On 27 Jun 2016, Singapore’s state court Judge CHAY YUEN FATT made judgement against me as follows:

1. SGD$2,500 fine because “She rallied her Facebook readers”.
2. SGD$600 fine because I “made vitriolic speeches to denounce the government and various government policies”.

On 22 Feb 2017, Singapore’s high court Justice SEE KEE OON rejected my appeal and I was immediately being sent to face 5 weeks in prison for not paying the fine of $3,100.

On 22 Feb 2017 at 10am, I was at Singapore’s High Court for the appeal against the judgement made by Singapore’s state court Judge CHAY YUEN FATT.
Together with me were two elderly co-accused Ivan Koh (age 62) and Janet Low (age 57).

During the appeal hearing, I asked if it was correct to amend the charge sheet just a day before the trial? Our trial was on 13 Oct 2015, but the charge sheet was amended on 12 Oct 2015.

It was not acknowledged by us and was not brought to our attention. We only noticed that after we’ve filed our appeal, from the magistrate appeal documents, last month in Jan 2017. The response we got were “so what if amended?”

Singapore’s state court Judge CHAY YUEN FATT grounds of decisions are wrong in laws, as under the Parks and Trees regulation, he admitted that “the word “demonstration” is neither defined in the Parks and Trees Regulations nor the parent Act”.

In addition, Judge CHAY YUEN FATT also said in his grounds of decisions that “As regards the issue of who had organized the demonstration, there is no definition of “organize” in the Parks and Trees Regulations or the parent Act”.

For a law that is not defined, it is unfair to convict me when it is not based on any legal ground.

Singapore’s state court Judge CHAY YUEN FATT grounds of decisions are also wrong in facts, saying that he rejected my “allegation that she would not have been able to opt to give a speech and hold a demonstration at the same time”.

This is not an allegation but what Nparks manager Sim Bee Lan testified in court, as per day 3 page 129 of the transcript that we have bought from the state court.

It was recorded in the transcript that “On the Nparks website, there are three options, a speech, a demonstration and a performance. But a Singaporean is only allowed to choose one.”

The reason why Judge CHAY YUEN FATT convicted me was because I did not click on “demonstration” but only “speech”.

It is common sense that since I will be giving a speech at Hong Lim Park on 27 Sep 2014, I should click on “speech”.

Since the website doesn’t allow anyone to click on both “speech” and “demonstration” as testified by Nparks manager Sim Bee Lan, it is unjust to convict me using a flaw on the Nparks website registration system.

As for our public nuisance charge, Hong Lim Park speakers’ corner is the only unrestricted area for us to hold protest in Singapore.

In Singapore’s state court Judge CHAY YUEN FATT grounds of decision, he convicted us, as quoted at point 86

“I would note further that even if Han did have the approval to organize a demonstration at the speakers’ corner, the evidence showed that during the third march, she led the protesters to venture beyond the boundaries of the speakers’ corner into the sheltered area in front of the stage to confront minister of state Teo Ser Luck. In that respect, any approval to hold a demonstration at the speakers’ corner would not have applied to the protest outside the speakers’ corner.”
And “any such approval would not have afforded her a defense to the public nuisance charge in any case”.

Singapore’s state court Judge CHAY YUEN FATT convicted us because we stepped on the concrete, he said I have “venture beyond the boundaries of the speakers’ corner”.

YMCA has applied for the use of speakers’ corner, since the PAP minister and the YMCA personnel have also stepped on the concrete, does it not make sense that they should be charged for venturing beyond the boundaries of speakers’ corner too?

Or do we practice double standard in Singapore?

Given that there were about thousands of people at Hong Lim Park on 27 Sep 2014, how many Singaporeans are aware that if they stepped on the concrete to go to the toilet, they would be guilty of venturing beyond the boundary of speakers’ corner?

Especially those who were carrying flags or placards?

Also, is it logical if Singaporeans were to seek shelter at the only sheltered area at Hong Lim Park during a rain, they are to be charged and convicted for stepping on concrete for they are venturing out of the boundary of speakers’ corner?

To be violated of my rights to freedom of speech and freedom of assembly for more than 2 years, a total of 27 months is a great insult to democracy.

To be fined $3,100, and be disqualified from standing for parliamentary election, there is simply no justice in Singapore.

The entire appeal hearing lasted two hours and ended at 12pm. My belongings were taken away from me right on the spot, including my phone.

I was then made to face the wall; a body search was made and I was shackled from the back.

There is a lift inside the high court chamber and the police made me enter the lift. The entrance to the lift has an interlocking feature and additionally, the interior of the lift was separated into two sections via a sliding sectional door. I was made to enter the inner-part of the lift where an accompanying police officer locked the sliding door.

Another police officer then entered the lift on the opposite side and all three of us were stuck inside for about 5 minutes. During which, they called the control room below to get an approval for the lift to go down. They were then given a passcode to key into the lift to start the descent of the lift.

I was brought to the basement of the high court, there were a lot of prison cells, I was made to walk through a lot of passage ways. At 12pm, I was the 21st female to be sent in from the high court, which excludes the juvenile court, state court, family court etc. I was first brought into solitary confinement at the high court; the cell was just 1.5m by 2m. Inside it includes a 1m by 1m toilet, I was made to sit beside it.

By then, it was already 12:30pm. I asked if I will be given lunch, the lunch in prison was supposed to be at 11am. Since I entered at 12pm, all the lunches at high court were already distributed and they started signing documents for me to be transferred to the state court.

The whole process took another half an hour, by the time the documentation was over it was already 1pm. I was shackled and made to walk through all the passage ways.

Basically, walking in circles, because it’s back to the exact same spot and seeing the exact same police officers. By the time I went into the prison van, it was 1:30pm.

The prison van is separated into three parts. The front for the driver and another police, the middle for me alone while the back was for another police officer. They spun around the basement before exiting from the gate between The Adelphi and the high court.

After exiting, they went past Hong Lim Park and said “because of this park you’re now going to prison, is it worth it?” Another officer added “because of Singaporeans? Hahaha, you’re now going to prison to see who really run this country.”

Check Also

Opposition Politician Ravi Philemon: MSM Screwed Up Reporting On M’sian Election!

"I expect better standards, especially from news outlets which are funded by taxpayers' monies."