Sammyboy RSS Feed
01-05-2015, 03:50 PM
An honorable member of the Coffee Shop Has Just Posted the Following:
SHOULD AGC HAVE UNFETTERED POWERS TO CHOOSE WHO TO CHARGE?
Post date:
1 May 2015 - 12:18pm
http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/Amos%20Yee%20AGC.jpg?itok=fdG6q8vM (http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/field/image/Amos%20Yee%20AGC.jpg)
Do you know that the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) is given widespread powers to prosecute someone in Singapore?
Just yesterday, Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said that Amos's "charge in respect of his statements on Mr Lee Kuan Yew have been stood down".
But an AGC spokesperson later said that the charge has not been dropped. It has only been "stood down".
AGC also said: "At the end of the trial of proceeded charges, the prosecution can assess whether and how to deal with the stood down charge."
In other words, Amos may still be charged and sentenced for the charge in relation to Lee Kuan Yew. It is just that the AGC has decided that the courts should deal with the other two charges that Amos is currently facing first.
On the outset, this appears to be a public relations exercise. If a PAP minister is able to speak of the charge being "stood down", it will give people the perception that the PAP is not petty over comments that people would make regarding their "founding father". It allows the PAP to position itself on higher ground.
And to some extend, it worked.
A commenter on Mr Shanmugam's Facebook page, David Lai, remarked: "Agree with the minister for once. And really glad the charges in relation to the (Lee Kuan Yew) remarks were stood down in court. Offensive as they were, it was the right thing to do. Or it (could) set out a dangerous precedent."
http://i.imgur.com/1KrNdoA.png
But note that the charges haven't actually been dropped. AGC said that they will decide "how to deal with the stood down charge" after the trial for the other two charges are completed.
But this brings greater attention onto the AGC's role.
How is it the AGC can decide whether a charge can be "stood down" and how it should be dealt with? It almost looks like a subjective exercise, if the AGC could play such a flippant role, doesn't it?
According to the AGC, it is the government's Public Prosecutor (https://www.agc.gov.sg/Who_We_Are/Overview.aspx).
"Article 35(8) of the Constitution vests the Attorney-General with the power to institute, conduct or discontinue proceedings for any offence," it says on its website.
"The Attorney-General is independent in this role, and not subject to the control of the Government," it also said.
But the Public Prosecutor has wide-ranging roles as well.
According to the Criminal Procedure Code under the Singapore Statues (http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=5f7bc012-b284-43d8-9c04-48f3acf5e36a;page=0;query=DocId%3A%223b4efefc-6d61-43ac-8b1c-8ccd8b86a972%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec =0#pr206-he-.), "The Attorney-General shall be the Public Prosecutor and shall have the control and direction of criminal prosecutions and proceedings under this Code or any other written law."
Also, "where an accused has been convicted of any charge but before he is sentenced for that charge, the Public Prosecutor may, if he thinks fit, inform the court that he will not further prosecute the accused upon the charge, and the proceedings on the charge against the accused must then be stayed and he shall be discharged from and of the same."
This looks like the stage at which Amos is facing, for his charge in relation to Lee Kuan Yew.
Of course, the AGC can even choose to discharge him. And indeed, the Criminal Procedure Code also does allow for it.
It is said that, "the Public Prosecutor, if he is of the opinion that no further proceedings should be taken in the case, may make an order in writing, signed by himself, directing the accused to be discharged from the matter of the charge and, if the accused is in custody, from further detention upon the charge.
"The powers given to the Public Prosecutor by this section shall be exercised only by him," it is also said.
However, in this instance, the AGC has only decided to "stand down" the charge but not drop it.
As such, it looks like Amos will continue facing the charge in relation to Lee Kuan Yew. The AGC, at this point, still wants to prosecute Amos for it.
However, why exactly did the AGC want to "stand down" the charge? And also, is the reason not sufficient to allow the charge against Amos to be dropped? AGC did not explain further.
But the AGC's wide-ranging powers can be discomforting when seeing how the AGC seems to have such unfettered powers and at times, only the AGC is allowed to exercise such powers.
