SINGAPORE: A man who first came to public attention for saying he was counsel for anti-masker Benjamin Glynn was sentenced to two weeks’ jail on Tuesday (Feb 21) for not wearing a mask properly on two occasions when it was legally required.
Abdul Rashid Abdul Rahman, 58, had claimed trial to two charges and represented himself.
The charges are for flouting COVID-19 regulations by failing to wear a mask inside and outside the State Courts on Jul 2, 2021 and at East Coast Lagoon Food Village on Mar 19, 2021.
He had been sent to the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) for psychiatric observation because District Judge Bala Reddy found him incoherent in his defence, but was found to be fit to plead.
Because Judge Reddy took into account the two weeks he spent remanded at IMH, Abdul Rashid will not have to serve any additional jail time.
HIS DEFENCE
On Tuesday, Abdul Rashid wrapped up his defence with himself as the only witness. He tried to admit several documents into evidence, including articles titled “Masks cause cancer”, “A man is not a slave” and “Law that protects us against infringement on our God-given bodies”.
However, the judge told him that the documents could be admitted as evidence only if he called their authors to the stand.
Abdul Rashid said he was at home asleep with his family in August 2021 when three police officers knocked on his door without any warrant of arrest or court order.
He said he followed the officers as his wife was scared, telling them that what they were doing was unlawful.
He said he was “unlawfully arrested and confined for nearly six hours” before his wife bailed him out.
The bulk of Abdul Rashid’s defence was that he did not “consent to be governed” by the laws on account of who he was.
He said his father was a sultan.
“Your father is the sultan of?” asked the judge.
“Singapore,” answered Abdul Rashid.
“Singapore? He’s the sultan of Singapore?” asked Judge Reddy.
“And Malaysia,” answered Abdul Rashid.
“Your father is the sultan of Singapore and Malaysia,” repeated the judge, digesting this information.
Abdul Rashid also claimed there was “some bias from the media”, at which point the judge looked at this reporter and asked: “She is biased against you?”
Abdul Rashid agreed and said the media had tried to damage his “good name and reputation”.
He said he had a kingdom, and Judge Reddy asked him where his kingdom was.
“Singapore, Malaysia and part of Indonesia,” said Abdul Rashid.
“Kingdom or sultanate?” clarified the judge.
“Kingdom and sultanate,” replied Abdul Rashid.
“So you are the prince,” said the judge, and Abdul Rashid agreed. He said the current sultan in Malaysia is “so-called the alternate sultan”.
He later said he was making a “special appearance” in court under “duress and coercion”.
He added that he would be meeting Indonesian President Joko Widodo the next week for the acknowledgement of his sultanate.
Abdul Rashid also repeated his claim that he was a “private sovereign man” and was being “called up under duress and coercion to attend your honourable court”.
WHY HE DOESN’T COMPLY
The judge told him that he wanted to know the reason for not complying with Singapore’s laws.
Abdul Rashid said: “No, not say that I did not comply, it’s because as a sovereign, it’s my inalienable right not to be encroached by so-called rules and regulations, which they are unable to produce (proof of) damage to property and anybody getting hurt.”
According to him, as a “sovereign”, as long as he did not hurt anybody or damage any property, he could “self-rule” and “self-govern”.
“But not wearing a mask and going around, (if) you are infected, you’re not going to hurt people?” asked the judge.
“It was a specific location where I will be entrapped,” said Abdul Rashid.
“Are you saying Parliament cannot make laws to bind you?” asked the judge.
“Not say they cannot make law, they can make law, but did they get the 5.9 million people (of Singapore) to agree with them? There has to be an agreement,” said Abdul Rashid.
Deputy Public Prosecutor Timotheus Koh cross-examined Abdul Rashid on the stand and pointed to the law on mask-wearing.
“The law you don’t recognise, but it’s still the law anyway,” he said.
According to mask regulations, if a person is unable to wear a mask for medical reasons as Abdul Rashid claimed, he has to wear a face shield.
The advice to wear a face shield was included in the doctor’s memo produced by Abdul Rashid himself as part of his case.
Abdul Rashid explained that he had tried to, but it made him perspire.
JUDGE CONVICTS HIM
Judge Reddy said the prosecution had proven both charges beyond reasonable doubt and convicted Abdul Rashid.
The prosecutor sought a jail term, leaving the duration up to the court, on account of Abdul Rashid’s repeated offending and defiance of authority.
He said Abdul Rashid had a previous conviction in 1984 for driving with an expired licence and failing to have insurance for his vehicle.
Abdul Rashid challenged how this was relevant, and was told by the judge that it was the prosecution’s duty to inform the court of his past convictions, and the court would decide its relevance.
In mitigation, Abdul Rashid asked for the case to be withdrawn. He said it was “unlawful to use this court to process with the proceeding” and said the prosecutor had committed the “tort of malfeasance”.
Judge Reddy sentenced him to two weeks’ jail, backdating it in order to take into account the two weeks he had spent remanded at IMH.