New edition of Alan Shadrake's Once a Jolly Hangman to be launched

According to British author Alan Shadrake, the new edition of his controversial book Once a Jolly Hangman has been published in Australia, UK and Malaysia, and will be "launched almost simultaneously in these countries".

The new edition will exclude sections which have been ruled by Singapore High Court as scandalising and tarnishing the reputation of the Singapore judiciary. Despite so, Shadrake promised that the book will be as "hard-hitting" as the first edition and "devastatingly accurate".

The book will also be updated to reflect current developments in capital punishment cases in Singapore, such as the ongoing case involving the judicial review appeal of Malaysian drug mule Yong Vui Kong.

Earlier this year, several youths were hauled in for investigation by the Singapore Police Folice for the alleged selling of the print edition of Jolly Hangman, which authorities claimed has not been banned, but in an apparent act of contradiction sent letters demanding bookstores to withdraw the book from their shelves, which they promptly acceded to.

The unannounced ban on the sale of the book has also stroked curiosity and shored up demand which propelled it to bestseller status last year with 4 print runs in 5 months.

Singapore, which has the toughest capital punishment laws in the region, continues to arbitrarily apply the death sentence to convicts and defy international trend for abolishment. In its most recent ruling, the High Court announced that the Singapore President has no powers to grant clemencies to death row convicts unless explicitly instructed by the Cabinet.

Ceremonial head of State, SR Nathan

As such, the Clemency Petition looks set to be a redundant process for all future clemency appeals to the current President, S.R. Nathan.

After an uncontested victory in 1999 where he was hand-picked by the authoritarian regime to assume the position, the President has never granted a single Clemency Petition in his 12 years as ceremonial head of State. Last year, he launched his book aptly entitled "Why Am I Here?", describing his earlier years as a maritime trade union labour officer.

Officially the highest paid political figure in the world with an annual public-funded salary of US$3.4 million, the President certainly makes no disguise of the redundancy of his existence in public service. 

As President S.R. Nathan has asked the question of his existence, we would also like to ask the same: Why is the President here? 


sgdeathpenalty

Alan Shadrake sent to prison by High Court in Singapore

17 Nov 2010

British author jailed for claims made in Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore's Justice in the Dock

British author Alan Shadrake has been sentenced to six weeks in prison by the High Court in Singapore after being convicted over a book criticising the island's use of the death penalty.

Shadrake, 76, was also fined US$15,400 (£9,600) over allegations he made in Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore's Justice in the Dock, which discusses the republic's controversial use of capital punishment.

The book claims that well-connected defendants, particularly in drugs cases, often get off relatively lightly while the poor and less well-connected are sentenced to death.

It also questions the independence of the judiciary, and highlights criticisms levelled at Singapore's justice system by organisations such as Amnesty International.

In finding Shadrake guilty of contempt of court earlier this month, Singapore's high court judge, Quentin Loh, said the title contained "half-truths and selective facts; sometimes outright falsehoods."

Shadrake, who suffers from an irregular heartbeat and a serious colonic illness, offered a qualified apology last week but stood by the claims.

Loh dismissed Shadrake's last-minute apology as "nothing more than a tactical ploy to in court to obtain a reduced sentence."

Loh added that Shadrake would have to serve an additional two weeks in prison if he failed to pay the fine.

In a recent interview with the Guardian Shadrake, who was arresred on July 18, said the court had come down heavy on him because "they know the book is accurate".

He added: "This story is never going away. I'll keep it on the boil for as long as I live. They're going to regret they ever started this."

The case has cast further doubt on Singapore's commitment to freedom of expression.

Shadrake's lawyer, M Ravi, insisted his client had not intended to scandalise the conservative state's "hypersensitive" judiciary, adding that comments critical of the criminal justice system were "fair criticism.

The book features a profile of Darshan Singh, the former chief executioner at Singapore's Changi prison, as well as interviews with human rights activists, former police officers and lawyers.

According to Amnesty International, Singapore, with a population of five million, has one of the world's highest per capita execution rates, putting to death more than 400 people over the past two decades.