For example, when the court might want to alter or frame a new charge, it is able to do so "at any time before judgment is given".
However, the "Stay of proceedings if altered or new charge requires Public Prosecutor’s consent."
But such powers granted to the AGC has caused discomfort also because of the perceived inequality in how the law is being applied by the AGC.
For example, Amos was arrested and charged within two days of his alleged "wrongdoings".
However, where a former Young PAP (YPAP) member had commented on a photo of a school bus with Muslim children and said, "Bus filled with young terrorist trainees?", he has still not been arrested or charged for four years.
Moreover, what is the police's role in this?
According to Gloria James-Civetta & Co (http://www.singaporecriminallawyer.com/arrest-court-procedure/), after the police have completed their investigations, "the police officer will submit the case file to the Prosecution before any decision is made to charge you."
"If a decision is made to charge you, the police officer will contact you. The meeting at the police station will be for the purposes of preferring the charge against you." This would explain why a person who is charged would have to sign the charge sheet at the police station, even though it is the AGC which decides what to charge the person with.
In court, the person's charge(s) will be read out to him or her again and he/she can at that point whether to plead guilty or to dispute the offence, at which point, a pre-trial conference (PTC) will be set.
At the PTC, "Prosecution will then inform the judge of whatever evidence they have against you, as well as the witness(es) they are going to call to trial," according to Gloria James-Civetta & Co.
As such, the AGC does look like it has overarching powers to prosecute any Singaporean deemed to have committed a crime under its eyes.
But even as the AGC claims that it "is independent in this role, and not subject to the control of the Government", this has still provided scant relief to some Singaporeans.
The AGC says that it vision (https://www.agc.gov.sg/Who_We_Are/Mission_Statement_and_Core_Values.aspx) is to be the "Guardian of the Public Interest; Steward of the Rule of Law" and that its mission is of "Serving Singapore's interests and upholding the rule of law through sound advice, effective representation, fair and independent prosecution and accessible legislation."
But such are just words. Singaporeans have their own opinions on whether they feel this is really the case.
The current Attorney-General is V K Rajah.
http://i.imgur.com/Or2mjPs.jpg
On who can take on the role of Attorney-General, under the Singapore constitution (http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=669df383-bd33-48fd-b1ad-cb3566f2ea8c;page=0;query=DocId%3A%22cf2412ff-fca5-4a64-a8ef-b95b8987728e%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec =0#pr35-he-.), it is the Prime Minister who tenders the advice to the President, who then appoints the Attorney-General, "if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister".
But then it is also said that the "The Prime Minister shall not be obliged to consult any person under clause (2) if he is satisfied that by reason of the infirmity of body or mind of that person or for any other reason it is impracticable to do so."
"The Attorney-General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence," the constitution also says.
What this means is that the Attorney-General gets to decide on everything, while the Prime Minister gets to decide on who the Attorney-General can be.
Of course, this might create further discomfort among Singaporeans.
The AGC said that it is independent of the government and not subjected to its control. But evidently, the Attorney-General who heads the AGC, is actually decided by the Prime Minister, and then appointed by the President, which effectively means that the government decides who gets to head the AGC.
Does such a system really safeguard the independence of these branches?
Moreover, it is stated that "The Prime Minister shall not be obliged to consult any person" if he decides to re-appoint the Attorney-General.
It is also stated that, "The Attorney-General may be removed from office by the President, if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister shall not tender such advice except for inability of the Attorney-General to discharge the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause) or for misbehaviour and except with the concurrence of a tribunal consisting of the Chief Justice and 2 other Judges of the Supreme Court nominated for that purpose by the Chief Justice."
But who appoints the Chief Justice?
According to the Supreme Court (https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/default.aspx?pgID=40), "The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judges and Judicial Commissioners are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister."
http://i.imgur.com/vN1aBuM.png
OK, you get it, the Prime Minister gets to decide who gets appointed as the AGC, Chief Justice and the other judges in key positions, where the President then takes advice from the Prime Minister to appoint.
