw Singapore Democratic Party’s (SDP) candidate, Chee Soon Juan face off with the ruling party’s candidate, Murali Pillai.

On 27 May 2016, ELD issued a media statement to announce that it had filed police reports against socio-political site, The Independent Singapore (TISG), Soh Lung and Roy Ngerng for possible election advertising. 

It was the first and only time that ELD had decided on its own initiative to complain of Cooling-Off Day breaches - and did so by filing three police reports.  All other complaints of Cooling-Off Day breaches on public record were made by citizens.

In the wake of ELD’s police reports, the Singapore Police Force moved with lightning speed and charismatic efficiency.  

9.59pm, Saturday 28 May 2016 - Soh Lung found an envelope containing a letter from the police under her front door.  Apparently, a hardworking member of the Singapore Police Force had made his way into the condominium where Soh Lung lived and up to her front door that Saturday night.  The letter informed Soh Lung that she was required to attend at the Central Division Headquarters at Police Cantonment Complex in connection with police investigation for an offence of election advertising. Her attendance was compulsory.

9.30am, Sunday, 29 May 2016 - A policeman knocked on Soh Lung’s front door.  Albeit a Sunday morning, he had come over to personally check if Soh Lung had received the police letter and to obtain her confirmation in person that she would be coming to the police station. 

10am, Tuesday 31 May 2016 - Soh Lung presented herself at Police Cantonment Complex.  There, she was questioned for two hours.  At 12.15pm, Soh Lung requested for a lunch break as she was tired, but her request was denied.  The questioning continued for another hour, after which she was put into a car with four police officers and taken to her residence. Another car of four officers from the Forensic Department followed, making a total of eight officers in two cars arriving at her place of residence.

On that same day, 31 May 2016, Roy Ngerng also presented himself at Police Cantonment Complex where he was questioned for about three hours, after which the police took him to his home and seized two laptops, two hard drives, memory cards and a mobile phone.

Arising from ELD’s police report against TISG, four individuals from TISG were separately questioned by the police, two of whom were immediately taken by the police, one to raid his home and the other to raid both his home and his office, where their electronic devices were seized.

However, that was not the end of it.  On 13 June 2016, a citizen filed a police report to complain that two posts published on the ‘Fabrications About The PAP’ Facebook fanpage (FAP) on Polling Day of BBBE (7 May 2016) could be election advertising.  On 17 June 2016, FAP founder, Jason Chua Chin Seng, was questioned by the police after which the police raided his home and seized his handphone, iPad and two laptops.

The aftermath of the BBBE saw tough action taken by the police in response to the four police reports for possible election advertising (three by ELD and one by a citizen).  Altogether seven individuals were questioned, six police raids were conducted (one had both his home and office raided) and five individuals had their personal devices seized.

For Soh Lung, she endured the trauma of a lengthy police interview and the indignity of being taken by eight police officers immediately thereafter to raid her home. 

Was it necessary for the police to spring a surprise visit to her home? 

Was it necessary for seven or eight police officers to step into her home? 

Was it necessary to seize her handphone, laptop and desktop CPU - comprising all her personal communication devices?

During the police interview, Soh Lung readily acknowledged that the publications ELD had complained of were made by her and her alone.  She therefore could not understand why it was necessary to raid her home and to seize her personal devices, thereby depriving her of their use indefinitely.  Moreover, the seized personal devices contained materials far beyond relevancy to the publications that were the subject-matter of the ELD complaint.  Her personal devices also contained personal information which would become open to scrutiny by total strangers.

The police ended their investigations in February 2017 without charging anyone.  Stern warnings in lieu of prosecution were issued to three individuals from TISG, Jason Chua, Roy Ngerng and Soh Lung (making a total of six warnings in all) and seized items were returned to their owners.

On collection of her items, Soh Lung found that her laptop was damaged beyond repair.

In their 27 May 2016 media statement, ELD said that they filed the police reports after taking into consideration the nature of the postings and the potential impact that they might have had, noting that Soh Lung and Roy Ngerng "regularly engage in the propagation, promotion and discussion of political issues". 

ELD picked Soh Lung and Roy Ngerng because they had a public following.

If the objectives of the powers-that-be was to 杀鸡儆猴 (literal meaning: kill chicken scare monkey), the action taken against Soh Lung and the others in the aftermath of BBBE, did the trick.

If your gardener gets too busy nipping buds, your garden may become flowerless – and what is the joy of that?

See author’s video documentary “Nipping Buds” related to this post at: https://www.facebook.com/jeannettechongaruldoss/posts/4041170675965184

Sunday, June 3, 2012

Blue Pill or Red Pill?


I delivered this speech on 2 June 2012 at the ‘That We May Dream Again’ Event.


Click here for the link to the YouTube video clip of my speech.





How many of you have seen ‘The Matrix’, the movie with the handsome Keanu Reeves as Neo and Laurence Fishburne as Morpheus? [1]  

In the Matrix movie, Morpheus offers Neo a choice of two pills: a blue pill and a red pill.  This is how Mopheus explained the choice to Neo:

I imagine that right now, you're feeling a bit like Alice, tumbling down the rabbit hole? 
Let me tell you why you're here.
You're here because you know something.
What you know you can't explain,
but you feel it ... … There is something wrong with the world.
You don't know what it is, but it's there, like a splinter in your mind, driving you mad. 
You take the blue pill, the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe.
You take the red pill, you stay in Wonderland, and I show you how deep the rabbit hole goes.  

Credit: Christian Mes, Law School Memes

I kinda felt like Alice in Wonderland tumbling down the Rabbit Hole, when I read Teo Soh Lung’s book, and when I began to find out what happened to those who were arrested on 21 May 1987.