ISBN: 9781425713010
By Jason Taylors

IFHR condemns Alan Sharake's conviction

Singapore: Conviction of British author is yet another assault on freedom of expression

3 November 2010

• PDF Version
• Print
• Send by e-mail
• Share

The International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) condemns the conviction of British journalist Mr. Alan Shadrake by the Singapore High Court today, which found him guilty of ‘scandalising’ the Singapore courts in 11 passages in his latest book Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock. Mr. Shadrake, 75, will be sentenced on 9 November 2010 and faces a custodial sentence, a fine, or both. At the same time, he is also being investigated for criminal defamation and faces a sentence of two years in prison and fines if convicted.

Mr. Shadrake was arrested on 18 July, 2000 in Singapore, one day after he launched his book. In writing Once a Jolly Hangman, the author combed through court case files from over the years and interviewed human rights activists, lawyers, former police officers and a former chief executioner at the Changi prison. The conclusions drawn from these sources are critical of the way death penalty is administered by the Singaporean judiciary. The book further suggests that there have been instances where the courts appeared to have bowed to foreign pressure, favoured the rich and privileged, and were used as a weapon to silence the opposition and other dissidents. Both the Government and members of the ruling party have successfully sued and obtained convictions of opposition politicians and a number of foreign media organisations for publishing articles or commentaries critical of the ruling regime.

In an open letter to the Acting Attorney-General of Singapore on 23 July 2010, FIDH expressed its deep concern that the judicial action against Mr. Shadrake “creates a climate of fear and restricts the openness of the public discussion on sensitive issues, such as the death penalty”. [1] In recent official submissions to the UN Universal Periodic Review of Singapore, scheduled for May 2011, civil society organisations in Singapore have all highlighted the severe restrictions of freedom of expression and the press, both in law and in practice.

FIDH considers Singapore’s handling of the case of Mr. Shadrake a measure of its willingness to uphold the human rights principles in the ASEAN Charter, the guarantee of freedom of expression in its own Constitution, as well as the rights guaranteed by the United Nations Universal Declaration for Human Rights.

“ Singapore’s progress as an economic powerhouse stands in stark contrast to its government’s authoritarian tendency and the draconian measures it uses to muzzle the freedom of expression”, said Souhayr Belhassen, FIDH President. “This case illustrates the on-going need for the Singaporean government to undertake the necessary reforms to truly protect fundamental freedoms and rights, including through decriminalizing defamation and ceasing its resort to legal actions as a knee-jerk response to criticisms of its courts”.

Breaking News: Legal history made in Shadrake trial verdict

TOC: Breaking News: Legal history made in Shadrake trial verdict

Posted by theonlinecitizen on November 3, 20106 Comments

But Shadrake found guilt of contempt

M Ravi and Alan Shadrake speaking to the
press after the judgement

The real risk test should be applied, said Justice Quentin Loh at the judgement of the Alan Shadrake trial this morning. His decision overturned over four decades of precedence where the Inherent Tendency Test had been applied for contempt cases.

Under the inherent tendency test, an act or statement is deemed contemptuous if it conveys to an average reasonable reader allegations of bias, lack of impartiality, impropriety or any wrongdoing concerning a judge (or the court) in the exercise of his judicial function.

The real risk test on the other hand requires the prosecution to show that there must be more than a remote possibility that the statements complained of would undermine the administration of justice. that the act or words created a real risk of prejudicing the administration of justice. Other common law countries such as Hong Kong, New Zealand and the United Kingdom have adopted this test.

Applying the real risk test to his decision, Justice Loh identified 11 out of 14 of the contentious statements as being in contempt of court. Out of these 11 statements, Judge Loh said that there was “more than a remote possibility that a significant number of people who have read Shadrake’s book would believe his claims.”

These 11 statements, he said, did not fulfill the three criteria of fair criticism, namely that they had to be made in good faith, they had to have a rational bias, and that the criticisms can be outspoken but respectful.

Judge Loh found three of the statements the Attorney General’s Chambers put forward were not in contempt this was despite the AG’s claim in court that the whole book was contemptuous and that the 14 statements complained of were the worst.

He further reinterated that the case was not about individual opposition to the death penalty, and anyone who held such views would be fully protected under the Constitution.

