http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316951 en-US 60 <p>This case happened in HK.&nbsp;</p> Fri, 09 May 2008 13:43:06 +0800 www.sgforums.com:10:316951:8073247 ObiterDicta http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316951 <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>Bill of Rights ?</p> <p>Should we be surprised that you are championing this position ?</p> <p>Have you joined CSJ's movement to return the Basic Rights to Singaporean ?</p> <p>Singapore is about the only place in the supposed World ruled by Law that the Law Maker&nbsp;is above the Law.</p> <p>Citizens are remanded and held in custody without access to legal advise - so as to make it convenient for police investigators to obtain all evidence and statements&nbsp;that may or may not incriminate the Citizens themselves.</p> <p>In Singapore - everyone is assumed to be guilty unless one can prove oneself to be innocent.</p> <p>The Law is designed to entrap Singaporeans into committing an offence, and easily criminalise a simple act.</p> <p>Rule&nbsp;of Law, or RULED by LAW....?</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> Fri, 09 May 2008 12:58:22 +0800 www.sgforums.com:10:316951:8073119 Atobe http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316951 <p>you are so fucking condescending.</p> Fri, 09 May 2008 12:41:25 +0800 www.sgforums.com:10:316951:8073076 redDUST http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316951 <p>Laws shall protect people as a whole.</p> <p>But do u think the following judgement&nbsp; is reasonable.</p> <p>A car jumped the red light.Owner refused to give details</p> <p>of the driver,claiming:</p> <blockquote> <p>insisted the sections under the ordinance were against the Bill of Rights in that they deprived him of his rights to silence and against incriminating himself.</p> </blockquote> <p><span class="">QUOTE:''Under the ordinance, car owners are required to identify to police the person driving his or her car at the time of an alleged offense. Failure to do so may result in a maximum fine of xxx and six months in jail.</span></p> <p>The draconian nature of the power under section 63 of the xxxx, coupled with the lack of any evidence or material whatsoever to justify the continued existence of that power, mean that the undoubted violation of the defendants right to silence and his privilege against self- incrimination must result in a trial that cannot, in any sense whatsoever, be said to be fair, Thomas said in his written judgment. Accordingly, I hold that the power in section 63 is xxxx inconsistent. The section has ceased to have any effect.</p> <p>Accordingly, I find the defendant not guilty of the offense in the summons and acquit him.''</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>&nbsp;</p> <p>1.Wait wait.Dunt bother to find where it happened.</p> <p>I found many forumers here not based on substances of the discussions,</p> <p>but based who discussed the issue,English standard and where did the issue happen.</p> <p>Many tend to defend if it happened in Oz etc.</p> <p>2.Questions:Is it reasonable for the judgement?</p> Fri, 09 May 2008 12:04:57 +0800 www.sgforums.com:10:316951:8072999 lionnoisy http://www.sgforums.com/forums/10/topics/316951