Activist Jolovan Wham’s refusal to sign police statement was a ‘personal practice’, because he could not get copy of document

SINGAPORE — Civil rights activist Jolovan Wham refused to sign a statement he recorded with the police during investigations into an illegal assembly that he allegedly organised, because it was against his "personal practice" to do so when he could not get a copy of the signed documents.

This was revealed by an investigation officer who took the stand in court on Monday (Oct 1).

Wham faces two charges for allegedly organising an assembly without a permit under the Public Order Act on Nov 26 in 2016, and for refusing to sign the statement he made to the police on the case. Five other similar charges are stood down for the time being. He also has a separate contempt of court case pending.

Mr Lee Ting Wei, who was the assistant superintendent of police investigating the case at the time, told Wham that he would not be getting a copy of his statement taken on Dec 20 in 2016, because the document is "confidential" for the purposes of investigation.

Wham, 38, a former executive director with migrant worker advocacy group Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (Home), then told Mr Lee that he would not be signing the document so that he could "practise what he preached" to migrant workers, which is to always obtain a copy of what they sign, the court heard on the first day of the three-day trial.

The alleged illegal assembly was held from 4pm to 6pm at The Agora, a bookstore that is also a performance and event venue in Sin Ming Lane's Midview City building. 

Women's rights activist and anti-death penalty campaigner Rachel Zeng Ruiqing, 35, was also involved in the event, which featured speakers such as Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong, who tuned in via a video call on Skype, freelance journalist Kirsten Han and artist Seelan Palay. They discussed issues relating to civil disobedience and democracy in social change.

Court documents showed that three days before the event on Nov 23 in 2016, then Assistant Superintendent of Police Gideon Manaseh contacted Wham, advising him to apply for a permit under the Public Order Act.

Invitations for the event, which was promoted on Facebook, was sent to 7,600 accounts. More than 360 people responded to indicate their interest in the event.

The event was streamed live on Facebook. A copy of the video was tendered in court as evidence on Monday and is still available on The Online Citizen's Facebook page.

Now a deputy superintendent, Mr Lee revealed on Monday that Wham had "no issues" signing two other statements — caution statements in response to the charges to be tendered against him — recorded on Nov 28 in 2017. This was because he could receive a copy of the statements when he asked for them, Mr Lee said.

During defence lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam's cross-examination of Mr Lee, he pointed out that Section 22 of the Criminal Procedure Code states that a person "need not say anything that might expose him to a criminal charge, penalty or forfeiture".

Mr Thuraisingam further noted that Wham's statement cannot be considered to be valid if it is not signed.

Mr Thuraisingam — who has yet to put forth his case — added that Mr Lee had "threatened" Wham into signing the statement as he had told Wham that he may be charged under Section 180 of the Penal Code, which is the subject of the second charge, if he did not sign.

In reply, Mr Lee said he was "merely informing" Wham that his refusal to sign the statement "may constitute an offence" under Section 180 of the Penal Code, adding that it was the first time he had encountered someone who refused to sign a Section 22 statement in the one year and five months that he had worked as a police officer then.

If convicted, Wham could be fined up to S$5,000 for organising an event without a valid permit, and jailed up to three months or fined up to S$2,500 for refusing to sign the statement made to police.

The trial continues on Tuesday.