The judge admits Jolovan Wham is being prosecuted for “demonstrating his opposition”, not so much because he held up a sign.
Judge Says Jolovan Wham Is Punished For Opposing The State
Last Friday, Jolovan Wham was convicted of “unlawful assembly” outside the state courts. According to the dictionary, assembly is a “group of people gathered together in one place for a common purpose”.
Yet, our government has their own definition. Jolovan Wham was actually standing alone outside the state courts. Also, he only stood there “for about 15 seconds while a woman photographed him”.
What did the judge say about Jolovan Wham?
District Judge Eugene Teo reminds us that Jolovan is not being prosecuted for photo-taking. Instead, He is being prosecuted for “demonstrating his opposition to the actions of the Attorney-General’s Chambers”. Basically, he opposed the state’s decision to prosecute Terry Xu and Daniel De Costa.
Nobody paid attention to Jolovan in person, but the judge says the action was demonstrative when he posted the photo online.
“(He) undoubtedly sought the attention of everyone when he took steps subsequently to broadcast his exploit publicly on his Facebook account that he had taken those demonstrative actions at that location in broad daylight with that message.”
District Judge Eugene Teo
So if you take a photoshop yourself holding up a sign at a government building and post it on Facebook, you can also be convicted. Especially if you are someone the government doesn’t like.
Bertha Henson weighs in
In response to the news, NUS Associate Professor Bertha Henson made a Facebook post sharing Straits Times article. She pointed out how ridiculous the state is. They made it obvious that they are doing this because they don’t like Jolovan.
She also question if the government is going to waste more national resources especially if more people do the same.
Is this a Freudian slip?
The government has always been biased, making their own definitions and creating special laws just so they can “deal with” people they don’t like. As usual, this is their way of fixing the opposition.
This time however, they finally let it slip that they are doing this because Jolovan is “opposing the state”.
I guess … since they serve the state instead of the justice, we should scrap their Oath of Office:
I, [name], having been appointed to the office of [Chief Justice, Judge of Appeal, Judge or Judicial Commissioner], do solemnly swear [or affirm] that I will faithfully discharge my judicial duties, and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of the Republic of Singapore without fear or favour, affection or ill-will to the best of my ability, and will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the Republic of Singapore.
And to streamline our institutions I suggest the courts to be under the Ministry of Law?
UNIQUELY SINGAPORE, literally!
Not surprising ain’t it considering that the PAP since time immemorial has been a vindictive government similar to that of the CCP. They will not brook any challenge to their rule and politics is placed above any other consideration.
COVID and the implementation of the VDS is another brilliant example – for all the claims that vaccination is “voluntary”, the MTF under the PAP has slowly ramped up VDS measures to punish those that refuse to kowtow to their 100% vaccination agenda so that they can continue opening the borders to import more foreigners. Just like the meaning of “assembly” here, the definition of “voluntary” is subject to the PAP’s interpretation and their interpretation alone.
If not, why are the medically exempt, who are even more vulnerable to being admitted to the ICU and death if infected, can get a free pass whereas a healthy 20-year old who is unvaccinated by choice is subject to vaccine apartheid?
Ever wondered why SG was not invited to the recent democracy meeting, and being placed amongst countries like Thailand, China who were not invited? Even M’ysia was invited. Sheeesh! Wonder no more. SG is still a draconian, authoritarian state especially when it comes to the opposition and individuals who oppose the ‘garment’. In the UK, even Mr Bean could make jokes involving the Queen and not get punished.