Re Application of Lau Swee Soong

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choor Singh J
• Judgment Date: 11 September 1967
• Neutral Citation: [1967] SGHC 16
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 36 of 1967
• Date: 11 September 1967
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1967
• Plaintiff Counsel: TT Rajah
• Citation: [1967] SGHC 16
• Defendant Counsel: Francis T Seow (Solicitor General)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether risk of interference with the administration of justice real and grave,Contempt of Court,Whether government had duty to provide public with information on matters of public interest,Application for orders of committal,Ministers issued press statements on demonstration -- Whether statements calculated to prejudice fair hearing of impending trial,Whether court should take into account prevailing local conditions,Student arrested during demonstration and charged with rioting

This is an application by one Lau Wee Soong, a former student of Ngee Ann College, for orders of committal against the respondents for contempt of the Second Criminal District Court, the contempt alleged being the making and publishing of statements prejudicial to the applicant in his pending trial before the said court. The first respondent is the Minister of the Interior and Defence and the second respondent is the Minister of Culture and Social Affairs in the Government of Singapore.

The circumstances which led to the application are these. On the afternoon of 4 November 1966 there was a demonstration by a large number of students outside the City Hall in St Andrew`s Road, Singapore. According to a police statement issued later, some 200 students took part in the demonstration and according to the applicant, there were 300 armed policemen at the scene. The demonstration lasted several hours, during which period there were incidents involving the students and the police in the course of which force was used. Eventually the demonstrators were all dispersed by the police. The persons injured were 14 policemen, three civilians and six students.

The applicant was arrested at about 4pm on the same day at the General Hospital when he went there for medical treatment. The following day, together with some others, he was charged in the Ninth Magistrate`s Court with the offence of rioting in contravention of s 147 of the Penal Code. He claimed trial and was released on bail. Subsequently his case was transferred to the Second Criminal District Court. His trial commenced on 6 March 1967 and he was tried on two charges, the first charge being under s 147 of the Penal Code and the second charge being under s 323 read with s 149 of the Penal Code. The trial lasted 21 days and ended on 21 April 1967 when he was convicted on both charges and sentenced to nine months` imprisonment on each charge, the terms of imprisonment to run concurrently.

The applicant states, and it is admitted by the respondents, that on 4 November 1966 after his arrest, the Ministry of the Interior and Defence issued a press statement which was broadcast over Radio Singapura and Television Singapura in all the official languages. On the following day, 5 November 1966 the first respondent issued a statement to newsmen at the General Hospital after he had visited one of the fourteen policemen injured outside City Hall the previous day. This statement was broadcast over Radio Singapura and Television Singapura on the same day.

The applicant`s case is that he `did not participate in the use of any criminal force or commit any other violent acts against the police`; that the publication of the two statements referred to earlier had `completely, seriously, thoroughly and irreparably affected the impartial trial of his case and due administration of justice`; that the publication of the said statements `had prejudiced the public in general and the trial tribunal in particular`; that `the effect of such pre-trial inculpatory publications was disastrous as evidenced by his conviction`; and that `the public pronouncement of his guilt soon after his arrest by the first respondent and his Ministry and the publication thereof by Radio Singapura, Television Singapura, the Straits Times and Eastern Sun and other newspapers had completely, wholly and thoroughly deprived him of even the semblance of a fair trial.` And the applicant asks this court for orders of committal against the respondents for their contempt of the Second Criminal District Court.

The press statement issued by the Ministry of the Interior and Defence against which complaint is made was broadcast by Radio Singapura and Television Singapura in the following terms:

Eight policemen and three civilians were injured by rioting students from Ngee Ann College outside the City Hall in St Andrews Road this afternoon. One of the injured policemen has been warded in hospital with head injuries. Six persons who said they were students went to the hospital for treatment for minor injuries. Police detained them afterwards together with four others. Seven of those arrested had Malaysian identity cards.

A police statement said some 200 students of Ngee Ann College were involved in the demonstrations. They were joined by a few students from the University of Singapore, Nanyang University and the Polytechnic. The statement said the evidence shows that the students staged the illegal procession from Ngee Ann college to the Padang with every intention of staging clashes with the police. This was designed to draw public attention to the camping-in by the students at Ngee Ann College since 25 of last month.

