In the latest case of the very intolerant (or should we say very nervous) Lee Kuan Yew's Singapore city state silencing criticism and free speech; it's state controlled newspaper Straits Times of June 14, 2013 has the story "Warning for contempt of court issued against indie filmmaker Lynn Yee" See http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/warning-contempt-court-issued-against-indie-filmmaker-lynn-lee-2013061
Lynn Yee had posted 2 videos she made of Chinese national foreign bus drivers in
In the videos according to the report "The two bus drivers (while in custody) had alleged in the videos that they were assaulted by police officers for the purpose of extracting confessions."
According to the report
"The AGC (Attorney General of Singapore) in a statement said that Ms Lee was aware, at the time of publication, that criminal proceedings against He and Liu were ongoing, and thus her conduct had created "a real risk of prejudice" to the proceedings through sub judice.
This may lead to parties connected with the trial "would be improperly influenced" by the publication, in their making of findings of fact, the AGC said. It added: "These are matters that should be determined at a trial and not by publications that are made outside the court."
In other words, what the Attorney General is saying is this. Just because there is an ongoing investigation, no one should report anything about the case including making any videos because if they did, every one who is investigating the case and judging it would all be prejudiced and damage the proceedings.
You can see how nonsensical this argument is. There is no such rule of sub judice whatsoever. This is another case of the Kangaroo courts and their corrupt legal system making up rules as they go along in order to silence any criticism.
The sub judice rule only applies in cases where there are jury trials where there is an imminent danger that jurymen who are laymen, may likely be prejudiced by massive misinformation put out by the parties while the case is still in progress. This restriction is understandable in certain cases where there is a real likelihood of prejudice to the prosecution of the case. In any case it is sparingly used.
This is simply not a case to apply the sub judice rule since it simply has no application to this case. Once again Singapore law is conveniently abused for the single purpose, not only to make Singaporeans look as if they were just ignorant fools with no knowledge at all, but principally to silence even the slightest dissent and to intimidate every single pathetic individual that lives in that island that he should simply accept whatever Lee Kuan Yew and his son throws at them without any protest at all!
Another perfect example of
Attorney at Law
A Singaporean in Exile
Tel: 510 491 4375