“The death penalty is the ultimate punishment under the law, ultimate both in its severity and its irreversibility. It is therefore not surprising that the application of the death penalty by the courts is closely scrutinized and vigorously debated; indeed, it would be profoundly disturbing if citizens adopted a bland and disinterested attitude to the ultimate punishment,’ he said.

However he drew the line between criticism of the death penalty has not serving any deterrent purpose, or saying that a judge erred in his judgement and saying that the judiciary based its decisions on political and economical considerations.

“It is no different from saying I based my decisions on a brown envelope stuff with dollar notes, “ he added.

Speaking to The Online Citizen after the verdict, Shadrake said that the judge’s verdict is “a very fair ruling.”

Lawyer for Shadrake Mr M Ravi said, “This judgment overturns more than four decades of bad law, and is a good sign that the judiciary recognizes the more mature society we live in. Still, we are disappointed that even applying this more stringent standard, Alan’s statements have been found in contempt. We will be considering whether or not to appeal”

Sentencing will be decided on the following Tuesday.

British Author Alan Shadrake Convicted of Contempt of Court in Singapore

Bloomberg: British Author Alan Shadrake Convicted of Contempt of Court in Singapore

By Andrea Tan - Nov 3, 2010 11:16 AM GMT+0800Email

British author Alan Shadrake was convicted of contempt of court for his book challenging the integrity and independence of Singapore’s judiciary.

High Court Judge Quentin Loh announced his decision today and reserved sentencing until Nov. 9, saying that the 75-year- old had a “final opportunity to make amends.”

Shadrake, who had previously refused to apologize, said after the ruling that he would “work out how to do this and satisfy the court.” The author of “Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore’s Justice in the Dock” accused the city state’s courts of dispensing “unequal justice” and bowing to political and economic pressures, the prosecution had said.

Contempt of court carries a jail sentence, a fine, or both. No maximum penalty has been specified under Singapore’s constitution, according to the attorney general’s office.

“This is an especially pernicious case of grave and aggravated contempt” and “cannot possibly come within any reasonable notion of fair criticism,” the attorney general’s office said during the three-day trial last month.

Shadrake’s lawyer M. Ravi has said that the writer had no intention of scandalizing Singapore’s courts and called the judiciary “hypersensitive.”

A Wall Street Journal editor was fined S$10,000 ($7,300) last year for the publication of three articles that the city- state’s government said showed contempt of its judiciary. In another contempt of court lawsuit, three activists were sentenced to between seven and 15 days in prison for wearing t- shirts with pictures of a kangaroo dressed as a judge.

Shadrake’s book isn’t banned in Singapore, according to the Media Development Authority. Retailers and distributors will have to seek legal advice on whether they can sell or distribute the publication, the regulator said.

The author is also being investigated for criminal defamation, Singapore authorities have said.

The case is Attorney-General vs Alan Shadrake OS720/2010 in the Singapore High Court.

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrea Tan in Singapore at atan17@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Douglas Wong at dwong19@bloomberg.net

DPP’s statement “a serious imputation on my character” – M Ravi

The Online Citizen: DPP’s statement “a serious imputation on my character” – M Ravi

Posted by theonlinecitizen on October 20, 201020 Comments

Tensions arose midway through this morning’s proceedings on the Alan Shadrake case when defense counsel M Ravi made an application for Deputy Public Prosecutor Hema Subramanian to withdraw a statement.

At issue was the following portion of Ms Subramanian’s submissions:

“The suggestion of his [Mr Ravi’s] submissions seems to be that the present and past contempt cases were brought because the AG is “overly sensitive” and “thin-skinned” and not because the statements in question were actually contemptuous. Embedded in these submissions is the suggestion that the Judges who heard the earlier contempt proceedings and found contempt were only “rubber stamping” the AG’s application and not because on the laws and facts, there was actually contempt.”

Mr Ravi, responded that these were serious allegations and a serious imputation on his character.

“What a scandalous allegation is that,” he told Justice Quentin Loh. “She is saying I should be held in contempt of court.”

Ms Subramanian then stood up to rebut Mr Ravi but was told by the Judge that two people should not be speaking at the same time. She then sat down.

Mr Ravi requested a withdrawal of Ms Subramaniam’s statements.

