The Amos Yee Case: The Government Explains

Amos Yee given 4-week backdated jail sentence.

"... this case is most certainly not about freedom of speech and diversity of views. It is about the abuse of these freedom. "

"Just as Amos Yee's intentional actions led to his conviction, so too did his intentional actions lead to his remand".

...

PP v Amos Yee Pang Sang

Prosecution's Skeletal Submissions on Sentencing

1. At the outset, it is critical to reiterate what this case is about. It is most certainly not about the freedom of speech and the diversity of views. It is about the abuse of these freedoms. Unbridled speech without limits does not exist in any known society. Each society defines its own values and protects them. Religious harmony remains a key value in our society. So too is public decency. Under our laws, lines are drawn against acts that deliberately wound religious feelings and against the publication of images that have a tendency to deprave and corrupt. Amos Yee crossed those lines with deliberation and calculation. His actions led to his conviction.

2. Just as Amos Yee's intentional actions led to his conviction, so too did his intentional actions lead to his remand. Mention has been made by his counsel and by the media of the period spent by Amos in remand. What has been omitted from such mention is the fact that the period spent by Amos in remand has been entirely the result of his own decisions.

3. First, at the prosecution's suggestion, bail was offered since Amos was charged on 31 March 2015. But Amos deliberately breached bail conditions, which caused two sets of bailors (his parents and later a counsellor) to withdraw bail.

4. Secondly, at the prosecution's suggestion, probation was offered as an option upon Amos' conviction on 12 May 2015. Bail conditions were relaxed to allow him to go on bail for assessment by probation officers - but despite having agreed to be assessed for probation, he changed his mind and rejected probation.

5. Thirdly, the prosecution had also earlier suggested at the bail review hearing in the High Court on 6 May 2015 that he consider voluntarily continuing with psychiatric evaluation and / or counselling that he had started at IMH. Again, Amos spurned the suggestion. Had he voluntarily continued with the psychiatric evaluation and counselling, the last two weeks in remand in IMH ordered by your Honour (which order defence counsel had not objected to) could have been avoided.

6. The full details of Amos' conduct may be found in the chronology of events annexed at Annex A. Suffice to say that at every turn in these proceedings, Amos chose a course of action which led to remand and then prolonged that remand. This was despite the benefit of access to legal advice throughout the proceedings.

7. Finally, Amos persisted in re-posting the offensive materials which he was told by this Court to remove after his conviction, and unequivocally indicated his intention to keep the re-posting up indefinitely. The recalcitrance and persistent lack of remorse shown in this last act prompted the Prosecution's suggestion for an RTC suitability report. It appeared at that point that the structured discipline of the RTC regime provided the only solution to his recalcitrance as he insisted that he intended to continue posting the offending materials.

8. Since then there have been material changes which merit consideration in assessing the appropriate sentencing response.

9. First, at the hearing on 23 June 2015, Amos voluntarily removed the offending materials which he had re-posted and gave the Court a written undertaking not to re-post (see exhibit D7 at Annex B). This was no less than a significant repudiation of his previous posturing. It was an important acknowledgment that he finally accepted the gravity of what he had done and was willing to make amends by undoing it. The immediate catalyst for our initial request for an RTC report - that is, the recalcitrant re-posting of the offending materials and the avowed intention to maintain these re-postings - no longer exists.

10. Secondly, the prosecution now has the benefit of the report by Dr Cai Yi Ming who interviewed and observed Amos over the course of the last two weeks. Dr Cai has concluded that Amos has no mental disorder.

11. Crucially, Dr Cai reports that Amos has now admitted to him that he "would admit to his guilt and promised not to reoffend as he has realised what he did was against the law and could disrupt social harmony" and that he used his intelligence "in the wrong ways",

12. Dr Cai has also explained how early access to the Internet and early fame or success led to over-confidence and self-centredness on Amos' part. Dr Cai added, that Amos thinks highly of himself and "shows scant regard to the feelings of others and focuses on his needs most of the time". He has commented on how Amos has to learn to make decisions wisely to stay within the law.

13. These developments disclose material attitudinal shifts which are now relevant to your Honour's consideration of an appropriate sentence.

Full submission is attached at (https://www.agc.gov.sg/DATA/0/Docs/NewsFiles/15.7.6_Amos%20Yee%20Written%20Skeletal%20Subs%20(with%20Annexes).pdf)

Amos Yee, Free Speech and Singapore's Sovereignty

Besides the concept of free speech, the on-going court case Amos Yee has also surfaced the issue of Singapore's sovereignty.

Outsiders like the United Nations and International Human Rights Groups based overseas have started to lobby for Amos' release. What many have failed to realize, or choose to ignore, is that Amos' predicament is a direct result of his own actions. The court was willing to deal with Amos as a child and offer him probation, but Amos himself rejected the offer of probation and proceeded to deliberately challenge the judiciary. As a system, no Court (in any country) can allow an individual to challenge it without consequences, as allowing an individual to openly defy court orders would lead to anarchy.

As for the issue of sovereignty, we find it disappointing that Singaporeans would tell our Government to cave in to the demands of the UN. Singapore is a sovereign country and we cannot allow our laws to be determined by others. If we bowed to outside pressure to change our way of life to what others think is the "correct" way of life, where do we draw the line. How do we know that the actions of these organizations is done in the best interest of Singapore or Singaporeans? At the end of the day, Singaporeans must decide for themselves what is right and what is wrong. Whatever we decide, we must then answer for it as a country.