So, if the Attorney-General might not be performing to his role, he can be easily replaced by a tribunal convened with people who was also decided into their role by the Prime Minister and appointed by the President.
This is all getting very uncomfortable, of course.
First, the current Prime Minister is from the People's Action Party (PAP) and as much as the current President has relinquished his position in the PAP, he used to be the Deputy Prime Minister under the banner of the PAP and he was also a member of the PAP's Central Executive Committee.
Of course when you look at how interconnected the web is, it raises real questions about how the system has been constructed. The AGC promises to be independent and is therefore given many unfettered powers to decide who gets charged for what.
Overall, the Prime Minister still gets to decide on who the Attorney-General is, via the President's appointment.
The way we have recently seen cases being prosecuted, in particular the lack of action against YPAP Member Jason Neo's comments compared to that of the swift action against Amos Yee, naturally makes the people question.
The AGC should clearly outline its procedures of prosecution and why it chooses to prosecute Amos but why the other have been allowed to go free if it wants to regain the trust of those who doubt it.
But perhaps it might be wise to take a leave out of Amos's book on the lack of prosecution of others who have made rude, insulting and uncalled for remarks online.
Amos had said: “But you see if it were me, I wouldn’t want him to be punished because of his words. Not only do I want to be acquitted from those charges against me, I want those laws to be completely abolished because quite evidently, they are absolutely horrible.”
“Nobody should ever be charged or go to jail because of the words he says, no matter how fucking stupid they are,” he said.
Whether we decide whether or not prosecute, we should at least do so consistently so that there is no room for the public to doubt the justice of the unfettered power given to the AGC to decide who to charge and who to let go.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?205833-Should-agc-have-unfettered-powers-to-choose-who-to-charge&goto=newpost).
SHOULD AGC HAVE UNFETTERED POWERS TO CHOOSE WHO TO CHARGE?
Post date:
1 May 2015 - 12:18pm
http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/field/image/Amos%20Yee%20AGC.jpg?itok=fdG6q8vM (http://therealsingapore.com/sites/default/files/field/image/Amos%20Yee%20AGC.jpg)
Do you know that the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) is given widespread powers to prosecute someone in Singapore?
Just yesterday, Law and Foreign Affairs Minister K Shanmugam said that Amos's "charge in respect of his statements on Mr Lee Kuan Yew have been stood down".
But an AGC spokesperson later said that the charge has not been dropped. It has only been "stood down".
AGC also said: "At the end of the trial of proceeded charges, the prosecution can assess whether and how to deal with the stood down charge."
In other words, Amos may still be charged and sentenced for the charge in relation to Lee Kuan Yew. It is just that the AGC has decided that the courts should deal with the other two charges that Amos is currently facing first.
On the outset, this appears to be a public relations exercise. If a PAP minister is able to speak of the charge being "stood down", it will give people the perception that the PAP is not petty over comments that people would make regarding their "founding father". It allows the PAP to position itself on higher ground.
And to some extend, it worked.
A commenter on Mr Shanmugam's Facebook page, David Lai, remarked: "Agree with the minister for once. And really glad the charges in relation to the (Lee Kuan Yew) remarks were stood down in court. Offensive as they were, it was the right thing to do. Or it (could) set out a dangerous precedent."
http://i.imgur.com/1KrNdoA.png
But note that the charges haven't actually been dropped. AGC said that they will decide "how to deal with the stood down charge" after the trial for the other two charges are completed.
But this brings greater attention onto the AGC's role.
How is it the AGC can decide whether a charge can be "stood down" and how it should be dealt with? It almost looks like a subjective exercise, if the AGC could play such a flippant role, doesn't it?
According to the AGC, it is the government's Public Prosecutor (https://www.agc.gov.sg/Who_We_Are/Overview.aspx).
"Article 35(8) of the Constitution vests the Attorney-General with the power to institute, conduct or discontinue proceedings for any offence," it says on its website.