Justice Loh did not address the request, saying that no charges were being filed against Mr Ravi at the current moment.

Mr Ravi said that the Attorney-General’s Chambers had sufficient opportunity to object to any part of his oral submissions yesterday during the hearing, but had instead chosen to level this accusation today.
Mr Ravi also noted that the Attorney-General’s statements were a threat that could compromise his conduct of his case. He then stated that if contempt proceedings were proffered against him, he would have to discharge himself from the case as he would be in a position of conflict.

Justice Quentin Loh then gave the assurance that if the Attorney General were to press charges against Mr Ravi because of the current proceedings, they would be heard before him and he would be given a fair hearing.

Mr Ravi expressed his confidence in the impartiality of Justice Loh, and said that given this assurance he would continue to conduct Mr Shadrake’s defence.

The hearing continues this afternoon.

TOC has obtained the following response from Mr Ravi. We publish it in full below.

“The Attorney-General’s Chambers has opportunistically used the cover of court proceedings to threaten me with future contempt proceedings.

This is a grave threat against members of the Singapore Bar whose duty it is to fearlessly and zealously canvass their clients’ cases.

To the extent that they impute I have scandalized the judiciary by submission on my client’s behalf, I will be taking legal advice and follow-up action.”

Shadrake faces heavy silencing hand, part 2

Yawning Bread: Shadrake faces heavy silencing hand, part 2

I have now seen a copy of the summons issued to Alan Shadrake. Somewhat to my surprise, all charges (so far) relate to contempt of court, none to criminal defamation, despite what was mentioned in the formal statement issued by the police and reports in the local media. In the light of this, my post Shadrake faces heavy silencing hand now seems a bit off the mark, mainly discussing as it does, criminal defamation.

This post will therefore remedy that mismatch and focus on contempt of court.

As readers may recall, Alan Shadrake is the author of Once a Jolly Hangman, for which my review can be seen here. He was arrested on the morning of 18 July 2010 and is due for a court hearing on 30 July.

The summons Shadrake has to answer is an application by the Attorney-General to the High Court for committal [to imprisonment] for contempt. It cites Section 7(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act, which says merely this:

7. —(1) The High Court and the Court of Appeal shall have power to punish for contempt of court.

The summons also cites the subsidiary legislation known as Rules of Court of which Order 52 lays out the technicalities.

Nowhere is contempt of court defined. I guess what it means has to be drawn from case law which can be problematic in that precedents should be evaluated in the context of their times and places.

However, the summons contains a statement by the Attorney-General, as required in accordance with Rule 2(2) of the Rules of Court. Relevant words from that statement:

The grounds upon which the said relief is sought are that the said Respondent has participated in acts in connection with the bringing into existence, publication and distribution of the Book which contained passages that scandalise the Singapore Judiciary.

The Book is about the administration of the death penalty in Singapore.

The Book contains passages which undermine the authority of the Singapore courts and public confidence in the administration of justice in Singapore. Without being exhaustive, this Statement sets out the passages which contain imputation against the independence and integrity of the Singapore Judiciary.

Several passages in the Book contain allegations and insinuations that the Singapore Judiciary, in determining whether to sentence an accused person to death, succumbs to political and economic pressures, and that the Singapore Judiciary lacks independence.

The summons sheet then goes on to list four passages from the book allegedly showing the claimed imputations.

The Attorney-General next goes on to say:

The allegations and insinuations in these passages are that the Singapore Judiciary does not mete out justice impartially but instead is complicit in an abuse of the judicial process.

The book also contains passages which allege or insinuate that in criminal proceedings on drug-related offences, the Singapore Judiciary is biased, particularly against the “weak”, “poor” or “less-educated”, or is otherwise guilty of impropriety.

Seven more citations from the book are given by way of example.

* * * * *

The problem, as I mentioned in my earlier post, is what constitutes contempt, and where is the line drawn between malicious denigration of the judicial process and fair comment. Fair comment is sincerely-held opinion and plausible conclusions predicated on a measure of evidence. Fair comment does not have to be true; it only has to be within reason, derived from verifiable starting points. The greater the public good at stake the greater the leeway should be given to fair comment.

