SINGAPORE—In an act of civil disobedience inside a Singapore courtroom on this past Monday, six adherents of the Falun Gong spiritual movement protested the secrecy in which their trial was being held. They objected to a courtroom so small that not a single family member or member of the press could attend.
On Wednesday, when the trial resumed, Supreme Court Judge Terence Chua reversed himself and granted the request for a larger courtroom, thus allowing some media and supporters of the six women to attend the trial.
On Monday, the six women had turned their backs to the bench to boycott the trial after the judge refused to move the trial to a larger room while not allowing observers into the previously chosen small room.
"There was absolutely no other way for us to protect our rights at that moment," said Dr. Yuyi Wang, one of the defendants. "[Before we turned our backs] I told the judge 'I rely on you to protect my rights as a defendant of criminal charges,' but he kept silent."
"It was not a normal proceeding, but an illegal one," she said. "Only two choices were left for us: to accept the secret trial or boycott it."
Dr. Wang and the others were on trial for distributing fliers in downtown Singapore informing the public about the torture and killing of fellow practitioners in China. They were arrested on Nov. 23, 2005 and charged with "assembling without a permit." According to Amnesty International, there were several incidents during 2006 where Singapore police inhibited peaceful protests by various groups.
Following the courtroom boycott, the judge found the practitioners guilty of contempt of court, and sentenced them to two days in prison without possibility of bail or visitation.
To their surprise, however, they were released the next morning. The authorities justified the shortened detention by saying the time in prison had spanned two days. Family members of the defendants believe the shortened sentence reflects the response of the Singapore authorities to international attention given to this case.
Unfair Trial?
At the center of the practitioners' dispute with the judge on Monday was the size of the courtroom, the smallest in the Subordinate Court. It has only eight chairs, six for the defendants and two for the interpreters, providing no room for the defendants' family members, the media, or the general public to witness the proceedings.
Dr. Wang said the six resorted to the boycott after having appealed repeatedly for a larger courtroom with room for observers. She said that their request had been rejected first by a pre-trial conference judge and then by the presiding judge.
"They never showed any sincerity in the last five months in answering our requests," she said.
Dr. Chee Soon Juan, Secretary-General of the Singapore Democratic Party (SDP), addressed this issue in a letter to international organizations calling for support.
"Such an arrangement, where the public does not have access to the trial, is of great concern," he wrote. "Trials must be open to the public and the media. After all, the case involves questions of peaceful assembly which is of interest to the public at large."
The Power of Courage
An article posted on the SDP website on Thursday congratulated both the judge for his courage in backing down and granting the defendants' fair request and the defendants for insisting they be treated fairly.
The SDP sees this as a victory for the principles of nonviolent action, "This incident underscores the fact that individuals are never completely powerless. Even when facing the State with all its resources and machinery, individuals can persuade seemingly intransigent authorities to mend their ways by applying Nonviolent Action ... While the courts had the power of the jail to back up its threats, the women had the power of their courage."
However, the conduct of the trial on Thursday and Friday may leave doubt as to how much progress is represented by the victory of the six women in getting the courtroom changed.
In an e-mail relating what happened in the trial on Thursday and Friday, Dr. Wang claimed that in cross-examination of government witnesses, the defendants had established enough "reasonable doubt" about the charges brought against them for the prosecutor to quash the charges.
The judge nonetheless insisted on continuing the trial.
No Representation
The practitioners conducted the cross examination themselves because they have had difficulty finding a lawyer willing to defend them, due to the pressure faced by attorneys who were hired by Falun Gong practitioners in previous cases in Singapore. = After a 2004 trial of practitioners on charges of having distributed VCDs without a permit, the practitioners' lawyer declined to continue offering his services. He reportedly feared losing his license after the court demanded he apologize for his behavior when arguing the case.
More recently, in the fall of 2006, the lawyer representing two practitioners who were on trial for meditating beneath a banner opposite the Chinese Embassy had his license suspended.
While on a visit to Singapore in September to observe that trial, Ms. Teresa Chu of the Human Rights Law Foundation said, "[The court] wants to force the accused practitioners, who have no legal expertise, to defend themselves. I have many doubts about the fairness [of the trial]."
The trial continues on Monday. Because of the victory won by the defendants on Wednesday, observers will be present to document to what extent it is a fair one.
Feeds