"The Attorney-General is independent in this role, and not subject to the control of the Government," it also said.
But the Public Prosecutor has wide-ranging roles as well.
According to the Criminal Procedure Code under the Singapore Statues (http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=5f7bc012-b284-43d8-9c04-48f3acf5e36a;page=0;query=DocId%3A%223b4efefc-6d61-43ac-8b1c-8ccd8b86a972%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec =0#pr206-he-.), "The Attorney-General shall be the Public Prosecutor and shall have the control and direction of criminal prosecutions and proceedings under this Code or any other written law."
Also, "where an accused has been convicted of any charge but before he is sentenced for that charge, the Public Prosecutor may, if he thinks fit, inform the court that he will not further prosecute the accused upon the charge, and the proceedings on the charge against the accused must then be stayed and he shall be discharged from and of the same."
This looks like the stage at which Amos is facing, for his charge in relation to Lee Kuan Yew.
Of course, the AGC can even choose to discharge him. And indeed, the Criminal Procedure Code also does allow for it.
It is said that, "the Public Prosecutor, if he is of the opinion that no further proceedings should be taken in the case, may make an order in writing, signed by himself, directing the accused to be discharged from the matter of the charge and, if the accused is in custody, from further detention upon the charge.
"The powers given to the Public Prosecutor by this section shall be exercised only by him," it is also said.
However, in this instance, the AGC has only decided to "stand down" the charge but not drop it.
As such, it looks like Amos will continue facing the charge in relation to Lee Kuan Yew. The AGC, at this point, still wants to prosecute Amos for it.
However, why exactly did the AGC want to "stand down" the charge? And also, is the reason not sufficient to allow the charge against Amos to be dropped? AGC did not explain further.
But the AGC's wide-ranging powers can be discomforting when seeing how the AGC seems to have such unfettered powers and at times, only the AGC is allowed to exercise such powers.
For example, when the court might want to alter or frame a new charge, it is able to do so "at any time before judgment is given".
However, the "Stay of proceedings if altered or new charge requires Public Prosecutor’s consent."
But such powers granted to the AGC has caused discomfort also because of the perceived inequality in how the law is being applied by the AGC.
For example, Amos was arrested and charged within two days of his alleged "wrongdoings".
However, where a former Young PAP (YPAP) member had commented on a photo of a school bus with Muslim children and said, "Bus filled with young terrorist trainees?", he has still not been arrested or charged for four years.
Moreover, what is the police's role in this?
According to Gloria James-Civetta & Co (http://www.singaporecriminallawyer.com/arrest-court-procedure/), after the police have completed their investigations, "the police officer will submit the case file to the Prosecution before any decision is made to charge you."
"If a decision is made to charge you, the police officer will contact you. The meeting at the police station will be for the purposes of preferring the charge against you." This would explain why a person who is charged would have to sign the charge sheet at the police station, even though it is the AGC which decides what to charge the person with.
In court, the person's charge(s) will be read out to him or her again and he/she can at that point whether to plead guilty or to dispute the offence, at which point, a pre-trial conference (PTC) will be set.
At the PTC, "Prosecution will then inform the judge of whatever evidence they have against you, as well as the witness(es) they are going to call to trial," according to Gloria James-Civetta & Co.
As such, the AGC does look like it has overarching powers to prosecute any Singaporean deemed to have committed a crime under its eyes.
But even as the AGC claims that it "is independent in this role, and not subject to the control of the Government", this has still provided scant relief to some Singaporeans.
The AGC says that it vision (https://www.agc.gov.sg/Who_We_Are/Mission_Statement_and_Core_Values.aspx) is to be the "Guardian of the Public Interest; Steward of the Rule of Law" and that its mission is of "Serving Singapore's interests and upholding the rule of law through sound advice, effective representation, fair and independent prosecution and accessible legislation."
But such are just words. Singaporeans have their own opinions on whether they feel this is really the case.