I would argue that Shadrake’s book constitutes fair comment, and on a matter of great public importance as well. That being the case, it cannot constitute contempt of court.

In connection with this, I note that the Attorney-General has, in support of his application, picked out sentences from the book which are at face value critical of the judiciary and the justice process, but ignored the fact that leading up to each of these passages, Shadrake had priorly discussed in the book certain facts or timelines which he had unearthed, and which quite reasonably lead to the conclusions he draws. By ignoring the arguments that Shadrake developed from initial facts and focussing only on the critical tone of the conclusions, it seems that our chief law officer’s understanding of contempt of court is that justification has no role to play; any statement, no matter how well-founded, that is negative towards the judiciary or justice system constitutes contempt.

This flies against the human right to freedom of expression. Such a sweeping formulation of contempt of court makes it akin to lese majeste laws, which begin with the presumption that the king can do no wrong: He is perfect and any criticism of the king is necessarily false simply because it treats him as fallible. Our Attorney-General is taking a similar approach with contempt of court: Our judiciary and justice system is perfect and infallible and must be held beyond reproach; any criticism must by definition be wrong and criminally liable.

This is an extremely dangerous route to take. Judges and officers of the court are human. They can be wrong, corrupt, careless, slothful, servile, cowardly, obstinate, sexist, racist . . . and generally suffer from any number of human failings. To put in place a criminal regime that forbids any criticism of the justice system and its officers is to ensure that we will indeed have a system that is corrupt, careless, slothful, servile, cowardly, obstinate, sexist, racist, and generally unworthy of the term “justice”. And with impunity.

* * * * *

In the UK, contempt of court is governed by the Contempt of Court Act (1981) and common law which you can read about in the Your Rights Org guide where it is explained that the old scope of contempt was found to be in contravention of Article 10 (Freedom of Expression) of the European Convention of Human Rights. As a result, contempt of court is today more narrowly understood to mean any speech that interferes with the integrity of legal proceedings. It must be specific to a particular ongoing case, e.g. influencing jurors and prejudicing a fair hearing for one side in a case, or disrupting the smooth process of a trial.

Your Rights Org also makes it a point to stress that “the [Contempt of Court Act]  permits the publication of material which would otherwise amount to contempt if . . . it involves the discussion of public affairs.”

Surely a discussion of how the death penalty has been applied by Singapore’s justice system is a matter of supreme public interest. Thus the question before us is not what the book is about or whether it is critical of our judiciary, but what our governance ideals are about. Should contempt of court in Singapore mean some sort of sweeping lese majeste-type law that shields scandal within the justice system or a more narrow formulation that acknowledges the right to freedom of expression, and that looks kindly on criticism that can only strengthen the course of justice?

British Weekly: Alan Shadrake makes bail in Singapore

Former British Weekly writer faces two years’ jail for questioning death penalty ‘injustice’

 

Alan Shadrake, a veteran English journalist who was a fixture in Santa Monica’s expat community for almost two decades,  was out on bail on Monday after his arrest in Singapore for penning an expose of that country’s death penalty practices.

The 75-year-old  author was  arrested on Sunday and could face two years in jail for defamation after writing a book alleging institutionalised injustice in the city state’s legal system.

Singapore’s Attorney-General has now served Shadrake with a contempt of court order, saying that his book – Once A Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock – impugns the impartiality, integrity and independence of the judiciary.

Shadrake told reporters he was freed after a local activist posted bail of 10,000 Singapore dollars ($7,240) for him.

“I’m feeling pretty shaken at the moment,” said Shadrake, whose case is to be heard in court on July 30, his lawyer M. Ravi said.

Speaking later to reporters after his release, a haggard-looking Shadrake said he had hardly slept “since they dragged me out of bed” the morning after launching his book in a private function.
“I’ve had a few hours of sleep on a very hard floor and I’ve been sitting at the desk being interrogated all day long explaining all the chapters of the book and going through the history of the book, my research, why I did the book.”

His passport has been impounded to prevent him from leaving Singapore until the case is resolved.

Amnesty International earlier urged Singapore’s government to immediately release the elderly author.

“Singapore uses criminal defamation laws to silence critics of government policies,” Donna Guest, Amnesty’s Asia Pacific Deputy Director, said in London.