‘Prequel’ to Operation Spectrum

Straits Times article published on 22 May 1986
But let me tell you what happened exactly one year before.

On 22 May 1986, the Straits Times reported that the Law Society of Singapore was strongly critical of the Government for proposing new laws which would curb the freedom of the press.  Teo Soh Lung was head of the Law Society Committee which prepared the critical press statement.  The Law Society was concerned that the proposed new laws would restrict freedom of speech. The Law Society’s public objections to the proposed laws attracted much attention. 

But despite the controversies, the proposed new laws were voted through by Parliament and became law in August 1986.  After all, there were only 2 opposition MPs out of 79 seats in Parliament.

Was the Government unhappy with the Law Society for speaking against the proposed new laws?

A few months later in 1986, the Government proposed yet another set of new laws, this time aiming at the Law Society.  One of the proposed new laws was to remove the Law Society’s right to offer comments on matters affecting law, unless asked by the Government to do so.

Again, Teo Soh Lung headed the committee under the Law Society to review these proposed new laws aimed at lawyers.  About 400 lawyers met and passed a resolution for the Law Society to call on the Government to withdraw its proposed amendments to the Legal Profession Act.  However, despite the strong objections, the proposed laws were voted through by Parliament and became law in October 1986. 

So a very peculiar situation thereby arose in Singapore. The Law Society is, by law, not allowed to speak up on law, unless invited up the Government to do so.  This restraint on the Law Society remains to this day.  The Law Society cannot speak, unless spoken to.  

Then, in the early hours of 21 May 1987, Teo Soh Lung was arrested and detained under ISA.

Do you think her arrest was expected or unexpected? 

For Soh Lung, it was completely unexpected.  She had been watching Miss Universe the night before. 

‘All Power Has Legal Limits’

Soh Lung and other detainees appealed to the Court against their ISA detention orders. [3]

In the course of dealing with Teo Soh Lung’s appeal, the Court of Appeal declared that all power has legal limits. The rule of law demands that the courts should be able to review the Minister’s decision to detain anyone under ISA. The Minister did not have unlimited discretion. 

This was wonderful news to the detainees.  The detainees would have the Court’s protection against abuse of the ISA.

What happened next?

Within one month, the Government drew up new laws to take away the Court’s power to review the Minister’s decision to detain a person under ISA.  The proposed new laws would completely reverse the effect of the Court of Appeal’s judgment a month ago.  These new laws were voted on by Parliament and become law in January 1989.  Henceforth, if the Minister decides to detain a person under ISA, he has no obligation to explain his decision to any Judge.  This is still the case today. 

Strange?  I think so.  The Government acted with lightning speed to amend the Constitution and the ISA, to cancel the effect of a Court of Appeal judgment. 

Credit: Jared Nash, Law School Memes
The Singapore Constitution

In Singapore, Parliament can enact or amend ordinary law with the support of a simple majority (i.e. more than 50%) of elected MPs. 

As for the Constitution, it cannot be amended unless with the approval of two-thirds of elected MPs. 

However, throughout the history of Singapore, there has never been more than a handful of opposition MPs in Parliament.  That being the case, it would not be terribly difficult to get the requisite majority needed to amend the Constitution or to change laws. 

In fact, since independence, there have been some 40 acts of parliament to amend the Singapore Constitution.  Our Constitution has been amended loads of times.

Can it be right to constantly amend the Constitution or to keep changing the laws?  What are the limits?

We have seen how quickly laws have been proposed and voted through by Parliament.  This is because our system is one where the ruling party has, at all times, held an overwhelming majority of seats in Parliament. 

I don’t think it is just about amending or abolishing the ISA.  Ultimately, the ISA is but a tool.  As with any tool, we also need to consider he who wields the tool.  We need to consider the entire system under which we operate. 

So under our present system, how is the use of powers checked and balanced?  Who checks and balances powers?  Who can we rely on for protection against unjust use of powers?  The Courts ?  Opposition MPs ?  NMPs ?  NCMPs ?  Mr Brown perhaps ? 

The ‘One’ Who Shall Protect Us

But I know The One who can be our Strong Protector. The One is in our midst here.  The One I speak of is YOU and ME: Citizens, Ordinary Citizens who are not afraid to Speak Up when things do not seem right. 

A strong civil society with an active citizenry is a powerful counter-weight against any wrong use of powers.  They know the power of our combined voices.  Which is why much efforts have been made, and will continue to be made, to control our freedoms.   

Friends, for too long, we have been afraid and too silent.  But let us not be afraid or silent anymore.  Let us embrace our whole humanity – we are people who think and feel.  And we CARE and we WILL speak up against wrongs and injustice.

Let us re-activate our minds, quicken our conscience for rights and wrongs, restore our voices and reclaim our freedoms.  Let us bring active citizenry back to its rightful place in our society.  Our minds, our heart and our voices in active citizenry - that is our best safeguard against bullying. 

The Choice

Let me come back to what Morpheus said to Neo. 

Here is the blue pill. Here is the red pill. 

Take the blue pill – forget the hard truths, remain in Oblivion and dream about illusions.

Take the red pill - know the truth, leave your detention cell, and dare to dream about a new future. 

Do you not want to take control of your life? 

Do you not want to shape your own your future? 

You need no longer be slaves to fear.  Freedom is at hand. 

Take the red pill and take your place in society. 

____________________________

FOOTNOTES

[1]  In Greek mythology, Morpheus is the God of Dreams, responsible for the dreams of people.

[2] The complete dialogue between Morpheus and Neo is fascinating.  Click here for the dialogue transcript:  Click here for a clip of this pivotal scene from the movie.

Me with Chng Suan Tze
[3] Chng Suan Tze v Minister of Home Affairs [1988] SGCA 16.   


Me with Teo Soh Lung