The current Attorney-General is V K Rajah.
http://i.imgur.com/Or2mjPs.jpg
On who can take on the role of Attorney-General, under the Singapore constitution (http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=669df383-bd33-48fd-b1ad-cb3566f2ea8c;page=0;query=DocId%3A%22cf2412ff-fca5-4a64-a8ef-b95b8987728e%22%20Status%3Ainforce%20Depth%3A0;rec =0#pr35-he-.), it is the Prime Minister who tenders the advice to the President, who then appoints the Attorney-General, "if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister".
But then it is also said that the "The Prime Minister shall not be obliged to consult any person under clause (2) if he is satisfied that by reason of the infirmity of body or mind of that person or for any other reason it is impracticable to do so."
"The Attorney-General shall have power, exercisable at his discretion, to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence," the constitution also says.
What this means is that the Attorney-General gets to decide on everything, while the Prime Minister gets to decide on who the Attorney-General can be.
Of course, this might create further discomfort among Singaporeans.
The AGC said that it is independent of the government and not subjected to its control. But evidently, the Attorney-General who heads the AGC, is actually decided by the Prime Minister, and then appointed by the President, which effectively means that the government decides who gets to head the AGC.
Does such a system really safeguard the independence of these branches?
Moreover, it is stated that "The Prime Minister shall not be obliged to consult any person" if he decides to re-appoint the Attorney-General.
It is also stated that, "The Attorney-General may be removed from office by the President, if he, acting in his discretion, concurs with the advice of the Prime Minister, but the Prime Minister shall not tender such advice except for inability of the Attorney-General to discharge the functions of his office (whether arising from infirmity of body or mind or any other cause) or for misbehaviour and except with the concurrence of a tribunal consisting of the Chief Justice and 2 other Judges of the Supreme Court nominated for that purpose by the Chief Justice."
But who appoints the Chief Justice?
According to the Supreme Court (https://www.supremecourt.gov.sg/default.aspx?pgID=40), "The Chief Justice, Judges of Appeal, Judges and Judicial Commissioners are appointed by the President on the advice of the Prime Minister."
http://i.imgur.com/vN1aBuM.png
OK, you get it, the Prime Minister gets to decide who gets appointed as the AGC, Chief Justice and the other judges in key positions, where the President then takes advice from the Prime Minister to appoint.
So, if the Attorney-General might not be performing to his role, he can be easily replaced by a tribunal convened with people who was also decided into their role by the Prime Minister and appointed by the President.
This is all getting very uncomfortable, of course.
First, the current Prime Minister is from the People's Action Party (PAP) and as much as the current President has relinquished his position in the PAP, he used to be the Deputy Prime Minister under the banner of the PAP and he was also a member of the PAP's Central Executive Committee.
Of course when you look at how interconnected the web is, it raises real questions about how the system has been constructed. The AGC promises to be independent and is therefore given many unfettered powers to decide who gets charged for what.
Overall, the Prime Minister still gets to decide on who the Attorney-General is, via the President's appointment.
The way we have recently seen cases being prosecuted, in particular the lack of action against YPAP Member Jason Neo's comments compared to that of the swift action against Amos Yee, naturally makes the people question.
The AGC should clearly outline its procedures of prosecution and why it chooses to prosecute Amos but why the other have been allowed to go free if it wants to regain the trust of those who doubt it.
But perhaps it might be wise to take a leave out of Amos's book on the lack of prosecution of others who have made rude, insulting and uncalled for remarks online.
Amos had said: “But you see if it were me, I wouldn’t want him to be punished because of his words. Not only do I want to be acquitted from those charges against me, I want those laws to be completely abolished because quite evidently, they are absolutely horrible.”
“Nobody should ever be charged or go to jail because of the words he says, no matter how fucking stupid they are,” he said.
Whether we decide whether or not prosecute, we should at least do so consistently so that there is no room for the public to doubt the justice of the unfettered power given to the AGC to decide who to charge and who to let go.
Click here to view the whole thread at www.sammyboy.com (http://sammyboy.com/showthread.php?205833-Should-agc-have-unfettered-powers-to-choose-who-to-charge&goto=newpost).