“The Singapore government should release Shadrake at once.”

She added: “If Singapore aspires to be a global media city, it needs to respect global human rights standards for freedom of expression… Singapore should get rid of both its criminal defamation laws and the death penalty.”

Amnesty International said last year that Singapore was “estimated to have one of the highest per capita execution rates in the world.”

It said Singapore had executed at least 420 people since 1991, adding that the number was probably higher as “not all sentences and executions are reported publicly”.Singapore, which has one of the lowest crime rates in the world among its five million population, has retained the death penalty since its days as a British colony. Convicts are still executed by hanging.

According to Singapore’s Straits Times newspaper, Once A Jolly Hangman alleges that foreigners and the wealthy are less likely to receive the death penalty.

The book, which has now been removed from bookshops in the city, also carries an interview with Singapore’s former chief executioner, Darshan Singh. In an article Shadrake wrote for The Australian newspaper in 2005 – but which has since been removed from its website – Singh is “credited with being the only executioner in the world to single-handedly hang 18 men in one day – three at a time”.

Shadrake has enjoyed a rich and varied career in journalism, dating back to his days as a Fleet Street correspondent in West Berlin in the 1960s, where he numbered among his drinking buddies  two giants of postwar American journalism, Harry Reasoner and Dan Shaw. His experiences in the spy infested, cloak-and-dagger world of  Berlin at the height of the Cold War gave him a lifelong taste for intrigue which served him well as he subsequently became a master of the Fleet Street scoop. In the 1970s he turned to writing books, scoring a spectacular success in writing the first authorized biography of Bruce Lee in cooperation with the martial art legend’s wife, Lynda.

He moved to Los Angeles in the mid-1980s and quickly became a fixture at Ye Olde King’s Head pub in Santa Monica. From 1990 to 2003 he wrote the popular but contentious “Shooting From The Lip” column for the British Weekly. After a few years in  Las Vegas, where he enjoyed continuing success as a freelance writer for publications across the world, he moved to Singapore, after falling in love with a Singapore woman who he met on a press junket. For the last couple of years he has divided his time between Singapore and Indonesia.

According to a source in Singapore who is actively involved in the country’s democratic movement, the government have agreed to release Mr. Shadrake on bail, and a group of his supporters have banded together to raise these funds.

Fore more breaking news, visit the Singapore Democratic Party’s facebook page at: http://www.facebook.com/yoursdp

Latest: Alan Shadrake being released now; to be charged tomorrow

 
Alan Shadrake is being released now. He's been detained over 39 hours. An activist is on his way to post bail. Amount is unknown. The British author will be charged in court tomorrow. Charges are unknown.

Source: Singapore Anti Death Penalty Campaign FB Group

Where to buy Alan Shadrake's Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock

Following the ban of the book by the Singapore Media Development Authority, sgdeathpenalty has received many enquiries on where to purchase the book.

Unfortunately, it is not available in Singapore bookstores as it has been plugged by the authorities, but you can still buy it from all major Malaysian bookstores and through the web.

As of recently the book has seen 4 print runs and has topped the charts to become a bestseller in Malaysia. The bulk of sales are seen in Johor Bahru bookstores, just across the Singapore-Malaysia border.

The Singapore Media Development Authority has stated that the book is not banned but bookstores are adviced to seek their own legal advice if they want to carry the book. MDA's strategy is to soften the impact of an outright ban to make it a prohibited item, therefore directing unwanted curiosity to the book. Yet, when the book was first sold in Kinokuniya bookstore in Singapore, authorities engaged in Communist-styled strategy by calling the bookstore and demanding Once a Jolly Hangman to be removed from the shelves.

Like the Propaganda Department of the Communist Party of China, which calls Chinese media outlets to removed potentially sensitive news materials on the web, Singapore's MDA have use the soft-authoritarian approach to local bookstores such that no trace are left behind. Unfortunately for MDA, their sinister approach can only work to a certain extent in the 21st century of the Internet.