The statement said the students were aware that the public had become indifferent to their sit-ins. Early this morning, the students held a so-called pledge-taking ceremony at the college. Present were students of the other three institutions. At the ceremony, the students pricked their thumbs and smeared the blood on a memorandum protesting, among other things, against the Thong Saw Pak Report. They then staged an illegal procession through the city before heading for City Hall.

The statement said police had been informed that certain student leaders had decided to provoke clashes with the police in order to win sympathy for their cause should there be serious injuries to students. The police were instructed to act with restraint and to allow the students to demonstrate peacefully on the Padang. When the students reached City Hall, police tried to direct them to the Padang.

The statement said it soon became obvious that the leaders were not interested in a peaceful demonstration. Some 100 of them charged through the police ranks and rushed up the City Hall steps to try and get into the building.

However, they were prevented from doing so by the police closing the doors of City Hall. Foiled in this the students squatted on the balcony and steps singing songs and shouting abuse at the police. The students had brought with them buckets and cups to provide drinking water for the demonstrators, as well as food, milk and bottled drinks. These were later used as weapons against the police.

Even at this stage, the statement said, the police, knowing the real intention of the organisers of the demonstration, acted with restraint. The police made no attempt to clear the demonstrators so long as they were only singing and shouting. When the students realised that the police were not going to act against them, some of them started to taunt the police by nudging them and drawing their banners across the heads and faces of policemen. The police still refused to be provoked.

The statement said that at about 3.30pm one of the students on the balcony went down the steps and told the police that he wanted to speak to reporters below. Later he returned and said that he wanted to rejoin his colleagues. The police said he could not do so. The students then remonstrated.

The refusal of the police to allow the student to return to the balcony was used as a pretext to rush at the police. Students started attacking the police. The statement said the police had no choice, but to draw their batons in order to defend themselves. Bottles and missiles were hurled at the police. Other students wrenched four of the floodlights outside City Hall and used them as weapons to attack the police. The police were now aware that the students were intent on violence. They charged and dispersed the students. About half the rioting students re-grouped on the Padang where they remained until 5pm when they dispersed.

The statement said if there was no injury to the students, it was largely due to the restraint of the police. What today`s incident clearly shows is that the organisers of these demonstrations are using what they claimed to be an academic issue relating to the reorganisation of Ngee Ann College as cover for lawlessness and violence.

The statement issued by the first respondent to newsmen at the General Hospital on 5 November 1966 was broadcast over Radio Singapura and Television Singapura in the following terms:

The Defence Minister, Dr Goh Keng Swee has said that students who break the law will have to face the consequences. The law will apply to them just as to other members of the public. Dr Goh was speaking to newsmen at the General Hospital after he visited one of the 14 policemen injured by rioting students of Ngee Ann College outside City Hall yesterday. The policeman, Constable Hien Tow Hiong of the Reserve Unit, suffered head injuries in the clash. Dr Goh described the rioting as deplorable. He said academic freedom in not freedom for the students to beat up the police. The minister said if the students want to convince the Government that the Ngee Ann College should be turned into a University, they should do so by reason, logic and argument. He said the hooliganism displayed by the students is the worst way to achieve their aims, and the Government is not impressed.

Dr Goh pointed out that the Government has been very lenient and patient with the Ngee Ann College students. They have been allowed to hold demonstrations and processions even without a police permit. But instead of returning to their classes after airing their grievances, he said, they have gone from one reckless adventure to another.`

It is, I think, expedient, before I state the effect of the impugned statement, to refer to the principles which guide the court when dealing with contempt of court. Lord Blackburn has clearly explained what it means in Skipworth`s Case (1873), LR 9 QB 230 at p 232:

`When a case is pending, whether it is civil or criminal, in a court it ought to be tried, in the ordinary course of justice, fairly and impartially. When an action is pending in the court, and anything is done which has a tendency to obstruct the ordinary course of justice, or to prejudice the trial, there is a power given to the courts by the

...