Government has repeatedly toed the line that Singaporeans determine their own future. The fact that Singaporeans like Chee Soon Juan and Roy Ngerng are free to go overseas to critize Singapore is proof that the Government allows Singaporeans to do this. We always find it ironic that Roy Ngerng would claim that there is no freedom of speech in Singapore, and yet he repeatedly says this in public. If indeed there was no freedom of speech, why is Roy free and able to continue saying what he is saying?

The Singapore General Election 2016 is just around the corner. If Singaporeans truly believe that this is not the Government they want, then that is when they can exercise their right. Until then, we believe that Singaporeans need to rally around their own Government and tell outsiders to stop interfering in our domestic affairs.

Amos Yee … Saint or Villian?

Amos Yee … Saint or Villian?

In an interesting week, the darling of the opposition has turn out to be their worst nightmare. Trying to capitalize on the so-called unjust “persecution” of a young child exercising his constitutional right to free speech, activists like Roy Ngerng, Vincent Law (an aspiring SDP candidate for GE2016), Jolovan Wham and Alfian Sa’at threw themselves behind Amos Yee.

Unfortunately for them, Amos was wiser than they thought and he "out-ed" them for the fakes that they are. In a lengthy blog post titled “The Molestation Of Vincent Law”, Amos gave a blow by blow account of how these hypocrites attempted to exploit him for their own political gains.

In Amos’ mind, Vincent Law is a “charlatan, a huckster, a hypocrite and a fraud.” According to Amos, Vincent is now hounding his mother, demanding that Amos issue a public apology to him and his family. Otherwise Vincent would get a lawyer to sue him. Amos rightly pointed out that if Vincent was truly standing up for him and is fighting for freedom of speech, Vincent would be fighting against the laws that claims that even if somebody lies, mocks or offends a person or large amounts of people, it should not be deemed as a criminal offense. But now, when the cause that Vincent so boldly advocated, is used unfavorably towards him, he is now threatening to use those exact same laws that he went against, to sue Amos.

According to Amos, even Roy Ngerng is a hypocrite. Roy told Amos that it’s going to be so hard for us to advocate for you, now that you’ve humiliated Vincent. That is when Amos responded that "if my fanbase consists of hypocrites, then despite your support I wouldn’t want it. When things looks bad, and you threaten to remove the support you once had for me. Then fine, good riddance. If that’s the kind of support I receive, one that’s so easily withdrawn, then believe me, I do not wish to acquire your quote unquote ‘support’."

In short, Amos Yee, in our opinion has single-handedly destroyed opposition activists like Roy Ngerng, Vincent Law and Alfian Sa’at by revealing their true characters. If Singaporeans have seen first-hand the true character of Roy, Vincent and Alfian, some good has come out of Amos Yee saga.

Alfian Sa'at: A Naivete View of Amos Yee

Yahoo! Singapore recently carried an article by Alfian Sa’at detailing a conversation he had with Amos Yee.

In the article, Alfian Sa’at essentially tries to “humanize” Amos by portraying him as a wide-eyed harmless teenager who is more bark than bite. Alfian does this by sharing snippets of his conversations with Amos. For example how Amos' school-mates used to make fun of his name, about his interest sci-fi movies, and how Amos has an “endearing” habit of stroking his chin before he spoke.

Alfian then goes on to talk about how mature and enlightened Amos is for his age. Alfian shares how Amos sees the use of vulgarities as a message in and of itself, and how Amos believes that he has a higher purpose in life which goes beyond how his actions may hurt his parents. In short Alfian’s message to Singaporeans is that Amos is your everyday teenager who is idealistic and who rants and raves. Amos is harmless.

Unfortunately, Alfian is wrong! Amos is not your everyday teenager. Sure Teenagers rant and rave. I was one too. However, how many teenagers deliberately and knowing break the law? How many teenagers will openly defy a court order? And how many teenagers will maliciously tarnish the name and reputation of a good Samaritan (Vincent Law) as a lark?

So Alfian, Amos is not the innocent teenager you portray him to be. He is far from it. By your own admission, Amos is wise beyond his age. As such, Amos fully knows what he is doing and should face the full weight of the law for his actions. Just ask Vincent Law.

It is ironic that Amos accepts that he has broken the law and is willing to accept his punishment, while so-called more “experienced” activists like yourself baulk at the concept of Amos answering for his actions. Perhaps, just perhaps, your cries to #FreeAmos is self-serving and Amos is more of a man than you will ever be.

Amos Yee Slapped on Way to Court ... STAGED!

Amos Yee struck on way to court ... Staged!

In the latest twist to the Amos Yee saga, it now appears that Amos was "assaulted" on his way to his pre-trial conference on 30 April 2015. Unconfirmed sources tell us that the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP) had hired a "hit-man" to slap Amos to malign the Government and to win sympathy votes for Amos.

In a video spreading on social media, Amos Yee was seen walking to court alone when an unknown man, in a red t-shirt walked up to him and slapped him. For dramatic effect, Amos Yee is seen clutching his face for the camera.

From the video, it is clear that the slapping incident was staged. Firstly, it happened in an area where reporters were congregating to ensure that it was captured. If it was a real assault, it would realistically have happened in a more secluded area away from the cameras. Secondly, the video was perfectly positioned to capture the entire scene. The way it zoomed in and followed the path of the perpetrator was uncanny and could only have been achieved with pre-planning. Thirdly, the speed at which the alternate media uploaded the video and opposition members condemning it was unreal. Without forewarning, this would not have been possible.

In short, Singaporeans need to know the lengths at which opposition activists will act to mislead the public and malign the government.

---

Breaking News! Amos Yee has been remanded as his bailor, Vincent Law, has discharged himself. He told Straits Times that he was forced to do this as Amos is determined to challenge the court and government ala Roy Ngerng style.