Judge rejects Chee's constitution argument

"I'm quite satisfied there is a prima facie case," District Judge See Kee Oon said when the trial resumed after a lunch break that followed the presentation of the prosecution's case.

Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) leader Chee Soon Juan says he is not guilty of an offence under the Public Entertainments Act after making a speech on December 29, 1998 in Singapore's central business district.

He says his constitutional right to free speech is violated by the requirement for public speaking permits.

He faces a fine of up to Singapore $5000 (US$3,000) if found guilty. A fine of more than S$2,000 would bar him from standing for election for five years under Singapore law.

His counsel, J.B. Jeyaretnam, told the court the offence fell outside the scope of the Act and constitutional violation voided the charge.

"The law, whether it is valid or not, is being applied in violation of his constitutional right and for that reason it becomes invalid, or rather this prosecution of Chee in itself contravenes the constitution," he said.

But the judge said he was powerless to deal with that issue.

"Let's make this clear, counsel. I do not have the power of judicial review," he said. "It is not within the subordinate court's jurisdiction and powers."

President Ong Teng Cheong last week rejected a request to convene the constitutional court to review Chee's case on grounds that there were other legal forums in which to pursue the issue.

The prosecution had closed its case against Chee in the court's opening session on Monday.

"The accused did not have a licence under the Public Entertainments Act to hold the talk," Deputy Public Prosecutor Bala Reddy told the court, reading from a statement of facts in the case agreed with Jeyaretnam.

Jeyaretnam, however, said there was no evidence the talk would be "a threat to the security of Singapore" and that police officers "saw nothing that might lead to a breach of the peace."

"Sir, it can happen at any time," said prosecution witness Superintendent Low Hui Hui, central police division commander.

"In the same way, I suppose, that Martians may invade Singapore?" Jeyaretnam responded.

"You don't expect an answer to that, do you?" Judge See said.

Low had verbally warned Chee he would be breaking the law if he spoke without a permit. Police had earlier tried to give Chee a letter from the licencing officer telling him not to go ahead.

Jeyaretnam said Low wanted to stop Chee talking because he was the head of an opposition party.

Low responded: "No, because he did not have a permit."

Chee, whose party has no seats in parliament, says permits are difficult and time-consuming to get and the system is designed to make it hard for the opposition to be heard.

Chee testified that his speech was "a very serious talk to my fellow citizens about the transparency and accountability of the government. I do not in any way see that as entertainment of any kind."

He also testified that members of the ruling party "have routinely conducted public talks, especially during the period celebrating our national day" without seeking permits.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Bala Reddy dismissed those arguments as inappropriate and said Chee and his party had been granted permits in the past.

The defense is also arguing that the law, passed by a parliament dominated for 40 years by one party, violates Singapore's constitution.

The government, controlled since independence in 1965 by the People's Action Party which has 81 of 83 elected seats in parliament now, says ample opportunities exist to be heard.

Khor Chor Huat, head of the licensing unit, told the court there was no government directive compelling him to reject permit applications from opposition parties, or to refer them to the Home Affairs Ministry, although he may decide to do so.

Judge See adjourned the case for the day and will hear final submissions on Tuesday.

The US State Department Human Rights Report of 1998 accused Singapore's government of using legal processes to stifle freedom of speech and intimidate the political opposition. The government has rejected the criticism, saying the courts are independent.

NOTE: The South China Morning Post reported a representative from the United States Embassy in Singapore has been acting as an observer.

The Straits Times carried a 549 word report on its website but no mention was made of the US embassy observer.