The MDA continues to be ambiguous to bookstores about carrying the title which it has viewed to be as contempt of court. By leaving the guesswork to bookstores, it is hoping that they will take the safer option to not sell the book. Singaporeans' curiosity continue to be stroked as the authorities continue to allow a one sided view of the issue, while not allowing them to read the book and make their own judgement.

With this in consideration, Once a Jolly Hangman is as good as banned even though they try to claim that it isn't. We implore readers to make their own judgment and write their own reviews after reading the book which may be purchased at the following stores.

Buy Once a Jolly Hangman: Singapore Justice in the Dock by Alan Shadrake at these online stores:

New addition: MPH Online
http://www.mphonline.com/books/nsearch.aspx?do=detail&pcode=9789675832000

New addition: Goodreads
http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/8594832-once-a-jolly-hangman

New addition: eBay http://www.ebay.com.sg/

1. http://cgi.ebay.com.sg/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300489569498#ht_1405wt_1139
2. http://cgi.ebay.com.sg/Once-Jolly-Hangman-Singapore-Justice-Dock-/320613626260?pt=LH_DefaultDomain_216&hash=item4aa60fb194#ht_750wt_1139

Gerak Budaya
http://www.gerakbudaya.com/products-page/sird-titles/once-a-jolly-hangman-singapore-justice-in-the-dock/

Mary Martin
http://www.marymartin.com/web/selectedIndex;jsessionid=78D817AFCAD8ACBC90FDB71DEE6272F6?mEntry=119535


For Malaysians
It is possible to order Alan Shadrake’s latest book by contacting the publisher by telephone and also by e-mail (though it is NOT possible to order it online outside of Malaysia). The publisher can courier the book to you.

GB GerakBudaya Enterprise Sdn Bhd (637869-A)
11, Lorong 11/4E,
46200 Petaling Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia.
Tel: +603 – 7957 8342
Fax: +603 – 7954 9202
Email: sird at streamyx.com

For Singaporeans driving to neighbouring Malaysia:

MPH BOOKSTORE JOHOR BAHRU CITY SQUARE
Lot J3-10, 11, 12, Level 3,
Johor Bahru City Square,
106-108 Jalan Wong Ah Fook,
80000 Johor Bahru, Johor.
Tel: (607) 228 1988 (call to check for availability)

Business hour: 10.00 am - 10.00 pm 

Latest Update: MPH JB has stocked up their inventory with Shadrake's book and it is now available.

MPH MAKOTA PARADE, MALACCA
G73B, Ground Floor, Mahkota Parade,
No1, Jalan Merdeka, 75000 Melaka.
Tel: (606) 283 3050 Fax: (606) 283 3003
Business hour:
10.30 am - 10.00 pm (Sun - Thur)
10.30 am - 10.30 pm (Fri & Sat)

SINGAPORE NATIONAL LIBRARY

Alternatively, the book can be found in the National Library online catalogue. Whether the book is actually on the bookshelf of the Lee Kong Chian Library is unknown, but its status has been "In Process" for months now, a clear sign that there has been orders to halt the release of the book into the archives of the massive reference section of the National Library.

Physical Description	xvi, 219 p., [12] p. of plates : ill. ; 23 cm.
Other Contributors	Strategic Info Research Development.
Search by Subjects	Justice, Administration of Singapore.
	Law Political aspects Singapore.
	Singapore Politics and government

Branch	Location	Date	Call Number	Status
Lee Kong Chian Reference Library	RSING	23-06-10	English 347.5957 SHA	In Process
Lee Kong Chian Reference Library	RSING	23-06-10	English 347.5957 SHA	In Process

Author of Once a Jolly Hangman arrested in Singapore

 

 Rachel Zeng

We received news this evening that Alan Shadrake, author of Once a Jolly Hangman, has been arrested at about 8am this morning at his hotel.

Alan Shadrake is now undergoing investigations at Cantonment Police Headquarters for alleged offences of criminal defamation and other offences. The arrest was made pursuant to a police report made by the Media Development Authority on 16 July 2010. Alan has also been served with applications by the Attorney-General for an order of commital of Contempt of Court.

 We have been to Cantonment Police Headquarters and the police confirmed his arrested but was not able to tell us when he would be put on bail.

More information will be given when we have them.

You can also check out The Online Citizen and SDP for further updates.