Man who doctored City Harvest headline complies with AGC’s demands; AGC may or may not take further action

1817

The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) confirmed in a statement yesterday that the netizen who doctored an image relating to the City Harvest Church trial has complied with its demands. It refused to comment, when asked, on whether it would take further action against the man, Facebook user Neo Aik Chau.

Neo apologised profusely earlier this week shortly after Law Minister K Shanmugam revealed in Parliament on Monday that the the Attorney-General’s Chambers is looking into the matter as a case of contempt by scandalising the courts.

The doctored image in question had to do with ruling party parliamentarian Edwin Tong, who also served as City Harvest Church founder Kong Hee’s defense lawyer. The man who created and circulated the image took a copy of Chinese daily Lianhe Wanbao’s front page that was originally entitled “Outdated law ‘saved’ the accused from harsher penalties” and changed it to “PAP lawyer ‘saved’ the accused from harsher penalties”.

Neo, a delivery driver, begged for forgiveness on Facebook shortly thereafter:

“I was wrong! I am sorry! I didn’t mean it! Everything is fair and fair! It’s really wrong! I don’t think so much! I’m sorry! I swear not to post anything about this! Forgive me!”

The AGC asserted yesterday that the contentious post “made false and baseless allegations and in doing so, impugned the impartiality and integrity of the Court of Appeal and posed a risk that public confidence in the administration of justice would be undermined” and added that by publishing the Facebook post, Neo had committed contempt of court under s 3(1)(a) of the Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016.

It also confirmed that it has been in touch with Neo and asked him to publish an apology and agree not to republish the post “in any form or medium”, besides asking him to undertake that he will not take other actions which would amount to contempt of court.

Complying with the AGC’s demands, Neo apologised on his Facebook page yesterday and wrote: “I unreservedly apologise for scandalising the Court of Appeal by publishing the post. I have removed the post from the Facebook group, my Facebook accounts and all my other social media accounts and platforms.”

APOLOGY AND UNDERTAKING I, Neo Aik Chau, accept that at about 7.05pm on 2 February 2018, I published a post on the…

Posted by Neo Aikchau on Wednesday, 7 February 2018

While the AGC acknowledged that Neo has complied with its conditions, it declined to comment on whether any further action against him with regards to this case.
It only maintained that it “will take firm action against contempt of court, including institution of committal proceedings in appropriate instances”.

26 COMMENTS

  1. “PAP lawyer ‘saved’ the accused from harsher penalties”. Am trying very hard to understand how this tantamount to a contempt of court. I should try harder to understand this.

  2. What Mr Neo has done was altering a newspaper headlines based on the facts of the case which the whole Singapore knows. In fact Mr Shanmugam has highlighted a similar situations when he defended Herald Tribune during Lee Kuan Yew’s time. Of course it is preferred if Mr Neo were to qualify that if he were the editor, he would use such headlines based on the facts of the case.And his altered headlines is not fake news but one based on the facts of the case. In fact his headlines gives Pap lawyers more credit than they deserve. The people with the locus standi are the newspaper and not the government as Mr Neo is not spreading fake news.
    As such he can’t be scandalizing the court but maybe the newspaper. His altered headlines were based on the facts of the case.

    • And yet he posted something on the internet but his balls shrunk back into his body when he was going face backlash.

      He was definitely “scandalizing the court” by insinuating that the status of the lawyer affected the court decision which means that he was also insinuating that the court would be influenced by the status of the lawyer.

      • @Anonymous#2

        You are wrong, you shit-eating retard. The person simply stated that a Pap lawyer saved the plaintiffs.

        Whatever insinuations you derived was outside of plain simple facts, and a figment of imagination from your sick depraved mind.

      • @Anonymous#2

        You are wrong, you shit-eating retard. The person simply stated that a Pap lawyer saved the plaintiffs.

        Whatever insinuations you derived was outside of plain simple facts, and a figment of imagination from your sick depraved mind.

      • @Anonymous #2

        Nothing wrong with calling dogs like you a dog.

        Speaks tons about your upbringing to whine about being called a dog.

      • @anonymous #2

        Nothing wrong with calling dogs like you dogs. Thats exactly what you are.

        Speaks tons of your upbringing to whine about being called a dog.

  3. Delivery driver also bully lor ! win liao lor ! take a butcher knife to slaughter a chicken ! nahbeh ! ah beng and ah seng mutuh dan ahmad , ah lien n ah huay , pasar uncle n aunty …u all now better know law ! no play play talk talk ! becoz u say and think just TCSS but white termite gang got lawyers to make TCSS become crime and u get it !! dont say no warn you wo !!!
    Peasant lan lan gum kio lor !!!

    • Hmm suing a delivery driver = bully? Are you looking down on the man’s job?

      So you are saying that just because you have a lower-paying job you can talk shit and not bear the consequences?

    • A very good journalist. I applaud him. I was teaching that kind of journalism when I was in the Mekong countries.

  4. First of all, I believed that we should look at the intention of the posting. Was it done with the intention to contempt the court? As I see it, Mr Neo had highlighted a fact that the lawyer who defended CHC is a PAP mp. I also believed that our courts are independent from the ruling party.

    • He insinuated that the status of the lawyer affected the court decision, which means that he was also insinuating that the court would be influenced by the status of the lawyer.

      So, contempt of court.

      • Anonymous#2

        You are wrong, you shit-eating retard. The person simply stated that a Pap lawyer saved the plaintiffs.

        Whatever insinuations you derived was outside of plain simple facts, and a figment of imagination from your sick depraved mind.

  5. If the govt is so sensitive than I think it is better for them to close it down. Little info or news still.cannot see it thru . It is consider very selfish and petty and how to.handle bigger issue.

  6. His mistake was to apologize.
    Now the govt will use that to drop the MOAB bomb on anyone who dares question the exceptional party and govt.
    Traitors and wreckers!!!!

    • Well maybe if someone wants to question the ruling party and the government he/she should back it up with clear-cut, non-misleading facts.

Comments are closed.