The man who doctored an image relating to the City Harvest Church trials has apologised profusely 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created and circulated the image took a copy of Chinese daily Lianhe Wanbao’s front page that was originally entitled “Outdated law ‘saved’ the accused from harsher penalties” and changed it to “PAP lawyer ‘saved’ the accused from harsher penalties”.

The man who was responsible for altering the image publicly apologised for his act shortly after the Minister flagged the matter in Parliament. The man, known as Neo Aikchau, begged for forgiveness on Facebook:

“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!”

Shanmugam, who also serves as Home Affairs Minister, condemned Neo’s act on Monday:

“AGC takes the view that the suggestion from the fake title is that the PAP MP was responsible for an unfair, unjust outcome and the Courts have let off the defendants lightly because of him.
“The matter is with AGC and will be dealt with in accordance with the law.”
“This sort of attack based on deliberate faking is quite unacceptable. I cannot see how any reasonable person will justify such faking as a legitimate expression of free speech.”

Adding that lawyers “should not be made to feel that they will be hounded online, if they take up cases”, the Minister revealed:

“I’ve asked the police to take a serious view of those who scandalise court – not only for this case, if there are other comments which cross the threshold and are in contempt of court, our approach is that action will be taken.”

AGC looking into ‘fake news’ about PAP MP who served as Kong Hee’s lawyer: Shanmugam

32 COMMENTS

  1. Mr,. Shanmugan, please don’t use your personal authority to suppress a ordinary citizen. He is just saying the fact that the lawyer is a member of PAP! Is it not right? In the Parliament you still want more power saying minister has the final say? No wonder the opposition rejected the bill for passing through!!!

  2. Where is the fake news??? Is it not correct that Mr Edwin Tong is a ruling People Action Party Member of Parliament?? Is it not correct that the jail terms of those charged were equivalent to those who committed breach of trust for a couple of thousand $$$ instead of $56million???

  3. < “AGC takes the view that the suggestion from the fake title is that the PAP MP was responsible for an unfair, unjust outcome...>
    ****
    Was there an *UNFAIR, UNJUST outcome* for the accused when they got off with lighter sentences in public perception?

    • @Michael G R Lum
      *****
      U sure the defendants’ lawyer(s) didn’t appeal for LIGHTER sentences?! That dun seem to be what Straits Times reported….
      http://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/kong-hee-and-city-harvest-leaders-back-in-court-5-things-about-the-case
      {The prosecution had called for stiffer sentences than those passed.
      They are appealing for sentences ranging from five to 12 years for the six.
      Lawyers said that this move by the prosecution forced the defence to submit appeals for lighter sentences.}

    • Guo Xiongwei the defendants’ lawyer appealed for lighter sentences because the defendants’ didn’t benefitted themselves personally in this case. They did not each get richer because of the CBT.

      It was up to the apex court judges to interpret the law if the defendants’ should be given higher sentences instead because of their position in the organization.

      Since it was interpreted from an unamended law they are not to be held to a higher standard of punishment and it was agreed they did not benefit themselves through the CBT, their sentences are reduced.

    • @Michael G R Lum < ...the defendants’ lawyer appealed for lighter sentences because the defendants’ didn’t benefitted themselves personally in this case. They did not each get richer because of the CBT. >
      ****
      If I didn’t forget that *singing pastor* (whose husband is the chief) rented a Beverly Hills bungalow & lived a high life, u sure that dun count as ?

      ****
      Okay, earlier u seem to claim the PAP-related MP/lawyer wasn’t the one who got them LIGHTER sentences, & now u claimed the loophole wasn’t what got them a LIGHTER sentence.
      Yet according to Straits Times: {Mr Shanmugam highlighted that the Court of Appeal acknowledged this gap in the law in its judgment……}
      U can google the Straits Times article urself.

    • On another note, which social media site should I go to to air my grievances about a bloody FT with attitude in my neighborhood? Bloody idiot use my bin as a public bin to throw his dog’s poop. When I asked him to take it back, he bloody told me why can’t he do that!

      Wanna post his photo too

    • The guy is a lay man stating what he believe is a fact to speak !

      Is not the defense lawyer a members of PAP ?

      In a layman understand , it is always the lawyer that can help to save his or her neck …….layman do not have the mind of a professional lawyer to read so deeply into an innocuous statement !

      Nahbeh !

      In a common man eye, instructing the AG to “look” into the statement is like “ using a Buffalo Knife to slaughter a chicken” ….nahbeh !

      Wonder if is an age old classic adage to…….. “kill one to threaten 100 ?”

  4. Aiyo !

    slap law on ordinary common men in the street ?

    Win liao lor !!!

    if got money pay fine lor if no money wash back side clean clean go Changi holiday camp lor!!

    those 6 criminals get off lightly but law now go after a layman’s innocuous comments ??

    杀一个吓一百???

    正义在哪里???