Chee Soon Juan v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 30 May 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 122
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 256 of 2002
• Date: 30 May 2003
• Published date: 02 October 2003
• Year: 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Appellant in person
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 122
• Defendant Counsel: Bala Reddy (Deputy Public Prosecutor),Hui Choon Kuen (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Places of entertainment,Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (Cap 257, 2001 Rev Ed) ss 2, 19(1)(a),Fundamental liberties,Constitutional Law,Activities considered "public entertainment",Attempt to hold rally on grounds of Istana without licence,Whether violated by laws regulating licencing of public entertainment,Freedom of speech,Constitution of the Republic of Singapore art 14(2((a),Right to express opinion,Public Entertainments and Meetings Act (Cap 257, 2001 Rev Ed) s 2,Words and Phrases,"Public entertainment",Whether "public entertainment",Public Entertainment

1 The appellant (“Chee”) was convicted in the district court of two offences. The first was for wilfully trespassing on property belonging to the Government under s 21(1) of the Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order & Nuisance) Act, Cap 184. He was sentenced to a fine of $500, with one week’s imprisonment in default. The second offence was for attempting to provide public entertainment without a licence under s 19(1)(a) of the Public Entertainments & Meetings Act, Cap 257 (“PEMA”) read with s 511 of the Penal Code, Cap 224. For this offence, he was sentenced to a fine of $4,000, with four week’s imprisonment in default. He did not pay the fines and had served the default sentences of imprisonment before his appeal came on for hearing. Chee’s appeal concerned only the second offence, for which the maximum penalty was a fine of $10,000.

Preliminary Issue

2 In Chee’s notice of appeal, he stated that he would be appealing both his conviction and sentence for the second offence. The DPP pointed out that his petition of appeal mentioned only an appeal against sentence.

3 No written submissions were tendered by Chee. In court, I took the opportunity to clarify the issue and confirmed that he was indeed appealing against both his conviction and sentence.

Background

4 Chee had applied to the Public Entertainment Licencing Unit (“PELU”) for a licence to hold an exhibition-cum-rally on 1 May 2002, Labour Day, outside the Istana. His application was rejected on the ground of the potential disruption to public order, but he subsequently stated in press releases his intention to continue regardless.

5 On 1 May 2002, the grounds of the Istana were open to the public. Chee was spotted moving to a traffic light in the foliage area in front of the Istana around noon, where he was surrounded by a crowd of about 30 people. Accompanying him was one Ghandi, a member of Chee’s political party who was also there to speak at the rally. Ghandi had been separately charged and convicted for his part in the incident, and I dismissed his appeal against sentence on 25 February 2003.

6 One of the policemen on duty that day, DSP Lim, immediately approached Chee and asked him to leave. DSP Lim testified that he had to prevent a “law and order situation” arising, since there were close to 5,300 people in the Istana grounds at the time. Also, Chee had already publicised through the press his intention to hold a rally there, despite having been warned by the police that this would be in breach of the law.

7 DSP Lim warned Chee a total of four times to leave the place. Chee refused to comply and insisted on having his say. Consequently, DSP Lim ordered his arrest. The incident was recorded on audio tape by another police officer, one ASP Abdul Rani. From the transcript of the tape recording, it was apparent that Chee had prepared for the rally, as he made reference both to props and exhibits that he had brought and to the fact that he would be speaking later. DSP Lim’s four warnings were also caught on tape. They showed that Chee had been warned about the potential offence he was committing (breach of PEMA) and that he had been given an opportunity to leave.

8 It was not undisputed that Chee and Ghandi were standing on government land at the time they were arrested.

The appeal against conviction

9 Chee did not tender any written submission in support of his case. In court, his sole contention before me was to challenge the constitutionality of PEMA, both in its enactment and application. He argued that the licencing requirements imposed by PEMA were contrary to his constitutional right of free speech and association granted by Art 14(1)(a) of the Constitution. In a related vein, Chee also alleged that PEMA was being applied in a discriminatory manner against him, as evidenced by the refusal of his application for a licence to hold his rally.

10 Chee did not seek to challenge the prosecution’s case against him nor the decision of the judge below to convict him of the charge. However, being mindful of the fact that he was unrepresented by counsel both here and in the court below, I took it upon myself to examine the proceedings below to ensure that the decision to convict him was correctly reached.

The law on PEMA

11 Section 19(1)(a) PEMA provides that it shall be an offence for any person to provide public entertainment without a licence duly issued under the Act. There is no precise definition of public entertainment in PEMA, but a list of categories of activities which would be considered public entertainment is found in s 2 of the Schedule, from s 2(a) to (n). In addition, s 2 also states that these activities must be done “in any place to which the public or any class of the public has access whether gratuitously or otherwise”.

12 In Jeyaretnam JB v PP [1989] SLR 978, Chan Sek Keong J (as he then was) noted that “public entertainment” as used in PEMA had a wider ambit than its ordinary dictionary sense. The activities specified within s 2 of the Schedule included those which would not be understood as providing “entertainment” in the general sense. Hence, he concluded that whether an activity is “public entertainment” should be determined simply by its form and correspondence to the list in s 2 of the Schedule.

13 In my opinion, for an activity to come within the scope of PEMA, the activity must be directed at the public; in the sense of procuring their...