A Judge's Unjust Ruling in Singapore - Abuse of Law is Not Rule of Law

It is hard to imagine the absurdity of a particular court case in Twenty-first-century Singapore. On February 23rd, 2003, two Falun Gong practitioners were practising the Falun Gong exercises which consist of slow moving, meditative exercises at a waterfront park and distributing VCDs containing information on how Falun Gong practitioners are being persecuted in China. The case is really a non-issue, but in Singapore, the practitioners were charged one year after the incident and were tried another year later. The most absurd part is that the two Falun Gong practitioners were actually convicted and sent to jail.

One of the allegations was that these practitioners, along with six others, assembled without a permit. In fact, all over Singapore, countless people practise Taichi, Yoga or go jogging in groups without permits. Should they be prosecuted as well? At the waterfront park in question, many tourists were in groups with more than eight people in each of the groups. Should they also be considered as assembling without permits?

Well before February 23rd, 2003, Falun Gong practitioners had been practising for years in groups in Singapore. Why is February 23rd, 2003 different from any other day? The so-called "assembly without permit" allegation is a typical example of how a dictator control its people in the name of laws. When the laws are so strict, many of its citizens' normal behaviours are considered illegal and everybody is breaking the law. Those who are not prosecuted are considered to have been given a favour. Whenever the authorities do not like a particular group, they can take back the favours.

There have been numerous cases of dissidents and government critics and media being prosecuted and sentenced, fined or forced into bankruptcy as a direct result of the oppression of different voices in the name of law. However, abuse of law is not rule of law. In a free society, although the laws may be strict, normal behaviour of ordinary citizens is not a crime. The authorities cannot use the law at will to oppress its people.

Another allegation in this case was that the practitioners were in possessions of a VCD that has not been authorised. This is even more absurd. Many people have made their own commercials and still others make movies to document special occasions such as birthday parties and weddings and various growth stages of their children. These videotapes are circulated informally. Following the logic of the prosecutors, should these movies be submitted and screened by the authorities before they can be circulated, under threat of being prosecuted with the charge of being "in possession of unauthorised movies?" This is just another example of how people are oppressed by the abuse of law.

The Falun Gong practitioners' defence lawyer, Alfred Dodwell, questioned the prosecutor's witness: "You claimed that the behaviours of the Falun Gong practitioners interfered with the public because you had to walk around the practitioners who were meditating. [Note: The police actually did not have to walk around the practitioners, since the park is very spacious.] By the same token, when you walk in Singapore, you see people practising Taichi and Yoga and therefore you have to walk around them as well; do you think they obstruct you as well?" The police witness replied, "Practising Yoga and Taichi are not considered to be blocking the public right-of-way." Dodwell further questioned, "Then why are Falun Gong practitioners different? If Yoga practitioners and Taichi practitioners do not need a permit to give out information, why do the Falun Gong practitioners need permission?" The witness was speechless.

What is remarkable is that the Singapore police emphasised that the case is not against Falun Gong. They claim the case is against the behaviour of the two practitioners. This is strange. It seems to mean that if the Taichi and Yoga practitioners are practising and distributing information, they could also be prosecuted. But this is in contradiction to the testimony of the witness. We can only conclude that their claim of the case not being against Falun Gong is a cover-up. In fact, the police know very well that it cannot be publicly said that this case is targeting Falun Gong.

Singapore is notorious for its draconian laws that disregard human rights. The rule of law can be strict and yet fair, focusing on safeguarding social conscience and the basic rights of its people. Otherwise, the law is just another tool at the disposal of the authorities. We hope that the Singapore authorities will follow their constitution and respect human rights and freedom of belief by withdrawing the judgements and safeguarding the independence of the judiciary system. In fact, when the case is exposed to the international community, it will be an opportunity for the Singapore government to correct its mistake and improve its image.